The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle Nkechi F Anayo[edit]

Apostle Nkechi F Anayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not notable The spouse of a church official who was murdered. He might conceivable be notable, but there is nothing to show that she is. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No inherent notability in being a preacher or a church official, Subject in question fail GNG & WP:BIO.  FITINDIA  02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources I could find are centered on her husband. Notability is not inherited. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:01, 18 June 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  07:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Folkloric Witchcraft[edit]

American Folkloric Witchcraft (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. Nothing found to indicate notability whatsoever. Only blogs and other non-reliable sources. I don't believe that any of the CSD criteria fit for this particular topic so I brought it here instead. Majora (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's kinda embarrassing we even have to have this conversation. One source, their blog. Not trying to soapbox as this isn't the venue, but seems this is a great example of an exploitable hole in our CSD policy. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google Scholar and Google News search reveal no mention of the topic. The only source for the article is the organization's own blog. I poked around it a little, but I couldn't find a "news" or "media" page. On the "About us" page, there's no mention of membership or involvement in the broader community. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. There might be a reasonable argument for speedy deletion under CSD A-11 and/or CSD G-11. This looks a lot like promotion of something the author(s) cooked up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not a real topic of interest in folklore,. Should be removed. User:smithriedel
• Delete per above. It might also be useful to delete American Folkloric Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is the original location of this article's content and currently stands as an unlikely redirect to Folklore. Daß Wölf 01:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I've sent it to RfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is promotional, and the GNG isn't met. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As unmitigated tripe. Non-notable blog musings. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. Why wait? Not worth a redirect to Cochrane's Craft, since it is only tangential. --Bejnar (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 05:56, 18 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly universe and sister series[edit]

ICarly universe and sister series (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)

PROD removed, concern was - This list of trivia is entirely original research. More appropriate for Wikia, e.g. http://zoey101.wikia.com/wiki/Dan_Schneider_universe than for Wikipedia Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTRIVIA, WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most 'X universe' articles are not better - collection of often merged non-notable content. Not seeing much to save this one. Fancruft aka OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or entirely rewrite. The article as it stands is a lot of original research and trivia with no references. Something could be added to Dan Schneider (TV producer) about the interrelatedness of his shows: this topic does have a little bit of media coverage[1][2]. There's even an academic article, "'The Schneiderverse': Nickelodeon, Convergent Television and Transmedia Storytelling" by Helena Louise Dare-Edwards[3] Even though the topic may be marginally notable, WP:TNT applies here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete primarily from Colapninsula's comment. I agree that WP:TNT applies in this context/situation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brimmer[edit]

Jake Brimmer (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:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft move to draftspace as he may well be signed to a top club this summer and soon play senior football, salting is unnecessary at this stage for a 19 yr old Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Atlantic306: Do you own a crystal ball? JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but I don't see the harm in moving to draftspace considering he is supposedly a highly talented player with potential rather than an older player nearing the end of his career Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My comment from the previous AfD still stands: fails WP:NFOOTY, but there is plenty out there to satisfy GNG. Sure there is a lot returned by google about a couple of free kicks he scored, but there are also these amongst others:

1. Potted history of the player on the FFA website.
2. Substantial interview with the player from local newspaper.
3. Significant article exclusively on the player from a national sporting magazine.
4. Polish coverage of the player.
5. Indonesian coverage of the player
6. Maltese coverage of the player
7. Regional level coverage that goes far beyond simple transfer reporting.

