The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dea Rizkita[edit]

Dea Rizkita (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:NMODEL. Hasn't won a notable tournament - all of those in previous versions of the article are those being spammed by the multiple editors trying to claim the notability of Miss Grand International and its sub-pageants, all of which are non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Puteri Indonesia 2017, where the subject's name appears in a list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage, no RS and no placement in notable competitions. Redirecting would seem a bit silly since the title itself is also not notable and not even sure it's part of the above linked pageant. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a high enough level title to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 14 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson De La Nuez[edit]

Nelson De La Nuez (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:ARTIST. No substantial references in reliable sources. "Private Air Luxury Homes Magazine", "Global License Magazine", and "Designer Wallcoverings" do not confer notability. No major art awards. Most notable event was that article subject made the last art delivery to Michael Jackson. Article subject sells prints on eBay at modest prices. Just not seeing much notability here.

AfD initiated after COI problem reported at AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless substantial in-depth coverage in notable mainstream sources is found – I've looked for that without success, but maybe someone else will have more luck. Selling an illustration to Michael Jackson is not in any way a notable achievement, because Michael Jackson was not known as an expert on modern art; selling something to the Whitney might contribute to notability, because the Whitney is known for taste and discrimination in that area. Oh, and the King of Pop Art was Roy Lichtenstein. This appears to have been shameless promotion from the day it was created; Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I worked on this article some, but after looking in sources that would very likely have some coverage (or at least a mention) of this self-proclaimed "King of Pop Art" (such as the NY Times or the LA Times), I've reached the conclusion (or at least the extremely strong suspicion) that this person's "fame" is almost entirely built on self-promotion. I suggested in the AN/I discussion that someone bring it to AfD, because that can sometimes be a catalyst for finding reliable sources, and if that's the case, I'll reconsider my !vote, but as things stand at the moment, this just doesn't add up. I'm not sure it's a WP:HOAX, but he sure as heck doesn't appear to be notable in our terms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This artist exists but is not notable. My search found no evidence of significant exhibitions, or of significant critical attention, or of holdings within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. Many books on the history of pop art have been issued by major publishers, and none seem to discuss this artist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible he's too recent to have been covered in such books? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article claims that he has been "recognizable" since the 1980s. That's roughly 30 years ago. The sale of paintings to Michael Jackson was in 2009, which is eight years ago. There have been major books and museum exhibits in pop art in recent years, which did not include this artist, who claims to be "king" of that genre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Here's some of his work. [1] He imitates Lichtenstein and Warhol, except he seems to use Photoshop. He's a good commercial illustrator. But not a famous one. John Nagle (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The British Museum, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, and the Smithsonian all have organized major retrospectives on pop art in recent years. The American shows are traveling exhibitions. All three shows are now on display, I believe. Hundreds of truly notable artists are part of these exhibitions, but not this particular one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete though I've always thought that in cases like this, instead of deleting the article it should be stubbed down to simply read, "X is a nonnotable artist who wrote a lame Wikipedia article about himself`." EEng 01:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE! AN EDUCATION:

