< 28 July 30 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Mutawakil[edit]

Abubakar Mutawakil (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)

Formerly a BLPPROD, I'm bringing this through here as there don't seem to be any sources confirming the player's appearances in either the Ghanaian or Nigerian leagues, both of which would confirm his specific notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:52, 29 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. It seems like the inclusion criteria are not met here. As for people getting money and guaranteeing that an article will stay ... I'll raise this on WP:AN to get further input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Sacheli[edit]

Giovanni Sacheli (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, with the rationale being that the "information is real", which is all fine and dandy but doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence. I admit to a complete lack of ability to search for Italian sources, but what I'm finding in English only confirms existence rather than anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello editors, I'm here to understand the reason for that deletion. Please could you explain why the page should be deleted? The article text links to websites of important Italian events in the subject area. Events websites mention and demonstrate his participation as main speaker to these events by many years. In Italy these events are considered the most important at national level. There is no false information or little authoritative sources. I understand Italian is not your language but you just need Google Translator to check the facts. Inside wikipedia there are pages for third category football players with 1 year participation, 99.99% of the population has never heard of them. So I really don't understand why you create all these false motives to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovannisacheli (talkcontribs)

I paid a wikipedia editor a lot of money to create the page, because he proposed the deal to me, telling me also that the page will remain alive. I said to him I never eard about paid editors but he was sure about it. I think it is a robbery to delete the page with correct info. That's all. I will write about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentorino (talkcontribs)

Note to closing admin This rather changes the complexion of the matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the message I received time ago:

Jenny C <wikistyle@yahoo.com>
We saw an entry on Wikipedia which is currently up for deletion. We charge $150 for a complete article including clean up and management charges. ::Please let us know if you are interested so we can create one for you.
Regards
WikiStyle

Worst than mafia, pay and than the page is deleted. I think this matter require a full article with all the details, emails and all I have. 2.235.201.154 (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Sacheli[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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloc[edit]

The Bloc (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)

Found in underlinked backlog. This article about an advertising agency has a number of sources but they're exclusively press releases, non-notable industry awards. There are no reliable sources to be found, either present in the article or in a WP:BEFORE. A Traintalk 21:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:01, 30 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) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Schwartz[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Should have been CSD, BUT anom keeps reversing CSD. reddogsix (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:02, 30 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) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Benson (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and couldn't find any reliable sources WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 29 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. There is clear consensus to delete after extended discussion, which has since seen no new activity in several days. There is also consensus that a quixotic appearance in a single database does not, a species, make. bd2412 T 02:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitridae incertae sedis[edit]

Mitridae incertae sedis (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)
Also Pyramidellidae incertae sedis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are bogus genus articles created by a bot. Neither Mitridae incertae sedis nor Pyramidellidae incertae sedis are genera (or even taxons). Species names like Pyramidellidae incertae sedis gracilis mean "a species in the family Pyramidellidae that has not been assigned to a genus". You can add "incertae sedis" to any taxon name, but it doesn't create a new taxon. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete immediately. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's agreed useful content, move as per Plantdrew's comment below; otherwise delete. Whatever happens, titles of the form "taxon-name incertae sedis" are wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual species within this placeholder taxon are themselves valid taxa, and I hope no one is arguing for removing those. However, the placeholder itself is not a taxonomic entity, and should not have an article. This goes for both nominated instances. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pyramidellidae incertae sedis is recognized by WoRMS [1] and given a separate status from the other genera in the large family Pyramidellidae. This has been done by a respected malacologist. The ICZN does indeed not mention "incertae sedis"; the closest reference I can find is art. 1.3.5, "Exclusions : as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature". On the other hand, Pyramidellidae incertae sedis insularis W. R. B. Oliver, 1915 has not been assigned a formal name yet, while Pyramidellidae incertae sedis gracilis has been renamed Rissopsetia gracilis (W. R. B. Oliver, 1915) [2] . In my opinion, we should keep Pyramidellidae incertae sedis until the problem is solved. It can be deleted at that time. As to Mitridae incertae sedis, the taxonomic problem has been solved and this article can be deleted (the species in this article has been recognized as Pterygia punctata (Swainson, 1821).) JoJan (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why we need to be bound by some taxonomic wierdness at WoRMS. insularis is the only problematic taxon with an article? Unless there's some irregularity in the description of Epigrus insularis (i.e., it is not an available name), I don't see why we can't move Pyramidellidae incertae sedis insularis to that title (with maybe a note that insularis is known not to be properly included in Epigrus). Plantdrew (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with this move. Species can only be given binomial names under the nomenclature codes; if the genus is really in doubt, the name can be displayed as Epigurus? insularis. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. That one taxon insularis is wikilinked from the Pyramidellidae article since 2012 and it is appropriate way. All informations, this means information, that the taxon exist is properly and completelly mentioned in the Pyramidellidae article. There are no need articles for incertae sedis taxa on generic level, especially when they contain one or two species. (Articles(s) of incertaie sedis taxa on specific level should be kept, of course.). --Snek01 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plantdrew wrote "delete" but actually argued for moving with some support, at least concerning the second article. Relisting for more discussion on that proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 20:35, 29 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. The sources presented fail WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theodora Lee[edit]

Theodora Lee (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)

Teenage blogger / vlogger, who seems to be popular but doesn't have much in the way of reliable sourcing. A news search brings up two articles in The Sun which are totally unacceptable for a BLP, and an interview with Capetown Magazine. That's about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources appear to be mostly tabloid journalism and wholly unacceptable for an article about a living person. You shot yourself in the foot with the second and third sources. Don't ever use The Sun as a source for a BLP, it is a gutter press which has a long track-record of lying and making things up (type "justice for the 96" and "stick it up your junta" into Google). Please read WP:BLPSOURCES carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we discount The Sun as acceptable sources (although I think that it is a RS for a story about vlogging, that is, I believe it); there are sources such as this one and others, such as this award. My point is that many of us Wikipedians are old guys, we grew up with traditional media, and we have a tendency to dismiss new media such as YouTube -- but that is what younger people look to, and vloggers such as Theodora Lee are big deals in their worlds, celebrities of a new persuasion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dismiss YouTube as an indication of notability generally because anyone can put anything they like and say anything on it. There's no way of determining notability. We have many articles about notable YouTubers (eg: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Hutchings) because they are so well known they are covered in mainstream sources too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the content can be shoddy, but it is straightforward to determine viewership (which is what sources are pointing to); that is, the notability is not based on the quality of the content (which is something that even Wikipedians are not in a position to judge) but rather the attention (viewership, PageRank, etc, which tabloids, the media, and Wikipedians are in a position to judge).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 31 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Arcostanzo[edit]

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

Deprodded by the author without addressing the concern, which is the almost complete lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources despite 57 references cited in the article. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Rentier (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a search. I found several social websites, but absolutely no third-party coverage at all which was specifically about him.
(I note in passing that the article was created by a WP:SPA.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there was a guideline somewhere about reference-stuffing in the hope of making an article look notable - WP:BOMBARD. Narky Blert (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 20:10, 29 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigBlueBall (website)[edit]

BigBlueBall (website) (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 was kept in 2005 based on Google hits, forum subscriber numbers, and Alexa rank. Notability criteria was much looser back in the day; we have tightened it considerably since.