There is a lot of "look at this wonderkid"-guff and reports of his free kicks, but there is also plenty of coverage from a local, regional, national and international perspective that goes beyond transfer talk and provides in depth commentary on and interviews with the player. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Fenix down above. Those saying "delete" have made zero effort to engage with the very high number of sources which clearly do exist about this player. The nomination itself doesn't even suggest that he fails WP:GNG. Looking at those listed above and those easily accessible via google it appears to me that he does satisfy GNG. Macosal (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was clear in the previous AFD, that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL; the argument to keep in the last AFD is that he passed WP:GNG. And he still does. In the past AFD I raised two sources that were unchallenged one and two. Add in the ones above, and the keep argument is stronger than ever. And what's with the SALT from User:GiantSnowman for a nearly 2-year old article about a real person, that's never been deleted before? How does this come anywhere close to meeting WP:SALT criteria? Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as this similar AFD showed failing WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant if the subject passes WP:GNG. As Fenix Down demonstrated above this individual has garnered significant coverage and thus passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He hasn't lost notability since last AFD, rather gained it. There's more than just WP:Routine information available, with significant information and independent sources available to warrant his article. - J man708 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 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 Icon for Hire. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Bloomer[edit]

Ariel Bloomer (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 member of a notable band. Delete leaving no redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you opposed to a redirect? It seems a reasonable search term. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a redirect until shortly before the AfD. See the article's history. I'm not adamantly opposed to a redirect, but I don't see the need despite redirects being cheap. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems non notable to me....Sulaimandaud (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete. No indication of any notability outside her band, redirect should not have been reverted. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect the redirect. This is simple stuff - non-notable band members of a notable band get redirected to the band's article. I don't see why people need to be awkward about it. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect the redirect Redirect to Icon for Hire. Not independently notable. --Bejnar (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of reliable second hand references in the article. At a minimum, redirect to Icon for Hire. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jax 0677: But only one of the WP:SECONDARY (not second hand, or even correctly: second-hand) sources discusses the subject. The rest discuss her band. Also, it was redirecting there until you objected and reverted it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 19 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Azerbaijani tribes[edit]

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

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

This is a procedural nomination to clean up articles tagged as potential hoaxes. This article has been tagged as a potential hoax since January 2017 and there was some discussion on the subject at that time. However, there has been no effort to refute the hoax claim since then, so I am submitting it to the wider community for a deletion discussion. On the merits I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this irredeemable, unreferenced mess. So far as I can tell, there's no "tribe" associated with Nakchivan/Naxuana, and most certainly not one called the "Nakchies". The identification of the classical-era Caspians with any extant group of people is highly contentious, as is the identification of the Lullubi with the Kurds. And that doesn't begin to address the claim that most Azerbaijani share a Lullubi heritage (that's [citation needed] because it's probably simply false). The Gargareans, as presented in classical sources, are mythical; although there's probably some initial basis in fact, it wasn't with the creators of the Albanian language (which almost certainly is derived from an earlier language originally spoken in the Balkans, not anywhere near Azerbaijan). There is no Sakh tribe in scholarly literature (or anywhere else, really), and although the etymology of Artsakh is disputed, "Land of Sakhs" isn't generally one of the choices. In summary, I can't tell if this is a hoax per se, or merely uninformed writing that mischaracterizes whatever absent sources it was based upon. But even if we were to agree that an article at this title were warranted (which I'm dubious of), this simply can't be it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - We have List of ancient Iranian peoples, Pontic–Caspian steppe, and tons of other articles that express early tribes and cultures in this region organized in ways that fit how they are organized in reliable sources. In my opinion, organizing them by, "tribes that inhabited Azerbaijan in ancient times" fails the policy, no original research. Where appropriate, the individual tribes could be mentioned in the Prehistory or Antiquity sections of History of Azerbaijan (and some are), but there isn't anything referenced here to be merged. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Appears to be WP:POVFORK with various other problems. Quoting an older message of mine on that article's talk page which also seems relevant: "We already have History of Azerbaijan#Prehistory and Caucasian Albania#History. My initial impression was also that this should be deleted, although since this has already been discussed and the alternative is to improve it, it may be possible. The descendents of Noah claim seemed especially dubious, as all who believe in the Abrahamic Flood Myth consider themselves to be alive because they are also descendents. But it makes sense in the context of etymology, afterall. On the other hand, what can be done if noone improves the article?" —PaleoNeonate - 23:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Linguist^talk|contribs 18:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ware[edit]