• https://www.artsy.net/artist/nelson-de-la-nuez
• http://coralspringsmuseum.org/comic-pop-art-mar-5-may-23-2015/ Yes....A MUSEUM
• http://websphere.sys-con.com/node/761253
• http://lgbtweekly.com/2015/02/12/nelson-de-la-nuez-releases-new-art-celebrating-the-right-to-gay-marriage-at-palm-springs-fine-art-show/
• http://observer.com/2016/03/king-of-pop-art-nelson-de-la-nuez-celebrates-at-bagatelle-l-a/
• http://www.private-air-mag.com/king-of-pop-art
• https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2009/09/18/404908/173594/en/Photo-Release-World-Renowned-Pop-Artist-Nelson-De-La-Nuez-Partners-With-Fredrix-R-Print-Canvas-to-Promote-Archival-Quality-Fine-Art-Canvas-Line.html
• http://www.lordandtaylor.com/main/ProductDetail.jsp?prd_code=0500017619867
• http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pop-artist-nelson-de-la-nuez-partners-with-heys-usa-for-sophisticated-pop-art-luggage-collection-*143786946.html
• http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/icon-footwear-flat-thong-sandal/3754261
• https://www.charitybuzz.com/catalog_items/4-piece-travel-luggage-set-heys-usa-de-la-nuez-348409
• http://lasvegas.carpediem.cd/events/3827148-made-in-america-nelson-de-la-nuez-the-king-of-pop-art-at-skye-art-gallery/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artworldpro (talk • contribs) — Artworldpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Artworldpro: When I let you know you that you are allowed to comment here, I specifically said that you should be polite, civil and collegial, and that you should not rant. So, instead, you came here and ranted. None of the sources you listed is reliable, they're blogs, store sites and PR. I'm going to hat your rant, and suggest that you not comment here again, since it seems you cannot behave in a fashion that is acceptable on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, artist bios in small museums are generally provided by the artist or the artist's representative, and the bio in the Coral Spring Museum citation above has all the signs of PR-speak which infests all of the writing about this artist. Clearly self-promotional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional without solid coverage in legitimate sources. The links that Artworldpro gave above are questionable at best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My searches are finding mention in local coverage, such as "Simi Valley artist Nelson De La Nuez" exhibiting at a Montrose Arts & Crafts Festival ([2]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but nothing to meet the WP:NARTIST criteria or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No, as in zero, independent evidence whatsoever for notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While it looks like this article is headed for a "Delete", what about this article in the L.A. times? It is an article entirely about the subject published in a major reliable independent newspaper. KDS4444 (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, it is an article in the LA Times. and it is laudable that you found it, bur the contents of the article have to do with Cartoon Network latching on to De La Nuez. Cartoon Network cannot really be described as a reliable source regarding modern art, so I think the net result doesn't change the lack of notability noted above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Cartoon Network is no authority on modern art! But the article wasn't published by the Cartoon Network, it was published by the L.A. times. We aren't evaluating whether or not the subject qualifies as a modern pop artist according to the Cartoon Network (which may or may not be accurate), we are evaluating whether or not he is the main subject of reliable independent verifiable sources, and I think the L.A. Times does qualify as that. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. But what else is there? EEng 01:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I guess I got nothin'. I got nothin' else. KDS4444 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article originated at the Burbank Leader, one of the regional papers published by the Los Angeles Times. Here's the Burbank Leader version.[3], where it ran with the subhead "Hoover grad's take on the form has drawn the attention of Cartoon Network, and Michael Jackson was a fan, too." It's a story in Burbank because De La Nuez went to Herbert Hoover High School (Glendale). (That school article lists De La Nuez as a notable alumnus, added in this edit [4] by Artworldpro (talk · contribs).) John Nagle (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My heart won't exactly break if this article is deleted; I originally stubbed it, rather than speedying it, because there seemed to be just enough legitimate coverage to justify a very short, very neutral article. but the unrelenting stream of promotion and self-promotion inflates this dollar-store-level knockoff of Roy Lichtenstein into a world-class artist. (Even his "King of Pop Art" self-assumed title is a bit of a fake; it's not in the TMZ headlines where he claims it comes from, and as a trademark it doesn't refer to his work, but to products from a company he owns, apparently not limited to his own work.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:29, 14 July 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 dietary fiber. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High residue diet[edit]

High residue diet (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 substantial content here. I am not sure why "residue" is the term here when the cited sources say "fiber". This content can be deleted and the article can redirect to dietary fiber. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to dietary fiber per nom. There is nothing here not covered in much greater depth in the dietary fiber article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree redirect to dietary fiber. Ref two is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to dietary fiber. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 12 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Booty[edit]

Regan Booty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, as they have not played a game with a professional club yet. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Empire[edit]

I'm Empire (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)