I cannot find any sources that indicate this website satisfies the WP:GNG or web-based media criteria. The PC World source given in the article is a mere trivial mention in an overall discussion of IM programs. The interview with the founder is an informal interview on a forum which is a dead link now anyways. Any book mentions I've found have been trivial mentions with no in-depth discussion. ♠PMC(talk) 21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:09, 29 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  09:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Shrivastav[edit]

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

Does not quite meet WP:A7. An assistant-editor. Has not been credited for contributions to the only linked film in the filmography, Jazbaa. Mduvekot (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:03, 29 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hechtman[edit]

Max Hechtman (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)

According to the username of the article's creator, most likely an autobiography for self promotion. Other than a couple of short local articles, virtually no other references to this student. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:03, 29 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. North America1000 03:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Maleck[edit]

Joao Maleck (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:NFOOTY, hasn't played a professional game yet. Fram (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: equal numerical !votes, concerns over whether the GNG trumps NFooty and TooSoon
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I highly agree with you ClubOranje that there really is no substitute or trump policy for WP:GNG, but I'm afraid that's where are views diverge. The subject of the article in question (Joao Maleck) are more than just human interest stories in local newspapers. This article on Maleck is by ESPN Deportes, are they a "local paper"? A quick search shows that Maleck has been subject to a wide range of coverage spanning from 2016 to 2017, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here either in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:45, 2 August 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca of basketball[edit]

Mecca of basketball (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)

While I am sure all these venues have deep ties to the game and would love to be titled the "Mecca of Basketball" I think it would be appropriate to delete this DAB. None of the linked articles even mention the nickname "Mecca of basketball." Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MSG is probably the most known as the Mecca, and Rupp Arena is not even mentioned on this list. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:11, 30 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 19:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of Pakistan Building[edit]

Supreme Court of Pakistan Building (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 article gives no indication that the building itself is significant either through WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG. The two references it gives fail WP:42, one is merely a Google Maps entry and the other is affiliated. The design paragraph is also weasel-worded e.g. "reputed". DrStrauss talk 19:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 29 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. Consensus is that there are insufficient quality sources to meed WP:NPOL and WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Buchanan (politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The population of a county is irrelevant to whether a county councillor clears a Wikipedia notability standard or not. It's not enough to assert that the county has made decisions of national importance, or that he gets quoted: any press coverage has to be specifically about him, not just namechecking his existence within coverage whose subject is something else, to count toward getting him over WP:GNG. But none of the references being cited here are doing that at all. The harm in keeping an article about a person whose standalone notability to an international audience hasn't been properly demonstrated is that the next guy who comes along with no genuinely solid notability could use this as a precedent to demand that we keep his article too — and then we're nothing more than a worthless LinkedIn clone in two weeks flat. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 2 August 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buljit Buragohain[edit]

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

Non notable writer/academic. Fails WP:GNG. Was created by a paid editing sockfarm. Jupitus Smart 18:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:32, 29 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 and redirect to Jacob Faye-Lund. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Faye Lund[edit]

Julian Faye Lund (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)

Has not played a football game in a fully professional league, per WP:FPL. Geschichte (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:41, 29 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. Whether to keep or to merge/redirect.  Sandstein  09:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010)[edit]

Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A case of WP:NOTNEWS on a non-notable attack associated with a much larger conflict. This article was deleted in 2010 (then overturned to "no consensus" because it was a recent event) and I can see why: there has been no WP:LASTING impact. Sadly, these types of incidents are common on both sides and it requires noteworthy evaluation overtime to be consider more than news. A few days of media attention is just not enough. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slick, Any particular reason why you omitted to add the previous AFD discussion to this page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: can you explain how you consider two days of news coverage as a "high-profile" act? Also, please elaborate on what made this "high-profile" such as a notable WP:LASTING impact. Thanks. And yes it is WP:ROUTINE news reporting; crimes are not exempt from that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Please actually read WP:DIVERSE. Sources are discounted if they "simply mirror or tend to follow other sources"; that is the case here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained it was covered by multiple international news sources like BBC,AP and Telegraph and it was not in passing hence its not WP:ROUTINE.WP:LASTING is only one of the factors that govern notability there are others that this event meets--Shrike (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. And @Shrike: do you realize the very policy you use (WP:GEOSCOPE) says "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". So, again, I ask what is the WP:LASTING impact of this WP:ROUTINEly covered incident?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:MShabazz Should event to satisfy all 5 requirements to be notable and worthy of article  ?--Shrike (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it only needs to satisfy one of the criteria, but this attack doesn't satisfy any of the inclusion criteria. No lasting effects. No "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". No "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". No diversity of sources. As far as depth of coverage, "coverage must be significant and not in passing". Nope. In the end, this attack -- tragic as it was -- falls into the category of "[r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes...) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time" and isn't notable. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • fyi, Shabazz, WP:HEY is a standard way of waving a flag "to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion".E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly; DIVERSE: "Significant national or international coverage," and WP:SIGCOV are met by articles including BBC: "Defence officials accuse Palestinian PM of "inciting anti-Israeli violence"", and "Soldier's Murder Was Latest in Trend of Terror by PA Security" in Haaretz. As you know, only ONE of the indici of notability listed under WP:NCRIME technically needs to be met ot establish NOTABILITY, but here we do have ONGOING COVERAGE in article including 2013, Times of Israel "Palestinian stabs Israeli to death in West Bank" and Al-Monitor 2014 "Druze Knesset member slams Arab leaders as 'weak'", and Jerusalem Post 2014, "Border Police stop terrorist en-route to suicide bombing at Tapuah Junction".E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Straw man argument. Extensive analysis given in "Context" section of article, more than enough to establish notability. MShabazz is not making a rules-based argument when he demands post-2010 analysis, alhtouth. as Galatz points out, it exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And an editorial in a major newspaper 8 months after the attack occurred, and the 2010 2012 (correct date) book by Martin Gilbert... Shabazz, your argument that there has been no "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", is false.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a point in your comments. The event was clearly notable enough that they covered the memorial in the first. The second and third found it notable to include, I am sure tons of stuff has happened that did not get mentioned because it wasn't notable. - GalatzTalk 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you on that. Whether you argue about the sources showing continued coverage or not, the fact that it was a Palestinian Preventive Security is rare, and makes this instance stand out from others that might not seem notable. Similarly Salam Fayyad condemned this attack, something else that almost never happens. If you look at the article before the nomination [7] vs the current article [8] they are vastly different and that was why I referenced WP:HEY in my vote. The original article didn't do much to show notability, but the revised version does. - GalatzTalk 18:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Galatz: try WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PRIMARYNEWS -- good reads and actual policies. I don't recall rarity ever being a sure-fire reason to keep an article, especially when the act itself is common, but maybe these actual guidelines will explain further why this is not enough for a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rarity certainly isn't a sure fire reason, but my point is that there are several RS over a period of time that discuss the event, plus due to the issues above it is not WP:ROUTINE. Plus keep in mind that WP:GNG trumps these other guidelines mentioned, and the events meet the criteria. - GalatzTalk 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shrike: the issue is there is no significant post-analysis or societal impact directly related to this event. It received a wave of news coverage reporting in the same manner that this incident exists. It declined to brief mentions thereafter. Common sense (and our guidelines) would say it makes much more sense to merge and redirect this article since it is a small part of a larger conflict. So far, no one has specified a significant impact because there isn't one -- hence a reason this does not need a standalone page. What possibly needs to be said here that cannot be summarized in a list? The answer is nothing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there were a number of impacts here. The settlement movement suggested to name a settlement to honor the deceased Druze victim, and Druze leadership visited the spot - which is significant for intra-Israeli relations. The fact that the perp was a high-ranking officer in one of the PA's security apparatuses is significant and affected future cooperation. This was the first deadly incident (and the prior incident was in Gaza, which is becoming quite separate) against Israelis in over a year (see - [9]) - so this wasn't quite part of a routine conflict at that time. Following the event there were also reprisals (or "price tags") - which is also significant given the timeline.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources attest to these points or are these your opinions? A memorial of some kind to a victim is certainly not uncommon (its localized regardless). I would love to see the sources that support your claims about how Druze leadership visiting the site affected relations significantly and how the identity of the perp affected "future cooperations". Price tagging is also common practice in these types of incidents. So please provide the sources @Icewhiz:; I hope you didn't expect me to take your word for it. Possibly find the WP:LASTING societal (not localized) impact that keep voters seem to forget too, if you don't mind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The junction was named after him: [10] [11], and here are calls by Druze leadership in 2011 to name a new settlement for him - [12]. As for reprisals - it isn't that common to begin with, was less common in around 2010 (this really picked up in 2011 following the Itamar attack), and is mainly done by the Jewish residents in response to attacks/actions against the residents - I will have to get back to you regarding sourcing here - It's complex as the "price tag" common name was not as established back then.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom (GracefulSlick) is attempting to require that every one of the indici discussed in WP:NCRIME and WP:EVENTCRITERIA be met with multiple examples. But the "test" for notability of an event or crime is whether it is " "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". We gauge this using a set of set of guidelines that require good faith interpretation by editors who are understood to be attempting to reach a consensus. Note that WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE are indici of notability; there is no requirement that each of them be met, let alone that each of them be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor or group of editors. Also Note that all editors on this page have extensive editing experience; I strongly suggest that we all attempt to WP:AGF and that, as a first step towards reaching consensus, editors should cease accusing highly experiences Wikipedians of having failed to read the guidelines they cite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an personal opinion, NOT a policy based argument; WP:ROUTINE does not make an exception for "this type of event" (the point-blank murder of a driver by a police officer as an act of political terrorism.) WP:ROUTINE applies to "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out." The fact that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • K.e.coffman is free to offer his opinion that this is "routine," but as an experienced editor who weighs in on virtually every terrorism-related discussion at AFD he ought to know better than to mis-cite a guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; one sentence already present in the "Timeline" article is enough to cover it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, but a list entry doesn't "cover it." Not at all. Those very brief listings leave out a great deal of detail, including the fact that the Israeli was murdered in cold blood while waiting at a traffic light, responses by the Druze community, the call by an MK for the death penalty, the responses by PA officialdom, the great rarity of a highly placed police official committing an act of terrorism, the responses by PA politicians, the situating of this attack by multiple security analysts within what was then a new trend towards incitement to murder by Palestinian Authority leaders, and much more. We can WP:PRESERVE information to Wikipedia's readers users seeking to understand the IP conflict by creating and keeping well-sourced articles like this instead of mere lists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thank you for revealing that attacks by PA officers were much more common than previously stated with this source which, again, only passively mentions this attack! Icewhiz do you want to change your response to "merge and redirect" with this new information? Gregory has shown us this was part of a specific trend -- something like this can easily be summed up in the articles already mentioned above since there was nothing individually notable about this incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fact check Slick's assertion. Attacks by Palestinian police officers are shown by the article Slick references to have been extremely rare in 2010. What the article asserts is that there was an "emerging trend" of attacks by various Palestinian Authority security services. Incidents that highlight emergin trends are, of course, notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of people editing an article is not a measure of notability. You haves copy and pasted the second half of your statement three times now and all it does is use WP:OSE arguements and ad hominem attacks. If you can't even be bothered with writing out a thoughtful rationale, don't participate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does User:XavierItzm make an ad hominem attack?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since this appears to be User:XavierItzm's first comment on this thread, I suppose you to be implying that he has made similar comments at other AFD discussions. I am not only unaware of any policy prohibiting editors from doing so, I have noticed that it is a common practice with editors who frequent areas I am familiar with, (editors on politician AFD discussions using the same wording repeatedly to point out that being an unsuccessful candidate does not confer notability,; editors at author-related discussions using the same wording repeatedly to point out that writing a book that garners multiple, independent reviews does confer notability).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is very clearly no consensus to delete this article, but there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not to keep the article in place or merge and redirect to Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#2005.E2.80.93present:_Post-Intifada.2C_Gaza_conflict and no clear consensus on that. It would be helpful if the post-relist discussion focused on whether or not news coverage of the event was sustained rather than routine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • AlessandroTiandelli333 how so? Do not just say "it's a terror attack". I urge you to look through the WP:ROUTINE coverage and come to a more thorough conclusion. At the very least, consider a the merge proposals if you can't be bothered with analyzing the sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icewhiz I agree we shouldn't set this at a different bar for an Israeli victim. Which is why it needs to be merged and redirected. My take on policy does not change based on the origin of the victim or perpetrator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also the very similar 2015 Nice attack, which, like the 2013 La Défense attack, and the attack under discussion at this AfD was an ideologically motivated, terrorist attack on a soldier in a time of peace. It really does begin to look as though separate standards are being applied to attacks in Israel than are applied to attacks in Christian countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory it's amazing. Not only are you still WP:BLUDGEONing this AfD and using WP:OSE arguments, you are now accusing me of bias. You do release this is the first I/P-based article I have nominated, right? I judge everything by policy. Maybe those other articles are unnotable too; you act like I've analyzed every single article on Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have WP:AGF by accepting your statement that "My take on policy does not change based on the origin of the victim or perpetrator." and that "we shouldn't set this at a different bar for an Israeli victim." What I dispute is your assertion that this page should therefore "be merged and redirected." because after years of editing terrorism-related pages regularly, it does not seem to me that we delete pages on extremely similar that demonstrate this level of sourcing in Western countries other than Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask that you will apply the same standards to this murder of an Israeli soldier that were applied to attacks on French soldiers. (And that you cease WP:WIKIHOUNDING, (interaction analysis here: [15]) me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, that notability under WP:NCRIME, is defined as: "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Thes has been established by coverage of this attack that meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE. Opinions differ on the quesiton of whether coverage in the years since the attack has met WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:LASTING. But Note that, (as 2 experienced editors on opposite sides of the keep-or-merge discussion agree above) it is only required to meet one of these 5 criteria. There is no requirement that all 5 indicators of notability be met - let alone that they be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, nothing "has been established". If it had been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. By the way, do you realize that you've made more than 30% of the edits to this page? Please stop bludgeoning the process. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documenting an editor's WIKIHOUNDING is not "casting aspersions." And I just want to mention that you have just "muddied the waters" by asserting that the closing editor will close this as no consensus rather than as keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but accusing another editor of having one set of standards for Israeli victims and a lower bar for non-Israeli victims is casting aspersions. And while it's thoughtful for you to check in and inform us every day that you haven't changed your mind, agreeing with oneself doesn't magically create a consensus. There is no consensus to keep, nor is there a consensus to delete. In plain English, that means there's no consensus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and yet there is a problem when editors apply different standards by making Israel-related AfD discussions unusually acrimonious, and by flocking to vote "delete" at Israel-related AfD, when they do not do with extremely similar attacks in other economically developed Western democracies that have sizeable numbers of politically Islamist citizens and where illegal entrants to the country carry out attacks. Note: 2015 Nice attack and 2013 La Défense attack did not get dragged to AfD. What I have requested of the editor above, is that standards be applied uniformly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone edited my comment of 18:09, 30 July 2017. Wow. I think even editing one's own comments is kinda iffy, though obviously I just went back and edited mine. But editing someone else's? Not cool. XavierItzm (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow indeed. Nobody gets to !vote twice. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but neither does any editor get to alter a comment. Worse, I contacted the editor who made the change, because many editors are unaware of this rule, (here: [16]) and that editor chose not to return and make it right. I was WP:AGF on both sides (that XavierItzm forgot that he had already iVoted on this AfD - that happens; and that TheGracefulSlick was unaware of this rule. To my mind the worst faux pas here is GracefulSlick was notified and failed to make it right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, however, that MShabazz has iVoted ("unchanged")redaction twice since the page was relisted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note That's just not true. What's unchanged is that you're still bludgeoning the process. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring the comment I made a few hours ago I commented: Note that MShabazz has already iVoted "Unchanged" following the relist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC) and that he removed [17] my comment without an edit note. I apologize for my carelessly reworded replacement of the deleted edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 3 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh Pre Engineering Test[edit]