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

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

This article was previously nommed & deleted per AfD (link on talk page). In addition to this being a junior athlete, the credits listed here are dubious at best. The first link given ("Dirt Bike Rider") does not list Ware at all. The second link (Dirt Hub) shows him finishing 67th in a race. Third link, Maxxis Championship Results don't show him at all, much less 2nd place. 4th link to Imgur appears faked, actual results on the Team Green UK web page list some of the other riders but not Ware. His name appears nowhere on the Team Green UK site or the Kawasaki site, the page for the event doesn't list him either. With no reputable sourcing other than a 67th place finish in one race this in no way meets WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• New nominations should be on their own separate page, not a part of the old nom page. I have fixed this for you. SkyWarrior 20:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've tagged the article for G4. Should that be declined, I'd vote delete as I agree with the nom. Linguist^talk|contribs 20:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Tagged as G4, which seems appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomi Mi 6[edit]

Xiaomi Mi 6 (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)

Just another phone. Not a "flagship" phone as claimed. Fails WP:GNG. (online presence should not be confused with notability.) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose Deletion Xiaomi is one of the most popular smartphone brands according to multiple sources:

https://www.techzac.com/top-10-smartphone-manufacturers-in-the-world/ http://m.gadgetsnow.com/slideshows/worlds-10-biggest-smartphone-companies/photolist/56223987.cms Charlie pepin (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie pepin: Hi. I agree Xiaomi is a very big company. But the article being discussed is not about the company, it is about their product. The company already has an article: Xiaomi. This product however, is not notable enough for an article in an encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: It is a flagship phone from a popular manufacturer. It is also the second smartphone to have the Snapdragon 835 and the first budget smartphone to have the Snapdragon 835. Charlie pepin (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie pepin: Yes, i am aware of that, but it still does not make the handset notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: What makes a handset notable? Charlie pepin (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Once again, Wikipedia is being used to shill for a company. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as lacking significant, indepth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nominator subject fails WP:GNG.  FITINDIA  05:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 18 June 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 List of hotels in Pakistan. There seems to be a rough consensus that this page does not meet our guidelines. However past that there seems no solid consensus on whether to delete outright or redirect. In the absence of a clear consensus for deletion I generally opt for a redirect. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Karachi[edit]