Unsigned local artist/local activists, who's released two apparently self-produced songs online. Some local stories, about doing local things, of interest to a local newspaper, but nothing approaching notability that I can see. TimothyJosephWood 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article was flagged for speedy deletion (G11, A7) before for notability and promotional content, an up later removed the tags. Not well sourced, not notable per WP: BIO in my opinion. This article may have been deleted before. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete, I'm Empire is a notable feature that has modeled fashion global brands including Lynx body spray, is an LGBT activist and has been on tv many times as a dancer in reality TV, very notable to youngsters 86.187.164.10 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim of notability. Possible speedy candidate based on others' comments. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page was created today by Official k; there's possibly a WP:COI here. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• do not delete watch south side story on BBC 3 im empire was on that show213.205.251.218 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• dont delete ^[1] shortlist and Lynx are nation wide brands ^[2] and this person has been on UK tv, Official k (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, neither of those links seem to mention the subject at all, and generally subjects are required to have received sustained coverage in independent reliable sources in order to satisfy our notability standards. This subject may satisfy them one day, and maybe even one day soon, but they do not appear that they satisfy them currently. TimothyJosephWood 22:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you watch the first link again, and look out for his name, it is clearly mentioned at 16 seconds of the Lynx advert that received substantial national coverageOfficial k (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't watch it the first time, because vimeo links, like youtube links, are not generally considered ", and basically all of the coverage I found about the subject, was from the local newspaper, which doesn't really count toward notability. TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know how you expect to look at old tv ads without using youtube or vemio, the information is to hand, maybe you should use it and you said that he was not mentioned in the link giving the impression you had looked at it, how would you know if he had been mentioned or not without lookingOfficial k (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to look at old TV ads, because old TV ads do not meet our standards for reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not old, recent tv adsOfficial k (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same principle applies. If there are independent sources that cover the subject's presence in this ad, then that may contribute to notability, but the add itself contributes basically nothing. But it turns out that when actually notable people appear in an ads they tend to get independent coverage. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might i suggest that "MSM" newspapers are not relevant, and the subjects audience does not use normal media outlets so hence the lack of information, the audience base of the subject uses social media, this subject is verified on Facebook with the blue check mark on his page, the blue tick is ONLY given to notable public figures,it is not given on page likes, it is given on notability. if facebook is saying he is notable and have given him the blue tick to show it, who are you to argue with who the largest social media platform in the world says is notableOfficial k (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)^[1]Official k (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NARTIST. Not sure if any of those refs pass RS if they're actually about the subject. The sockpuppets also bring up red flags. South Nashua (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[2]as mentioned today's consumers of information to not use newspapers as they are not relevant, and the subjects audience does not use normal media outlets so hence the lack of information, the audience base of the subject uses social media, this subject is verified on Facebook with the blue check mark on his page, the blue tick is ONLY given to notable public figures, it is not given on page likes, it is given on notability. if facebook is saying he is notable and have given him the blue tick to show it, who are you to argue with who the largest social media platform in the world says is notable. this is a simple fact. I would trust the verification process of Facebook with 2billion users, maybe age or region may be a factor to why you dont understand this. the subject also its the host of two podcats with a global reachOfficial k (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • This isn't Facebook. It's Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia Must meet Wikipedia's notability standards. This article clearly does not meet those standards. South Nashua (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination. No significant notability in my view. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been on Tv, write for a newspaper and is national gay and lesbian charity ambassador your notable, is213.205.251.21 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Social media websites, such as Facebook and video references from YouTube and vimeo.com are generally not encouraged as good reliable sources, as per guidelines at WP:RSE and WP:YTREF. Many thousands of people have been on television and it does not necessarily qualify them as being notable. Guidelines at WP:GOODREFS state that: "Blogs, social media and fan sites are not usually acceptable." Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is does not sayi it is NOT accepted, and the word usually implies that under some circumstances it is acceptable, not many people get featured in advertising i.e. The Lynx advert that featured him as a lead alongside British group hurts. This singer may not be globally notable but to LGBT people and dancers (south side story) and brands (Lynx, Facebook) he is notable, I accept that the original post was too glorying of the subject and I have made amendments 213.205.251.21 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • The appearance of random IPs on this page is getting suspicious.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:NARTIST - GretLomborg (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And yes IP, "under some circumstances it is acceptable", but this is not one of those circumstances; they don't establish notability. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 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. With no prejudice against recreation if and when more coverage establishes notability. SoWhy 09:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Eroadster[edit]

Alex Eroadster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, in particular "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". Almost all sources I found were from June/July 2015, and predicted full production for 2016. The only recent reference appears to be yet another press-release reprint in a small local paper, now predicting 2018/19 production.[5] The photos seem to be fake - there has been no prototype, the road markings are not Irish, there is nobody in the car, it has no registration plates. The project seems to have been student vapourware. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Pictures are either taken from their website or from local news reports, I have reported one as a copyvio. Website doesn't look to promising as appears to be out of date. I however disagree with the term "student vapourware" as their website says the design belongs to an automotive engineer specialising in electric cars.Nördic Nightfury 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• *** Object to deletion: The project is definitely live and ongoing with fundraising currently going on to progress the project. A prototype is planned for May 2018 as in citation (4) The longford Leader. The photos are not fake? They are CAD renders in Catia in other words images from drawings as there wont be a prototype completed until May 2018.Janoteki (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC) — Janoteki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As a matter of interest, I can't find anything in your website about a factory or any premises at all. Not even a postal address. How do you propose to build a prototype, never mind operate a production line, without a factory? And why is your project now being ignored by the mainstream motoring press? Is a press-release reprint in the Longford Leader (a small-town weekly) the best you can do? Why would anybody have faith that the deposits you are asking them to pay will not just be money down the drain? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All four of the sources showing in the footnotes count towards GNG as substantial, independently-published articles of presumed accuracy dealing substantially with the subject. Bad AfD challenge all the way. The fact that the product is not yet on the market does not indicate that this is a "crystal ball" exercise; it is a product in development with a noteworthy history of that development. Even if it was to be cancelled tomorrow, that product history, covered in multiple media sources, would be sufficient to fulfill our GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While my initial reaction was to suggest that this was/is a case of WP:TOOSOON, there is perhaps an argument that GNG is at least partially met. (I would note however that much of the coverage which contributes to that GNG argument, including this BBC Autos piece, all seems to build on the same flurry of PR activity in 2015; and as such would seem to fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH). If the article is kept (and I'm not strongly advocating either way), it needs significant review relative to the PR tone of the content. And flagging with ((Update after|year=2018)) - given that's the speculated release date of this planned/proposed/as-yet-unrealised product. (Or at least its first real-world prototype). Guliolopez (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now per Guilolopez's comment d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are some PR pieces, but no coverage of the car itself or the parent company. The only coverage is of projected mockups/demos. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON. No in-depth sources or encyclopedic relevance just yet. This is demonstrated by the fact that the article copy has to rely on the manufacturer's claims, as in:

• "The manufacturers say that it saves a lot of weight by use of lightweight materials including its integrated carbon fibre chassis." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Carrite that with the four references currently in the article it meets and passes WP:GNG and should be kept. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage past the 2015 flurry, the only exception is from a low circulation local weekly paper (~7000 copies). WP:TOOSOON at best. If this were a real thing to be released next year, you'd expect more. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it seems to be a proposed project where enough details to write an article are not available. There are no release dates or any specifications about the car, so it is hard to verify the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:01, 11 July 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 draftify. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Wiedenheft[edit]

Sarah Wiedenheft (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)

WP:TOOSOON. Only one anime convention and it's local to where she is in Fort Worth, Texas. [6] No coverage of her career, only cast announcements. None of the anime titles that she stars in have been broadcast widely on television, Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, or Netflix/Amazon. They're all within the limited Funimation subscribed service. Recommend her article be pushed back to Draft until notability has been proven. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could locate no reliable sources. Esw01407 Esw01407 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and push back to draft: Per nom; once it's pushed back to draft, I'll continue working on the article until it is ready to be republished. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:30, 14 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blac Chyna[edit]

Blac Chyna (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)

Started work on the article, removing unreliable sources and looking for proper ones, and then I thought "But how is she even notable?" Former stripper, model, video extra, runs a beauty salon. I don't see what makes her meet the notability guidelines. Yintan  18:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe coverage of her and Rob Kardashian [7] and other gossip is the only claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FART and WP:INVALIDBIO. KMF (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per KMF. 207.102.255.247 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then redirect doesn't pass WP:NMODEL, and WP:INVALIDBIO also applies. If it isn't a gossip magazine/column, the majority sources out there have to do with either relating to eitherRob Kardashian(and family) or Tyga. Redirect to Rob and Chyna after deletion, as it probably is a better place to put her bio then directly on Rob's page. Deleting first is preferable to just redirect, as this article has had a unreliable tag for over a year, and some of the older history contained even more issues with blp sources and reliability. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If you Google "cnn.com Blac Chyna" or "TMZ Blac Chyna" (and so on), you'll see that major news outlets are routinely reporting her life. I'm going to bite my tongue about whether she has earned being called a "celebrity", but she is one and she is notable to a lot of people. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I found that most hits are about her ex-boyfriend, not really about her. Yintan  06:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm going against the grain here, but she had a television show (Rob & Chyna) that nationally aired titled about her (albeit with her ex-boyfriend); under most circumstances, that clinches a keep. This is a SOFIXIT situation as far as sources (and heavy reduction of tabloid garbage), and WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE‎ (I'm citing an alternate name because seriously?!) is a 'humorous' essay that should never be cited here. It also feels like the article is being nommed only because of the subject being in the news for abuse from the ex-boyfriend, and I'm always uncomfortable with that. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reason to keep? What it "feels like"? I nominated the article for the reason I mentioned above, not because of a current messy breakup. Yintan  06:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her role on Keeping Up with the Kardashians along with a decent amount of coverage in the news, including articles about her in The New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. She is notable, if only because she has ties to people who are substantially more famous than her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmite (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Being famous or having ties to famous people isn't enough to qualify for notability. The Times magazine article you linked is about her and Rob WP:INVALIDBIO and the recent situation with them. That NY Times article isn't even about her, its about snapchat, and it just mentions her along with a lot of other people including Hilary Clinton. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:FART. Famous by association and family relationships. Yurivict (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines. BlackAsker (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has received a large amount of press, and WP:INVALIDBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" (my emphasis). She's as famous as Rob Kardashian (who's hardly in the top tier of Kardashians), and has received coverage of her various beauty/fashion ventures. You may not like it that the media devotes so much time to her, but that's no reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We should stratify the Kardashians and use them as a reference point for "Why is this person a celebrity?", and "I begrudgingly admit that this person is a celebrity". - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: notability is not inherited from others. DrStrauss talk 13:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She starred in a reality show called Blac Chyna and Rob that aired on E! network.138.162.0.42 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: She has received plenty of coverage from news outlet; this individual has actually been receiving a lot of coverage in the past couple of days. For better or worse, she is notable more so for the "famous for being famous"-kind of deal. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as far as I can tell, is not one of the notability criteria. And then there's WP:NOTNEWS as well. Yintan  09:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, much as it pains me to say it. She's enough in the news that she passes the notability requirement. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing notable in this article that's not mentioned elsewhere. Being popular on Instagram does not quality you for notability on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.99.251 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just did a news search on her, way too much coverage for a delete. ciphergoth (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unfortunately she's "notable" enough to have her own article, regardless of how she got it or what we may think of her personally. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:36, 16 July 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winfred Bynum[edit]