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

Non-notable entry exam. Fails WP:GNG and content is suited for website, not an encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

((this article should not be deleted <it is related to a state level standardized entrance test for admission into engineering in various institutions in state of chhattisgarh> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitsharaf (talkcontribs) 09:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last try, or I'll soft delete this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 29 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 2016–17 Kashmir unrest. (non-admin closure)TheMagnificentist 14:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Kashmir Students Protests[edit]

2017 Kashmir Students Protests (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 failed to find its notability per WP:NEVENTS. It is a sensitive issue so it will be better that non-Pakistani/Indians comment on that. Greenbörg (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose.the way you mentioned to find this article in sources is not working you should go for this news, books, images--Baltistani (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 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 Band of Brothers (TV series). (non-admin closure)TheMagnificentist 15:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Toye[edit]

Joe Toye (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)

Joe Toye was an NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank (staff sergeant) or his highest award (silver star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he recovered from his wounds as best he could and went on to live his life, doing nothing to qualify him for a page under WP:GNG. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources about him, including several books. And portrait in a TV-series. That won't happen when you are a no-no.The Banner talk 16:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article subject meet WP:ANYBIO? Would a redirect to Band of Brothers (TV series) be a preferable outcome to deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 16:45, 29 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) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Lukusa[edit]

Edmond Lukusa (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)

Local politician only, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 04:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay K Mulungi[edit]

Jay K Mulungi (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)

Notablity, lack of. slim claim of notability but sources either self-published or flaky. TheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be stupendous if someone could look for sources in Swahili.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 16:18, 29 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  09:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Nature Organization[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources, a press release has been used a few times in the references but that's it. The organisation is at least non-notable and possibly a hoax (see talk page for work by @DeWikiMan: on this). Landscape repton (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 16:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 29 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) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games opening ceremony[edit]

2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games opening ceremony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ceremony for an event like this. Usually these articles are reserved for the Olympics and Continental sporting events. In this case this is below both categories. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 16:10, 29 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. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 12:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 CPISRA World Games[edit]

2015 CPISRA World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following as they are sub articles of the above.[reply]

Swimming at the 2015 CPISRA World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football World Championship Under 19 at the 2015 CPISRA World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 16:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a top-level multi-nation multisport event it should get the benefit of a presumption of notability. A deeper search for sources, including offline, might deliver the goods. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 31 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. There is a clear consensus after extended discussion, which has seen no additional impetus towards deletion since relisting last month. I also note the uncontroversial existence of a more thoroughly sourced article on the software produced by the article subject. Since both articles are fairly short, and it is unlikely that the product (a subtopic) is more notable than its producer, I am WP:BOLDly merging and redirecting the subtopic into its supertopic. bd2412 T 03:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrike[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Press coverage and non-notable media/ online blogs covered as references. Spam Award is found: Red Herring'. Definitely paid or PR driven. Sources are not in-depth. Previously Deleted as well. Light2021 (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:00, 29 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) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Theil[edit]

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

Only ref is a block. No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:09, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meinrad Craighead[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Cannot find secondary reliable sources about this person other than the single one cited in the article EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:07, 29 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) 19:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Moore, Sr.[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth, non-routine coverage from independent reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 15:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:08, 29 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  09:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go Vilnius[edit]

Go Vilnius (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)

Organisation founded in 2016, only 34 employees. Fails WP:NORG. Could be a redirect to Vilnius. Edwardx (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • EDITED: Delete. The article is likely gonna be frequent guest for moderators because of future edit warring and because it seems to attract promotional COI. Also, on second thought, I agree that it fails notability criteria. 31.192.111.189 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)31.192.111.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. The I.P. editor's comment sounds promotional. --doncram 23:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There might be other reasons to delete the article, but notability is not an issue. I just checked and found a lot of Go Vilnius articles in Lithuania's largest magasine Delfi (web portal) (according to Wikipedia) in both [english] and [Lithuanian]. I am not familiar with organisation's importance but the fact that Roger Qiu, director of Ctrip, has meetings with Go Vilnius seems to at least indicate some weight and importance (info from a quick Google search) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.29.2.112 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC) 46.29.2.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Vilnius. Per WP:GNG, there needs to be sufficient discussion of the organization in independent reliable sources. There is not. The unregistered editor posting above says that the organization is "the go to source" for tourism in Vilnius, but strangely the same unregistered editor has negative views about people involved with the same organization in the past. MPS1992 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:09, 29 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. Insufficient reliable 3rd party sources to meet WP:NM -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise 2: Concerto for synthesizer[edit]

White Noise 2: Concerto for synthesizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very short articles which fails WP:NM and relies entirely on a single source. BangJan1999 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 29 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 702 (album). (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Know (702 song)[edit]