List of hotels in Karachi (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:NOTDIR. Basically an indiscriminate list of non-notable hotels using news or hotel websites as an attempt to give them some notability Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but trim. Redirect to List of hotels in Pakistan#Sindh. Category:Hotels in Karachi lists three, one of which is under construction, barely enough for a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several items have been tagged for "citation needed", which is fine. We need to "Keep" hotel list-articles in general (within system of lists List of hotels), and merge/redirect not-individually-notable separate hotel articles to them. --doncram 23:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citation needed flags were added by me five months ago, they are not meant to be permanent and since no one else has given any source(s) claiming the notability of those list entries I don't see why they need to exist anymore. Please do explain why we need to "keep" all hotel list articles and include non-notable hotels forming indiscriminate lists or borderline travel guides? Ajf773 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- WP:TRAVELGUIDE; none of the hotels are individually notable. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I say "trim", I mean include only hotels with articles, which presumably are notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per precedence like List of hotels in New York City, List of hotels in Dubai & List of hotels in Metro Manila. Or merge and redirect to List of tourist attractions in Karachi. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't need a hotel list for every city in the world. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I completely agree with @K.e.coffman and Ajf773: —usernamekiran(talk) 00:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Karachi has several notable hotels eg. Pearl Continental, Avari, Marriott, Mövenpick, Ramada, Regent Plaza, Arabian Sea Country Club and more. This could easily be converted into a list, per doncram. Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of those listed are hotel chains. Notability is not inherited based on the fact they belong to a hotel chain, the Karachi franchise must be notable on its own merits. Ajf773 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The "policy" Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not gives examples of community standards of what should not be in an encyclopedia. Reasons not to follow these would be to ignore policy if it improves Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, an indiscriminate collection of information, yellow pages, or travel guide. Listing hotels in every city or town does not offer enhancement to Wikipedia. Adding these lists, contrary to policy, opens the floodgate of allowing other stuff to exist. These "lists" can be found online in numerous places, in the aforementioned yellow pages, and in actual travel guides, so there is no need to convert an encyclopedia into such a vehicle. Using promotional references that are biased by their nature of advertising such as the Marriott Hotel reference, only degrades Wikipedia by telling us just how good the hotel is and not offering any negative views. This slippery slope of travel guide listings, like List of hotels in the United States or List of hotels in Spain, with advertising references for the Mariott is not encyclopedic. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of hotels in Pakistan. Not a strong case for this being a standalone list given the apparent paucity of notable hotels in this city. I think there's a place for listing international chains in country-specific lists, less so for listing individual locations of that chain, but that's an issue for that page, not here. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above List of hotels in Pakistan I agree with postdlf Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. the other lists contain notable hotels. This one does not have any. If some of the hotels can be shown to be notable, then, and only then, would there be a point in an article. There;s no point merging to List of hotels in {akistan, since that list--just as it should-- contains only notable hotels, and none of the ones here would qualify--there is nothing to merge. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I see no reason not to redirect to List of hotels in Pakistan; redirects are cheap. There's no content on this page to merge, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - No content worth merging, no history worth preserving. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Institute[edit]

Aakash Institute (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)

Note: Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aakash Institute (2nd nomination), AFD withdrawn by nominator dated June 10, 2017.

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Although there are 35 references quotes in the article, most fail WP:ORGIND as they rely on quotations and facts from the company or its officers. The others simply name-check the company or include it in a Top 10 list. None of the articles provide any depth of coverage and simply regurgitate company announcements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am aware that this is the third nomination of this article. The first closed as "no consensus" and the second was recently withdrawn by the nominator before I had a chance to finish my searches and comment. I've reopened this AfD for two reasons. The first is because the initial "no consensus" AfD was 4 years ago in 2013 and was a non-admin close who recognised that there was very little meaningful discussion and no apparent analysis of relevant sources. I agree 100% with the reasoning provided. Here is my analysis of the included sources:
  • Business Standard article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR release and relies almost entirely on quotations from the Managing Director.
  • This article is not attributed to any named journalist (unlike most of the articles on the website) and for me, is questionable for reliability, fact checking and meaningful editorial oversight. In my opinion, it fails the criteria as a reliable secondary source.
  • This IndiaToday article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it simply includes the company in a Top 10 list with an extremely hyperbolic description.
  • [http://www.india.com/education/top-coaching-centres-for-jee-main-2017-1715866/ This article also simply name-checks the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH criteria for establishing notability.
  • This hidubusinessonline article fails WP:ORGIND as it relies almost entirely on quotes from the Managing Director.
  • This indiatoday article is an advertorial and fails WP:ORGIND as the pertinent in-depth parts of the article appear to be written by the Managing Directoy.
  • This hansindia article is also not attributed to any named journalist and is therefore questionable for reliability, fact checking and meaningful editorial oversight. This article is unquestionably an advertorial and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This hindubusinessline article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement
  • This Business Standard article fails WP:ORGIND and relies on quotes and facts from the MD
  • This hindubusinessline article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as the company is merely mentioned in passing
  • This Free Press Journal article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR annoucement.
  • This Business Standard article is a PR announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This TheHindu article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This Daily Excelsior article appears to be a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This intoday article is a company announcement and fails ORGIND
  • This thehindu article is unattributed, is a company announcement, and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This thehansindia article repears a company announcement in relation to the "Aakash National Talent Hunt], is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This Pujab News Express article reports on the talent hunt but fails WP:ORGIND as most of the text is derived from company sources
  • This indiatimes article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement
  • This moneycontrol article doesn't appear to mention the company
  • This deccanchronicle article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This ndtv article fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on the MD to provide quotations and facts.
  • This thehindubusinessline article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This UdaipurTimes article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This amarujala article is a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This indiatimes article looks at the coaching industry and mentions the company and gets a quote from the MD. The article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is only mentioned in passing and fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations and facts from the company
  • The Book "The Wealth Wallas" fails WP:ORGIND since it is essentially an interview with the MD
  • This indiatimes article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND since it only mentions the company in passing and then relies on quotations from the MD
  • This indiaeductiondiary article is PR and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This medianama article only namechecks the company and is not about the company but a partner company.
  • This indiatelevision article is a PR announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This hindutimes article appears to be an announcement that the company won an award. This is the PR announcement. In my opinion, this award does not meet the criteria for establishing notability.
  • This thehindu article is unattributed and fails WP:ORGIND as it is an advertisement
  • This tributeindia article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it does not mention the company
• As I stated in my nomination, I do not believe any one of these sources meets the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that an article is being nominated for deletion twice in a week. Its first speedy deletion along with FIITJEE nominated by User:Specialpage was quite suspicious, which violated Wikipedia's deletion policy and deletion process, even when article was not qualified for speedy deletion. Also, this case shows that how deletion administrator are irresponsible, they just deletion article even without checking whither article is suitable for speedy deletion or it's not. Just because a speedy deletion tag has been put, it does not mean, it should be checked nomination was right or just a vandalism.