Winfred Bynum (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 notability, probably created by a paid editor - note that this editor is one of several repeatedly recreating another promotional article, Lil Cory Doug Weller talk 17:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series considered the best[edit]

List of television series considered the best (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)

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lists are all over the place and seems like people have just grabbed from whoever did a list at the time of what they rated as their best shows. Fails WP:Lists trivial content NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely subjective opinion from multiple lists, notwithstanding that staffs and tastes about television shows change over the years, as TV Guide shows. It should be noted that Sepinwall and Zoller-Seitz definitely do not consider their list final; they plan to come out with multiple updates over the years of their title. Nate • (chatter) 21:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, this is a reasonable list, in that it compiles top 10 lists from a number of different reliable sources. It could stand to have some more text for context, but this is nowhere near the train wreck I was expecting when I first saw the title. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Purely subjective with no consistent parameters to measure a program against. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a reason we don't do lists of entries "considered the best". Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First, this is not a list of TV shows considered the best. This is a "List of lists of shows considered either the best, the best in a country and/or the best in a genre". We could conceivably have a "List of TV shows in the United States considered the best", lose the UK source and the US source that divides out drama vs. comedy. That list is four entries long, if we ignore what the lists are and simply extract the top entry, creating a new topic that none of the sources discuss. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no criteria to determine the merit of the organizations providing these lists. Why should we take the word of one list maker over another? These types of lists are constantly being created by different organizations. This list is constantly going to be outdated as new shows are created and new lists are made. Not to mention the clear western bias present here. ZincHead (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I created the article in line with List of films considered the best. Crookesmoor (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research[edit]

National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research (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)

cyber.ghost 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: Nominator did not provide a reason for nomination. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:48, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital gifting[edit]

Digital gifting (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 isn't really about a concept that has been discussed by reliable sources, but is the author's own thoughts, and thus original research. It also has promotional aspects. No real encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a useful article, full of irrelevancies and discursions. It seems to muddle various categories, including: electronic gift vouchers redeemable at online stores; digital currencies like Bitcoin; in-game currencies such as those used in MMORPGs which can be used within the game to buy things for your character; and purely virtual gifts like where someone gives you a picture of a balloon and it appears on your social media page. There's currently a disambiguation page Virtual gift which might be a redirect target but is really not very useful either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Three vaguely 'educational' paragraphs about something easily described in gift card already, badly hiding a clear WP:ADVERT WP:COATRACK for Giibox. Then the final paragraph is basically describing a microtransaction and the virtual goods that are usually bought in it. Definite WP:OR. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 10 July 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 per nominator's withdrawal in the face of new search tools and sources being offered.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utharaswayamvaram[edit]

Utharaswayamvaram (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)

NOM WITHDRAWN Fails the GNG, most mentions of the name are for another poem, not this movie. None of the external links in the bottom are very much good. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: L3X1, you are a good editor, but this probably was not a good nomination. The movie has prominent actors like Jayasurya and Balachandra Menon in the lead roles. The movie was a huge flop when it released, which is the reason why it did not get much more coverage. But the star cast ensured that it got reviews in [8] (Sify) and [9] (Rediff) - both of which are accepted websites in WP:ICTFFAQ. It was also covered before its release in Rediff. A host of other websites like Nowrunning, Filmibeat and Indiaglitz has also covered this. Jayasurya is a popular actor in the Malayalam industry, and deleting one of his movies is therefore probably not a good idea. Jupitus Smart 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jupitus Smart Thanks for pointing that out. I was totally unaware of the WikiProject page on Indian film websites, that should help me when assessing these film articles. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:48, 11 July 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. WP:SOFTDELETE, since the previous AfD was closed as speedy delete, rather than by consensus. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spigit[edit]

Spigit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another Corporate Spam. Poor references, Press and writing is for promotional only. Coverage are typical press. Light2021 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Rizvi (director)[edit]

Ali Rizvi (director) (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)