You Don't Know (702 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG Derek Andrews (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 29 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. After extended discussion, it is clear that consensus to delete will not emerge. No new comments this calendar month. bd2412 T 01:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seared (play)[edit]

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

Article about a theatrical play, without a particularly strong claim of notability or all that much in the way of reliable source coverage. Mostly this seems to exist for advertorial rather than encyclopedic reasons -- apart from stating that this exists and giving a capsule summary of its plot, the bulk of the content here consists of quotes from theatre critics reviews -- of which two of the three are from local newspapers and show no evidence that the play has attracted wider notice, while the third is from a non-notable WordPress blog. And the creator has an apparent conflict of interest with regard to the theatre that staged it, to boot. Basically, nothing here is enough to justify a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a review in the SF Examiner[29] as well as other more local/bloggy sites[30][31][32][33] and a radio review[34]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu Nadasan[edit]

Sergiu Nadasan (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 are just three non-cruft sources. Let's analyze them:

The first two can be dismissed out of hand. As for the third: a single interview where one spews platitudes such as "I like sunny summers and snowy winters" or "I'd love to mix for a night at Space in Ibiza" simply does not rise to the level of "multiple, non-trivial, published works" demanded by WP:MUSICBIO. Given the scarcity of sources, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 14:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you are calling is from Resident Advisor which is not a blog but a reputable internet database and an authority on the matter with a selection process!
Last time I checked the Wikipedia guidelines clearly specify that sources CAN be in a different language, other then English.
The first two can not be dismissed out of hand.
The third one does seem to be from a very old source indeed.
You also seem to be ignoring other reputable sources and very biased in your opinions. I would also not call releasing music on over 4 different record labels from more than 4 countries on 3 continents as not rising above trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robie M (talkcontribs) 15:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether techno.ro is or is not a blog, the fact that "DJ Shiver", who is a nobody, acknowledges having received "a little help" from Nădășan, in no way substantiates a claim of notability for the latter. As for Resident Advisor, I invite participants to check for themselves: the content is user-submitted. We're still waiting for "multiple, independent, non-trivial, published works". - Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wasn't going to continue fighting you on this anymore but seeing how this looks more and more like a personal, spiteful vendetta of yours with the subject for some reason, and less and less about the actual wikipedia guidelines you so much claim to serve, or else you would have probably started on a different tone and went about it in a different approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers), I think I'll go down with the ship if I must. You cannot wrongfully call them blog posts in an effort to undermine them as sources and then claim it doesn't matter if their not blogs. It obviously matters since you tried to sneak them in as that. You have no authority on claiming who might be somebody and who might be nobody. At least not in this matter. Discogs AND Resident Advisor have both been reliable and reputable sources in the past, are in the present and will continue to be long before you stopped wishing they weren't, as proven by their extensive use in the wikipedia pages of some of the biggest artists on wikipedia. As for the non-trivial, I'm afraid there I might have not been very clear as the non-trivial is inherited in the article, or would you like to name a couple of your own trivial friends that fulfilled the "trivial" tasks of signing different music to 4 different record labels from 4 different countries on 3 separate continents before they turned 26? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robie M (talkcontribs) 06:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:11, 29 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) 19:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Cull[edit]

The Great Cull (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:NOTNEO

This appears to be a term used (meh) by people at times, but evidently in reference to everything besides this, including a lot of sports references. Overall, non-notable term, coined in a non-notable book, by a non-notable author. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 29 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 delete. Per G4, as article meets this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable professional wrestling company/promotion. No sources or content indicate any major success or significance. ★Trekker (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 14:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 14:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAP03: I put a speedy on it, but it was rejected.★Trekker (talk) 16:29, 29 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. North America1000 16:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Udrys[edit]

Darius Udrys (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 individual doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Nothing in the article suggests notability and I can't find anything better in English, though of course there may be better sources in Lithuanian (which I don't read). Neiltonks (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Only a primary source supplied. The coverage in gnews is very routine and very local. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
coverage is still very local. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times search results link given above produces only routine minor mentions-- none are more than a sentence or two. I do think it's a keep, but not on the basis of coverage by the NYT.104.163.153.14 (talk) 08:43, 30 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 and redirect to Nivruttinath.  Sandstein  09:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sant nivruttinath maharaj[edit]

Sant nivruttinath maharaj (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 unsourced biographical article. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukpong1: FYI, when !voting speedy delete it's general practice to put the "speedy" in the bold text at the beginning for the benefit of the AFD bot. DrStrauss talk 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrStrauss: Thanks for for the information. I will apply it next time where required. Zazzysa (talk) 22:27, 30 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Peditto[edit]

Christopher Peditto (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)

DePRODed by COI creator (autobio) without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Fleeting mentions only in the wrongly placed inline external sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:39, 6 August 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 Speedily moved to draft space for further development. Although there is not a clear consensus to delete, the article itself clearly does not meet the standards for inclusion in mainspace. I have therefore WP:BOLDly split the difference and moved this page to Draft:NaagaKannike, where it can be improved and submitted for restoration to mainspace in the future. bd2412 T 16:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NaagaKannike[edit]

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

Non-noteable television show. Comatmebro (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Update- Have added a reference (reference confirms that show exist passes WP:V and also that it's a "Hit show") and also did a minor mos edit. Cannot assure whether it is reliable source. But did my best to save an article from deletion. Left final action upon admins. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Additional comment - Though I am not author of this article, but did my best to save this from deletion. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Demedts[edit]

André Demedts (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)

Multiple non-notable awards do not collectively make this individual notable. KDS4444 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 11:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 29 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. Alex ShihTalk 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lillie Rose Ernst[edit]

Lillie Rose Ernst (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)