Coming to the point raised by HighKing.

Most of the media coverage are from mainstream media houses of India. As you stated, should i consider, are all India media houses are bullshit? Are these popular India media houses just a pr or advertising agency? Nope, not at all. Possibly , few of them can be a pr piece, but not all. I do not agree with your statement and your analysis too, which looked quite biased. Your analysis consists some of the links which have not been added to the article. Some media coverage has quotes made by the MD, but none of them has been quoted in the Wikipedia article. And, all facts are verifiable by different media sources not by MD's quotes. Again check, none of the facts are verifiable by MD's words or interview. Facts are verifiable by news sources only.

The tribune article mentions company with name spelling Akash Institute. You say, this hindustantimes article appears to be an announcement that the company won an award, but by reading it's headline it can be clearly understood that award has been won. You quoted, This is the PR announcement. In my opinion, this award does not meet the criteria for establishing notability, but question is where did you this ref? It's not added in article. Please do not confuse editors by false statements. Coverage is significant in the quality and popular press in India. Indeed pass notability. If clean up is required do it.--Elton-Rodrigues 11:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• KEEP as per my vote at previous AFD.--Elton-Rodrigues 11:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for responding and I will attempt to explain further with reference to your comments and queries. I agree that most of the media coverage is from mainstream media houses of India. But that doesn't automatically infer that the references meet the criteria for establishing notability - which is a little different than using sources to establish facts (where, in fact, company sources can be used in some circumstances). I've spent a lot of time looking at the sources - you say that "a few of them can be a pr piece" and I would say that, in fact, nearly all of them are PR pieces. Again I emphasise that we are *not* establishing facts but establishing notability and the criteria for establishing notability is specific about which sources are allowable and goes on to state that those sources must be intellectually independent and also states they must not rely on pieces supplied or written by the company or their officers.
  • I found the misspelled "Akash Institute" in the Tribune India page, thank you for pointing that out. I'm sure you agree that piece fails WP:ORGIND since is not an in-depth piece on the company and is an announcement concerning a visit by the MD.
  • Regarding the award, I also added in this link and this is the PR announcement about the winners. You ask "where did you this ref". I would have thought the answer was obvious - it is because I wanted to find out if it was a major award that could establish notability, therefore I googled the award to learn more about it. As you can see, it is a big stretch to say that Aakash Institute *won* the award seeing as "more than 100 Brand and Leader awards were felicitated" - for the same award! It is also notable that the award ceremony's keynote speaker was Mr. J. C. Chaudhry (the MD) and this (for me) calls into question the "intellectual independence" of the award. Given that there were over 100 "winners" of the same award, I do not consider this award as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. I have not sought to "confuse editors by false statements" but instead to provide *all* of the relevant information. In my opinion, by *not* properly researching the facts, the allegation of misleading editors should properly be laid at the feet of editors who add in information that misleads a reader into thinking that something (like an award) has far greater merit and significance that it has in reality.
  • I've no doubt you believe this topic is notable. If am happy to revisit my !vote if you can find sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- promotional WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HighKing: Somewhere, in some point, i may agree with you. But still the article has received significant media coverage in mainstream media houses in India. Such media houses that includes The Hindu, Daily Bhaskar, The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, India Today, NDTV, The Times of India, The Economic Times and Hindustan Times are considered quite reliable sources. It's still surprising for me that it can'be considered reliable in your opinion. An article at Business Standard reported that the institute is bullshit about its online offering. If all refs are just a pr piece, why do Business Standard reported it bullshit about its online coaching. So, It proves all refs are not just a pr piece. So one thing is clear some of refs can be pr but not all refs. I don't find your statement justifiable.