Completely self-promotional. Fails to provide WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No source to prove his claim of winning PTV awards. Greenbörg (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: almost A7/G11 material in my opinion. DrStrauss talk 15:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in RS. fails to meet WP:Author. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archives elimination in Cameroon[edit]

Archives elimination in Cameroon (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)

Try as I might, I have not been able to find any sources specific to the Archive Elimination in Cameroon (not even in French). All of the current sources are from French paper destruction (shredding) companies - nothing specific to Cameroon, and unfortunately not independently published. This article was nominated for PROD once. menaechmi (talk) 14:57, 10 July 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 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not obviously notable when specific to Cameroon. Records management would be the more general topic (and records disposal in Cameroon a better English translation). But a redirect is surely not called for, and I don't think a merge is justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 11 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Rosen[edit]

Rabbi Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The speedy delete was declined with "Decline speedy delete, this is about a real person and a real person can not be made up". I didn't find any reference in English and Hebrew about this rabbi. The source provided in article does not even mention him. Looks like a hoax. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a hoax, that is a WP:G3, not WP:A11. If it is a real person without a claim to significance it is a WP:A7, still not a WP:A11. ~ GB fan 14:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A11 says "obviously invented". I guess a person, with no source showing he ever existed is obviously invented by the author. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would then be a hoax and fall under WP:G3. ~ GB fan 15:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - This hoax runs deeper than this article. Yedid Nefesh, Kiddush, 1600, Elazar ben Moshe Azikri, 1533, were also vandalized - working on it.Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It is even an inconsistent hoax. Travelling from Lemberg to Fez would be improbable in 1551. It would even be more improbable to do so to study with Rabbi Jacob Berab who died in 1546 (five years prior) and who lived in his later years in Cairo, Damascus, and finally in Safed (leaving Algeria at the latest in 1522).Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The one reference made does not mention him whatsoever, plus if the info above is correct its a hoax and should be deleted. - Galatz^Talk 16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. It's all fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.13.71 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Farrukh Altaf[edit]

Chaudhry Farrukh Altaf (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 to provide any WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Based on the description it sounds like this position is roughly the equivalent of a county mayor? If so, he's not likely to meet WP:NPOL unless he's done something more notable than indicated in the article or its current sources. And on the sources, one of them (Pak Tribune) seems to be a dead link, another is dead but archived and is only a local government listing, and the third (Dawn) only peripherally mentions the article subject, so for all intents and purposes this article is unsourced.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yes nazim is equivalent of mayor but since it is local office holder, he fails to meet WP:Politician.. cited sources except Dawn are not RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:33, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Shafaat Hussain[edit]

Chaudhry Shafaat Hussain (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 might have a source but fails to provide any WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like the only particularly notable thing about this subject is his family connections, and notability is not inherited. The offices held don't seem important enough to meet WP:NPOL. The one source seems to be a dead link.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he is often quoted in news stories but mostly are namecheckings.. and since he is a local office holder who fails to meet WP:Politician therefore better deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:32, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Qerfozi[edit]

Andi Qerfozi (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article might meet WP:GNG based on the sources listed. However, these are routine sports generally considered insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. No evidence he meets WP:GNG either. Can be undeleted if and when he plays for Grasshopper. Smartyllama (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Smartyllama and Sir Sputnik Some of the sources currently in the article look like they might meet the GNG criteria of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. GNG's a higher bar than NFOOTY but this chap might pass it, which wouldn't be unheard of. We've had footballers who've passed GNG before they step on a 1st XI pitch before. I'd appreciate a view on this instance from you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict) Of the sources listed, only the first one is not very clearly routine coverage. Sources two and three are database entries, which WP:NSPORT actually addresses explicitly: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. Four and six are transfer announcements, which are usually not considered sufficient for general notability. (See this afd for a recent example.) Five is a squad list which does not cover the subject in any sort of detail. The first source approaches significance, but I would argue that it is too short and insufficiently neutral to be indicative of general notability by itself. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Of the sources in the artice, this is the only one that seems to say anything more than routine transfer talk, match reportin or squad call ups. Not really seeing GNG here at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm creator of this article and I agree that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL but he just moved at Swiss Super League side Grasshopper (see References) and they will play their first match in less than 2 weeks so please can we wait until there before deleted his article. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long standing consensus against applying WP:NFOOTY prematurely in anticipation of debut. The page can always restored, if and when he makes first appearance for Grasshoper. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm convinced. And undelete it if he doesn't have a calamitous accident or fallout with the management that prevents him debuting, per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I'm not sure this article would pass the GNG. This footballer has been the subject of some coverage for his exploits at amateur/semi-pro level (St. Galler Tagblatt covered his 5-goal performance [here http://www.tagblatt.ch/ostschweiz/thurgau/regionalsport/kreuzlingen-bezwingt-wil;art123846,4990075]), and it's certainly possible he will garner more coverage with Grasshopper Club, but probably not until then. Jogurney (talk) 22:27, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zia Malik[edit]