While I fully support the idea of us having more articles on here-to-fore unknown women on Wikipedia, I am not certain this individual qualifies as notable per our criteria. The references given are either not independent of the subject (Washington U.), are blogs without editorial oversight, or are trivial mentions in passing (being a member of this or that board or organization). Or are obituaries, which are also considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. What this article needs is a reference to a newspaper or book article that discusses the subject in depth— if that cannot be found, then I don't think we can justify hosting the article based only on the fact that she should perhaps be notable. (A Google Books search turned up so empty it made my head spin! I get more hits than she does! And I am not notable). KDS4444 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC) KDS4444 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Her Place: A Guide to St. Louis Women's History - Page 180, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=1883982308, Katharine T. Corbett - 1999: Lillie. Rose. Ernst. When she elected to not marry, Lillie R. Ernst threatened a social order based around patriarchal families and an economic order based on the primacy of men's work. Ernst, an accomplished educator and administrator ...
Gay and Lesbian St. Louis: - Page 14, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=1467115924, Steven Louis Brawley and the St. Louis LGBT History Project - 2016: lillie rOse ernst. This esteemed St. Louis educator was one of the first women to graduate from Washington University. After graduating in 1892, Ernst embarked on a lifelong teaching career at Central High School. She never married, and it is ...
Sara Teasdale: Woman and Poet - Page 21, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=087049595X, William Drake - 1989: One of the most prominent teachers in the city's public schools, Miss Lillie Rose Ernst, a botanist and member of the Wednesday Club, also lent her patronage to the Potters and attended many of their meetings. Formidable in her starched ...
Women in the arts: eccentric essays in music, visual arts and literature, https://books.google.it/books?id=ElRKAQAAIAAJ, Barbara Harback, ‎Diane H. Touliatos-Banker, ‎Diane Touliatos-Miles - 2010: ... Lillie Rose Ernst, a botany teacher from Central High School whom the girls admired tremendously.17 Highly accomplished and educated, Ernst was dedicated to social causes and became the first female Assistant Superintendent of ...
So your point does not stand. Moreover you said the source is only WU. That is not true, the sources provided are:
Missouri History Museum
Saint Louis LGBT History Project
Mound City of the Mississippi a St. Louis History
The tag should be removed.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sources from a university museum don't really fail the independence test in the same way that other sources might. They're affiliated with a special interest in areas relating to the university, but they are an educational institution at the base of it.
  2. The only "blog" I'm seeing is this one, which is not "some guy's blog", but is the official museum blog, and therefore presumably subjected to some level of editorial oversight if someone decides to just go off the reservation and write some off-the-wall crap and stamp the museum's name on it.
  3. Of course you get more hits; you live in the 21st Century, and while this person lived a while ago, they died in 1943, meaning that they are not old enough for works about them to have conclusively fallen into the public domain (like someone who died in 1850, and was written about following their death). This subject existed in basically the worst time period for our purposes, before the internet but too recently to have been dumped onto the internet indiscriminately because they haven't passed the "intellectual property event horizon" of 1923.
  4. This book (already in the article), commits a full two pages to the subject, and that's just what's available in the preview (my arch nemesis, works too new to be in the public domain). TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, sorry I did not know of this policy, and I was sort of struck by the reason provided for the deletion, cause they were totally against what I learnt, i.e. subject notable for personal achievements, subject covered in multiple sources, references provided for each and single point in the article... I was just trying to understand why it was tagged for deletion and asked opinion to the one people that had "worked" the article just minutes before and help to one editor I know could help me in the "women" biography field.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
S'alright, it should've been pointed out to you before now. There's no harm in notifying people, but thenotices themselves should be neutrally phrased, and preferably directed at a cross-section of editorial opinion. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 12:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, several editors have discussed canvassing with Elisa.rolle. In this case, I think that Elisa was not phrasing things neutrally because she was truly upset. Here is the request to me to take a look at the article, which is neutrally phrased. And here is the request for help after the article was nominated for deletion around 10 minutes later. Elisa.rolle is new to article creation and has faced some growing pains in this area so her consternation, I think, was completely understandable. I have cautioned Elisa not to panic and to trust in the process so that she can avoid the perception that she is canvassing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the kind of reason why we should change the name to Articles for Discussion. I've actually started a thread about this twice and closed the window because... it may or may not be a complete shit storm to get through. TimothyJosephWood 19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Timothyjosephwood I love this idea! I suspect there would be more support for it than you realize. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: I'm sure that's fine; I was referring to something else- less ambiguous, shall we say. No problem. — fortunavelut luna 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi de nada. Would just rather err on the side of caution and make the disclosure. I would have done so whether you had commented on canvassing or not, simply because the timing of the nomination was so quick, that there was not even sufficient time for feedback before it was at AfD. ;) SusunW (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, MShabazz, what does it mean Snow keep?--Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:12, 30 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 Delete per WP:G3 -- a hoax. CactusWriter (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Duque[edit]

Camila Duque (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 consists solely of a filmography table. A search for sources yields no reliable sources which give significant coverage [55]. DrStrauss talk 10:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Bux Johar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:20, 29 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 04:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nusrat Mirza[edit]

Nusrat Mirza (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)

Self-published sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 29 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. @Anoptimistix: you suggested closing this as WP:SOFTDELETE. That's a process used when there was insufficient discussion to form a real consensus. That's not the case here. However, to address your specific concern, should future events unfold and additional coverage appears such that WP:N is satisfied, this can always be recreated. Thats standard practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razzak Johra[edit]

Abdul Razzak Johra (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)

Notable for single event and event is not notable per WP:NEVENT. Greenbörg (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:19, 6 August 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Morley[edit]

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

Lack of independent, reputable sources to verify a number of claims made, such as "largest photographic studio" or "prolific film and television [...] company". While the positions at Hereford Films, Girl Management can be verified through associated sources, there is a distinct lack of independent editorial to establish individual notability. A google search mostly results in results form his own website domain, imdb, local media (essex mag, essex tv) or mention in passing. Specific searches of the archives at the guardian and the telegraph did not result in hits. Also no further mention about the alleged talks to buy "page 3", which was only reported in local media. Therefore, this page fails WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY, WP:INDY and may likely give way to WP:PROMO concerns. The article had been speedily deleted for A7 and G11 before being created again. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannes: Hereford Films Options Shaun Hutson's Upcoming Horror ... -- Variety-May 24, 2017 -- Hereford CEO Jonathan Sothcott said he and producer Damien Morley had been looking to expand the company's business interests into ..."
This is insufficient for stand-alone notability. Film producers are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 09:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Masood[edit]

Salman Masood (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)

Pakistan Correspondent of the The New York Times but doesn't seems to meet WP:JOURNALIST. Saqib (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 08:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 08:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This better tells the quality of articles created by user. Greenbörg (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is he the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize or the team? --Saqib (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhadow: Can you provide the link? Greenbörg (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenbörg: As I said, "to NYT", the team. [56]. He didn't get the byline on these articles, but the "with help of". I've eaten my monthly ration of NYT. Rhadow (talk) 11:40, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubique.com[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, specifically the fact that a company " is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". The sources given are either press releases or routine announcements where the company is discussing itself, which the guidelines state is not sufficient. The sources also seem to be business or trade media, and not broader mainstream media, which the guidelines also suggest is helpful. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my incorrect claim above; but I still feel the rest is valid. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi 331dot, My humble opinion says Economic Times, Times of India, Business Standard are mainstream media in India. I believe PTI covering the company would make it notable enough? You think we need to add more references? Can I add them to the talk page of the article and you can vett it for me? Thanks, MuzzammilB (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MuzzammilB: Hello. I am wondering who "we" is; please note that usernames cannot be shared or represent a group. Fair enough regarding the publishers of the sources, but the sources you offer are still press releases or routine business announcements. We don't need more sources, but more substantial sources. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: "We" meant everyone interested in the topic here. yes Yes, I am not sharing usernames. No wrong practices here. Assist me here - I can be wrong - As far as I understand even for stock market listed companies which make them listed, everything, they announce quarterly to annual results to M&As to public interviews; then will become routine announcements coveraged by these publishers. What do you suggest? I will try and find more substantial references and add them to the talk page. Request you to help me understand them better. Hope to learn from you and get better at editing. ThanksMuzzammilB (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak to every other similar page on Wikipedia, just the page in front of me. Each page is judged on its own merits as this is a volunteer effort among hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Inevitably some inappropriate pages get through and even survive for awhile. In reading the article, it seems to just state that this company was founded, changed its name, raised some operating funds, contributed to some other entities, and lists its offerings. None of that seems particularly remarkable to me. Has this company received any awards or recognition? Has its business strategy been discussed in depth by an independent source? Anything unusual about this company; its mere existence doesn't merit an article, there must be something else about it worthy of mention. Not every company merits a page here. I was also wondering if you are affiliated with this company in any way. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: - Thanks for the pointers. I will try and find some independent sources from perspective of awards and business strategy. I understand your concern about me being affiliated with the company. Unfortunately . lot of people have tried to abuse the platform and your concerns are valid. Fortunately for me, I am not connected with the company. I am an interior desinger based from Mumbai and nothing to do with the company mentioned here. Just another volunteer but not so active and experienced like you. Still learning. Thanks MuzzammilB (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 08:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 08:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two rounds of funding, three years of existence, seven solid references. Better than lots of startups with existing articles. Rhadow (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the "solid references" claim; they are all routine, brief(for the most part) business announcements, which the organization notability guidelines specifically state is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entity has been around for more than three years now and has received significant funding from VC and PE firms. I do not think this article deserves to be deleted considering that it does seem to have robust references such as Times of India, VC Circle, MoneyControl, etc. There is also some good information about the entity in the references cited and they do not read like run of the mill press releases to me. Having said that, I do think that there’s scope for content to be phrased in a better manner and for more references to be added over time.