• Can some other editor perform reliability check of these references added to to article from scratch and check if article is notable for Wikipedia inclusion?

• Do check some article, some of them have been edited or improved by me. Here FIITJEE, Resonance Kota, Career Point, Career Point University, and Vibrant Academy, Are reference of these article complying Wikipedia's policy?

• I have just researched more about the institute and found some controversy related to institute which i have added to the article. I have improved the article by removing unattributed news article and announcement related news. Please do check and if still problem is not fixed, please help the article to improve and comply it as per Wikipedia' s guidelines. --Elton-Rodrigues 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. This isn't what Wikipedia is for, and I'd die happy if companies would start catching on to that fact. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources just aren't independent enough to establish notability. I will ask @Anthony Appleyard:, the nominator of the previous AfD, to comment here as well. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• How independently notable or known-of are the events described in Aakash Institute#Controversy? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:16, 17 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Giugliano[edit]

Toni Giugliano (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)

As per: WP:N

This article reads like a CV. There isn't anything particularly notable about this political candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh666 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Political backroom advisors are not automatically presumed notable just for existing, and neither are non-winning candidates for political office. And most of the sources here are not substantively about Giugliano, but merely namecheck his existence within coverage that is about other things or people — the only two sources that are about him to the depth needed to count for anything toward WP:GNG are both in the context of his candidacy. But such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, because every candidate for any office in any election always generates some of that type of coverage, so its existence cannot be the base of a claim that he's notable because "media coverage exists ergo GNG" — to be considered notable because candidate per se, the candidate must either (a) be shown and sourced as already notable for other reasons besides the candidacy (which, again, the sourcing here is not showing since he's not the subject of any coverage outside the candidacy itself), or (b) be shown and sourced as having had his campaign coverage explode far out of proportion to what could be routinely expected to exist, along the lines of what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010 (which two pieces of campaign coverage is not doing). Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suspect this article may have been created in the expectation that he was going to become MP for Edinburgh West, but he didn't. PatGallacher (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsuccessful candidates for political office have no inherent notability, and there's nothing but routine coverage that doesn't meet the GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unelected politician. --RaviC (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created the article but wasn't notified of this discussion, so haven't had a chance to work on the article. He has been unsuccessful at three elections for European, Scottish and British parliaments so doesn't fulfil WP:NPOL. Over a period of several years there has been coverage of his European roles, activity at conferences, television appearances, etc which means I think he does meet WP:BASIC. There are some significant pieces of newspaper coverage too: [4], [5] and [6]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:37, 19 June 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 10:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Tambe[edit]