Ahmed Zia Malik (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)

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local politician, not enough to meet WP:NPOL. Only reference is a directory, so article is essentially unsourced.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Aftab Ahmed[edit]

Rana Aftab Ahmed (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)

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local politician, fails WP:NPOL. I couldn't get either reference page to load, but from the description it sounds like they are just lists of names, which is not enough RS coverage to hang an article on.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Zahid Hussain Khan[edit]

Mian Zahid Hussain Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local politician, doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The two sources provided are just lists of names, so the other content in the article is unsourced.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intsar Ahmad Khan[edit]

Intsar Ahmad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable local politician, fails WP:NPOL. References provided are just lists of names/results.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:27, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Mattheou[edit]

Nikolas Mattheou (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsher Ali Mazari[edit]

Shamsher Ali Mazari (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)

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable local politician, fails WP:NPOL. References provided are just lists, so doesn't meet WP:RS either.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. a local office holder who fails WP:Politician and doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:26, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ibrahim Doda[edit]

Muhammad Ibrahim Doda (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)

Fail to provide WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as he is Deputy Mayor with not much coverage about his work in independent sources. Greenbörg (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician criteria. . --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lasbela is not an internationally famous metropolitan global city, so its local government councillors do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL just for existing — but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to get him past the "who have received significant media coverage" (i.e. "meets WP:GNG") part of our inclusion criteria for local politicians. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 10 July 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Optimist (dinghy)[edit]

Optimist (dinghy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The references provided here are all either primary sources, non-independent sources, PDF files, or are dead links. No evidence has been provided of non-trivial discussion in reliable, independent, secondary, published sources. As near as I can tell from an Internet search, "Optimist" appears to be a brand name for a dingy, in which case this article probably qualifies as promotional. Found lots of hits, but none that discussed the subject in depth and appeared to be independent of the subject. KDS4444 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:17, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Jain[edit]

Prabhat Jain (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 to meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all the references are written by the subject or from the connected organisations. There does not seem to be any special claim of importance either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as WP:G11. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - just another advertorial. Not a single independent source, and none to be found. Could almost be A7; it's definitely G11. --John from Idegon (talk) 07:49, 16 July 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) 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Open access in Albania and Open access in Iceland were both tagged for deletion and linked to this debate, but not explicitly included in the list of nominated articles here. Since they closely follow the format of the other deleted articles of this type, and since they were properly tagged, I'm going to go ahead and delete them as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Vietnam[edit]

Open access in Vietnam (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 came across these pages whilst new page reviewing. All of them seem to have been created by the same user over a span of a couple of days, which may explain why many of them appear to violate our policy of no original research. Many of them are unsourced which makes it difficult to verify their content and to assess their independent notability. I suggest that all the pages be deleted on these grounds with a warm invitation to Filippo Morsiani, the creator, to create a List of open access policies by country article, preferable through a draft.

Please also note the consensus gained on similar articles in deletion discussions here.

TL;DR: delete all per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N and invite creator to create a list encompassing all of them.

Note to closing admin: if the result is delete, please note that many of these have redirects to them on capitalisation grounds which also need deletion.

DrStrauss talk 13:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Bolivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open Access in Botswana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Caribbean Countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Colombia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Ecuador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Latvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Republic of Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Nicaragua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in El Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Guatemala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Honduras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open Access in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Yemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Uruguay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in the United States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Togo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Paraguay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Slovenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Republic of Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Myanmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Brunei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Bhutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Qatar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Oman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Kuwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Zambia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Zimbabwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Uganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Tunisia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Tanzania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Sudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Senegal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Rwanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Namibia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Mauritius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Mali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Malawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Madagascar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Libya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Lesotho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Kenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Côte d'Ivoire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Gambia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Gabon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Cape Verde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Cameroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Latin America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Asia and the Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in the Arab States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Open access in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete per nom and WP:TNT. While this is absolutely a valid potential subject area for Wikipedia coverage, these are not the articles we're looking for. By and large they're unsourced (and/or sourced only to UNESCO's main open access project, if anywhere at all, rather than to media coverage), and strike a tone that falls somewhere between an essay and a how-to guide rather than being encyclopedically written and formatted. And the reason for both issues is that essentially they were copied and pasted from the UNESCO platform rather than being original Wikipedia content — but while WP:COPYVIO isn't an issue in this instance due to the free content nature of the UNESCO site, the lack of a copyvio problem still does not in and of itself exempt Wikipedia's copies from having to comply with our tone, structure and sourcing standards. Nominator is entirely correct that a more realistic approach would be to start with one base overview article, permitting by-country spinoffs as needed for the countries where we can source a sufficient volume of good content, rather than just jumping straight to a series of 80-100 articles generated by copy-pasting unencyclopedically formatted content from somewhere else. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these seem to be copied from UNESCO (in a permittable way), but are not encyclopedic in their present form. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. I saw them roughly a month ago on new page patrol and PROD'ed what seemed to be the most egregiously unencyclopedic of them in the name of "picking my battles", but with the benefit of hindsight even the "better" ones are really not too great. Comments that this is an encyclopedic topic and one worth actually creating entries about are entirely correct, and I think with appropriate mentoring and oversight such articles could make for very worthwhile inclusions. These ain't they, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I should add that in Big Haz's user talk page archive we see the article creator appearing to accept deletion at User_talk:BigHaz/Archive_22#Open_access. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression at the time was that the article creator was accepting the deletion of the half-dozen or so I deleted a month ago, rather than of the entire project. But time will tell, of course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all As per Bearcat Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 14:34, 13 July 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 Ryan Holiday#Books. SoWhy 09:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Growth Hacker Marketing[edit]