Let me add something that I’ve been thinking about, I think we’re going to see more of such debates going ahead for two reasons. One, the number of entities coming up all around the world with significant traction from investors and prospective consumers will continue to grow. This will no doubt create an interest among people to learn more about them and in turn drive the creation of more Wikipedia pages. This is perhaps no more evident than in the advent of startups. And secondly, many of these entities will be based in and around a particular geography where the scope for citations will be restricted to a geo-specific media platforms. This is bound to increase discussions such as these on the veracity and authority of these platforms. In this particular case though, Times of India, MoneyControl.com, Press trust of India (Which is like the Reuters or AP of India) are as good a source as one can find with regards to entities based in India.

331dot, I would like to hear your thoughts on this FlyingBlueDream (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My position is unchanged. My issue is not the sources themselves but what they print, as I state at the top.331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two competing standards here: "judge each page on its own merits" and WP:GNG. The page of a similarly situated company, Helium Systems, was deleted last week after four years of operation in San Francisco and two rounds of VC financing totaling $40 million. I'll bet the money goes ten times farther in India, so they are the comparable. At that stage of growth, all you will find in the trade press is a few facts wrapped in a cushion of happy talk. Fine. I acknowledge 331dot's comments, but I'm not sure coverage by the MSM is any better. Take for example this daft article.[3] In my view, WP synthesizes a view of these nascent companies better than the press. WP often mentions competitors, which NEVER appear on the company web site and seldom in the press. I would venture to say that it is a sign of maturity (and notability) when the press DOES mention competitors. It's probably time for an essay on startups. Rhadow (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a few more sources on the talk page after the discussion. Thanks,MuzzammilB (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2017-03-22/whatcom-county-extends-moratorium-on-crude-oil-exports
  2. ^ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/coal-issue-dominates-whatcom-county-election-but-nobodyrsquos-talking-about-it/
  3. ^ Bonner, Walt (July 10, 2017). "BLAZING: 'Hyper Chariot' pods can travel 4,000 miles per hour". Fox News. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Telcontar and similar[edit]

These are all fictional families (or one character with a family) and their family trees from the Tolkien legendarium. I'm paraphrasing here what I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen, where the Game of Thrones equivalents of these articles were deleted:

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) 19:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaena Now[edit]

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

Non notable ep by non notable artist (afd). Sourced to press releases. No independent coverage about it. Textbook speedy A9 but declined. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:02, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrina Broz[edit]

Corrina Broz (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)

According to the source provided, Broz was a member of an Olympic trial team. Regardless, athletes apart of a team do not automatically meet notability according to WP:NOLYMPICS. She needs to meet WP:GNG which she clearly fails to do with only passing mentions and listings. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:13, 29 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) 19:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BetterSex[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable sex toy retailer. The only sources I could find (with some difficulty, given the name) were a press release from the company, and complaining from a religious website that the site was advertising to retired people. No in-depth or ongoing coverage of the company itself anywhere. ♠PMC(talk) 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third party coverage. Rhadow (talk) 09:53, 29 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) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parakkal Family[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Mar4d (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:18, 29 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 delete as per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Amir (singer)[edit]

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

Cited sources doesn't mention the subject. hoax? Saqib (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:07, 29 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) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero waste docked mode[edit]

Zero waste docked mode (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 phrase is a neologism that does not seem to have had any significant use in the auto-industry. The author of this page (Jon Stacey) seems to have been the person who coined this phrase, who runs a youtube channel. -- Salimfadhley (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 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. No consensus to redirect. If somebody feels strongly about the usefulness of the redirects I guess they can create them, and others can then contest them at RfD.  Sandstein  09:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan at the 2011 Summer Universiade[edit]

Azerbaijan at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing of substance, lack of GNG and all information is covered on the parent article. I do not believe a redirect is needed as the country's participation isn't discussed but mentioned (for ex. in the list of countries that took part). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following:[reply]

Australia at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brazil at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canada at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
China at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chinese Taipei at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colombia at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Czech Republic at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finland at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
France at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ghana at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Germany at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Great Britain at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hungary at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Japan at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malaysia at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Netherlands at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Zealand at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northern Mariana Islands at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Norway at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oman at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippines at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russia at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United Arab Emirates at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thailand at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Singapore at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovakia at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovenia at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Africa at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Korea at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spain at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ukraine at the 2011 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:21, 29 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivendell Golf Club[edit]

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

Article about a run of the mill golf course, making no claim of notability that would pass our inclusion standards for sports venues and citing no reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG in lieu. As always, every golf course does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because it exists -- it has to have an actual claim of notability, and actual media coverage to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 09:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaToya Cantrell[edit]

LaToya Cantrell (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)

obvious campaign advertisement by obvious coi editor DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far we've considered that a major political position only in NYC and Chicago...and Atlanta and Seattle and Washington DC and Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Diego and Boston and Detroit and Minneapolis and Philadelphia, and sometimes in New Orleans too (as witness the fact that Category:New Orleans City Council members is quite far from empty). Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no , its rather that some have gone on to higher offices.But promotionalism is in any case more improttant. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just that some have gone on to higher offices; while it's true that some have, the notability standard for city councillors is as I described and not just "New York and Chicago and nowhere else". And again, promotionalism can be fixed through the editing process — if the base notability claim and sourceability meet our standards, which they do, then the promotionalism issue is dealt with by fixing the article tone and not by deleting the article outright. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 30 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) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RRE Ventures[edit]

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

NOT DIRECTORY. Complete absence of encyclopedic information. or substantial third party sources DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 29 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. WP:SKCRIT #4 - The nominator is banned. (non-admin closure)TheMagnificentist 15:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Donohue[edit]

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

No indication of notability except for Demyx from the Kingdom Hearts series. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 29 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. bd2412 T 03:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Ballard[edit]

Douglas Ballard (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)

Advertorially tinted WP:BLP of an alternative medicine practitioner, which has been flagged as a possible WP:COI. Nothing here constitutes a pass of any subject-specific inclusion test, so it's all about whether he passes WP:GNG or not -- but two of the three references are primary sources, which cannot assist in demonstrating notability at all, and the only one that links to a reliable source is not an article about him, but one which merely includes him giving soundbite on another topic. This is not the kind of coverage it takes to pass GNG -- he needs to be the subject of sources that are independent of him, not the author or a giver of a brief quote, to qualify for an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "claim is clearly false and not backed up by appropriate sources" is not a determination that can be made on a speedy basis; we have to cast around for sources. A7 is for subjects that aren't even trying to be notable, so to speak. EEng 13:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, if he were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, then it wouldn't matter a whit whether anybody thinks the claim that he was "given healing and visionary abilities by non-religious direct contact with universal energy" represents a credible truth or a bunch of woo. We do, for example, keep articles about people who can be well-sourced as notable for espousing conspiracy theories, racist, sexist or homophobic attacks on groups of people, and other ideas that are self-evidently false — because it's not the accuracy or falsity of what they say, but the amount of reliable source attention they do or don't get for saying what they say, that marks the line. It's the lack of appropriate sourcing, not your or my personal opinions about the fundamental concept of energy healing, that make this deletable. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 5 August 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JumpStart Toddlers[edit]

JumpStart Toddlers (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:VGRS search turns up exactly four sources, and those seem to be more about tech and babies and not really about the software. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson[edit]

2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson (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 feel in the prior AfD, everyone was distracted by the pressing issues of POV and WP:SYNTH which prevented a meaningful discussion of the notability of the article. Technically, this article still has issues because the person responsible was cleared of all charges, including arson -- making the title incorrect. Regardless, for a fire that caused minimal damage (smoked-stained windows and walls) and no casualties, there isn't any WP:LASTING societal impact. There is no WP:INDEPTH analysis and the brief blimps in the news reeks of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Trump's list can also not be used to establish significant coverage since it merely mentions the incident with 77 other attacks and according to Swedish courts this wasn't terror or arson. Most sources are now outdated or incorrect, an issue that happens with news-inspired articles. There isn't anything to merge since officially no crime ever occurred.

  • Ping TheGracefulSlick, a highly experienced creator of AfD discussions, to format this page properly so that the recent AfD appears in the usual box at top of discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yellow Diamond thank you for revisiting this. I hope you realize merely mentioning an event existed does not make it notable. I urge you to read my rationale above and the corresponding policies. Most of the sources are not reliably reporting the incident and are, in fact, WP:ROUTINE news coverage. If you can distinguish a significant WP:LASTING impact (the Trump list is out since it is a passing mention and incorrect) or post-analysis that confirms WP:INDEPTH, I will happily withdraw this nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BabbaQ yes and I explained quite clearly why I renominated it. Going beyond the day it happened still doesn't save it from NOTNEWS, especially since the sources are no longer reliable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a highly POV nomination, which follows a highly POV rewrite of the article by editor Pincrete. WP:HEY, I have cleaned the article up, to make the facts, chronology and context clear. Note in particular that a suspect was cleared at trial for insufficient evidence. But that after the verdict was handed down, investigators in Germany arrested an ISIS operative making role of ISIS and guilt of suspect clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another key fact removed from the article is the fact that perp was not released after being acquitted. WP:HEY I have now added sourced description of his transfer fromm police to security services after the trial concluded to be investigated for ties to ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you call my 'very PoV edit' had the support of every editor that looked at your sources E.M.Gregory. Your statements that the new 'German' arrest proves anything other than an ISIS reporter have no one's support and have been removed. Proper place to discuss content is talk page. If you want to write an article about the German arrest, do so, not use this as a coatrack, but at the moment there is even less printed about it than about 'Malmo'. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa Editors should look at the description and sourcing in this [59] version of the article; material deleted by Pincrete in his alternative fact version.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shenanigans also that User:TheGracefulSlick withdrew and closed this discussion a few hours ago, then returned and put the article back in place.
  • Knowledgekid87 I respect your opinion at these discussions more than just about anyone else which is why I urge you to re-analyze the article. This article is partially about an arson that is not considered terrorism in Swedish courts and partially about an arrest that cannot be conclusively connected. I would say the arrest of the German ISIS agent is more notable than the arson. Most of the sources are no longer factually correct since they discussed this incident as a terror attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing problematic with including RS reports about a crime in an article, while shaping the article, as I believe that I did, in accord with legal developments and emergence of new facts over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheGracefulSlick: When I heard Donald Trump mention this Sweden thing I was glad it was swept under the rug as it appeared to be nothing. In this source though it states: "“Specifically, Mohammed G had been in contact with a person who committed an arson attack on a Shia community centre in Sweden on 11 October, by mid-September at the latest." [60] Wouldn't this be considered a reliable source? Even if ISIS wasn't involved the Sweden arson incident was brought up again which makes it harder to dismiss it as being non notable. I am open for convincing but reading that source was a factor for me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Knowledgekid87: my take on it is, according to the source I provided in my rationale, there wasn't even a conviction for arson, let alone terrorism. The article seems to rely on the possible connection with "Mohammed G.". If the only thing notable about this is G., shouldn't the article be about him, not a technical arson that caused minimal damage? Gregory's statement that this was the first terror attack in Sweden is both not a claim for notability and is false according to Swedish courts. Unless he has some higher judicial powers that reverse court decisions, I'm not sure the article is focusing on the correct incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • K.e., This article is about an arson fire in 2016; a trial where suspect was not convicted due to lack of evidence connecting him to the arson; how the suspect was transferred from the police to the Swedish Security Service where he is under investigation for ties to ISIS; and it is about how, after the trial ended, the German Security Services arrested Amaq News Agency#Mohammed G. an ISIS propagandist and released information demonstrating links between this arson attack and ISIS, and making this particular arson attack notable for the insight it gave to security analysts because it so clearly established the manner in which an ISIS operative in Germany was involved in inciting series of major terrorist attacks in several countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. Afd discussion runned for 7 days, 3 votes were casted all for keeping, not a single delete vote ofcourse except by nominator. The consensus was for keeping (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix Let's Talk 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Carland[edit]

Jarrod Carland (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:BLP, written like a prosified résumé and not citing even one piece of reliable source coverage about him, of a musical theatre actor and producer. As always, these are not claims of notability that hand somebody an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists -- he must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoziwe: please put them in then. DrStrauss talk 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I get the time I will. In the meantime the strong WP:NEXIST should be more than enough to keep the article. (Have done so before - see Stephen Crean for example.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 30 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.