Growth Hacker Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The question is notability, in particular WP:NBOOK. To be honest I have seen worse survive AfD, but upon checking I see that NBOOK#1 specifically excludes publications where the author (...) advertise[s] or speak[s] about the book, under which quite a few of the refs fall (e.g. two Forbes sources are interviews with the author), and many other smell of copy-pasted press releases. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK guideline #1 specifically stipulates that it has to have been the subject of two or more published works. This book meets that requirement. Bobhambrick (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobhambrick: links please. (Genuinely asking, because I couldn't find them in the refs or online) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a handful that mention the book:

• https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253165
• https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/281422
• https://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/marketing-guru-ryan-holiday-answers-your-growth-hacking-questions/#.tnw_6vjR7NaP
• https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/the-real-engines-of-growth-on-the-internet/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/laura-inamedinova/2016/08/07/20-growth-hacking-strategists-that-you-must-follow-in-2016/#1c3aa44d5092

Another piece the notability puzzle is that this book seems to be (or have been) the subject of instruction at several colleges and universities, which is specifically stipulated in NBOOK#4

• Universtity of Kent
• Syracuse University
• Westchester Community College
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Northeastern University

Some good points have been mentioned about references on the page which can be corrected, but the book does qualify as notable. Keep. Bobhambrick (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the links: [10], [11], [12], [13]: passing mentions (not even a full paragraph discussing the book). [14] is not an independent source (cf. nomination).

For NBOOK #4, I think it fails the footnote which says This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves (...) (emphasis added). IIRC it was meant to refer to works such as King Lear or Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book in question is not written specifically for academic curriculum and yet it is studied in the classroom, so while not remotely as notable as the texts you provide as examples it does still make it notable as a subject of instruction. Bobhambrick (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what "subject of study" means. I would think it is intended in a meta-analysis sense (i.e. how was the book relevant to a current of thought, what impact did it have at the time of publishing or later on its subject or on its author's notoriety, etc.), otherwise I don't really see the point of excluding textbooks but including books that end up being used as textbooks. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at the talk page for NBOOK, in the hope it will bring more help. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, one of my first ports of call when looking at an afd' book article is Worldcat for an indication of possible notableness (librarians are pretty good at ensuring their collections contain relevant/notable books, just don't get me started on those that cull their collections .... NNNNOOOOOO!!!!!), looking here it is held by around 200 libararies which isn't too bad, then googling the title and "book reviews" and looking at a couple of regional libaray sites, surprisingly there doesn't appear to be (m)any useable reviews out there for this book (im not comfortable with the reviews that presently appear in the "Reception" section), even the dreaded:)) trade reviewers like PW and Kirkus Reviews haven't reviewed it (they do have reviews of some of Holiday's other books), so im leaning towards a delete or a redirect to author, at this time. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ryan_Holiday#Books; everything can be covered there. The article appears to serve only to promote the book; the "Reception" section is the smallest one. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment For the record, I agree redirecting to Ryan Holiday#Books is better than outright deletion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to author section per above; cover & expand summary style. NBOOKS is supposed to be an indicator that extensive sources exist somewhere for us to write an article that does justice to the topic. I too only see passing mentions in the above and thus very little content with which we can write an article, nevertheless do any such justice.  czar 17:25, 10 July 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranay Agrawal[edit]

Pranay Agrawal (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)

Shallow coverage in RSs. The article has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Rentier (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - references are either not from reliable sources or shallow "in passing" or routine mentions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources don't give WP:SIGCOV. DrStrauss talk 12:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]