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

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

This article and its subject are not notable by wikipedia standards. --2604:2000:E016:A700:85B4:9690:1F70:F1EA (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. Article had been prod'ded shortly after creation, which was contested in good faith by a third party. I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. this article is here to sell the book. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 17 June 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. I'm closing this a little early as the consensus appears to be beyond doubt. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Walters[edit]

Charles L. Walters (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)

Notability. Anmccaff (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Walters clears WP:POLITICIAN with flying colors as an elected member of the New Jersey General Assembly, a fact documented by reliable and verifiable sourcing. This is a bad faith nomination from an editor who has been disruptively editing the article for Sea Bright, New Jersey. That the nominator appears to have ignored WP:BEFORE and was explicitly informed about WP:POLITICIAN only aggravates the situation. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. Speedy keep was in the state legislature, therefore, inherently notable for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First, although in this case the obvious whiff of WP:OWN makes it almost unneeded, it is traditional for article creators to note the fact. Next, State reps, do not clear notability with "flying colors", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes notes that they "usually" pass. A glance at state rep articles suggests why, they usually have other accomplishments beyond the simple fact of election. Genuine notability doesn't lead to a stub based on a short obit.

Next, the article appears to be created in response to a red-linked "notable" in another article. That's backwards, and that has some obvious implications.

Finally, if you beieve this is a "bad faith nomination" @Alansohn: open it elsewhere, and let your article stand on its merits, if any, here. Anmccaff (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject was a member of the New Jersey Assembly in the 1890s. Passes WP:Politician "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". --Enos733 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Wikipedia has a very long-established practice of keeping articles about state legislators. It is discussed occasionally but there has been no sign of any consensus to change this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a side order of snow. People who have verifiably served in state legislatures are kept — they do not have to achieve anything special that would mark them out as more notable than their other colleagues in the legislature before they qualify, because state legislators are a class of topic, just like federal congresspeople, where Wikipedia consensus has decided that our goal is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all of them. Walters served in the 1890s, meaning that proper sourcing is going to be harder to locate than it is for someone who's serving in the house in 2017 — it won't generally be sitting out on Google for the most part, but will require digging into archival sourcing such as microfilms or news retrieval databases like ProQuest — but we know for a fact that improved sourcing exists somewhere, because state legislative politics is a thing that media covers. So this could certainly still be flagged for ((refimprove)), but the only thing a state legislator requires to be non-deletable is the fact that his holding of the office is verifiable in at least one reliable source. Any further issues with the article beyond that are matters for the researching and editing processes, not the AFD process. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the fact alone that he was a state legislator at one point. South Nashua (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based purely on the sources already present within the article. A clear GNG pass. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 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 a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina ice palace[edit]

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

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

Is not notable under the WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search found no nontrivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources so the article should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, affirm above. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 16:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY, WP:ARENAS and WP:GNG. AaronWikia (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. Non-notable and written in a promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 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. Numerically, this would be a clear delete, however, several delete !votes are weak, citing problems with the text, tone etc. as reasons for deletion (WP:UGLY). The core question is notability however and those !votes that argue about it are split whether this person is indeed notable with both sides making good points. SoWhy 09:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Ross[edit]

Marcia Ross (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)

Extremely promotional, ref-bombed autobiography of a non-notable casting director and producer. The requirements of WP:GNG have not been met, and my searches turn up absolutely nothing that counts as "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources." A person does not inherit notability from the projects they work on, so mere involvement is not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NN individual, vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are some independant sources. Granted it should be rewrote, and some of the references are unreliable. Reb1981 (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reb1981: Can you point out the sources that meet the "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" requirement? All I've found are passing mentions, PR, and an industry award that has been given to around 1000 people. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Per refs #7 and #32. Most of those other refs are obfuscating things. Being a VP at Warner Bros. and Disney plus an award is probably enough, and I assume more inferences to notability can be made, but this article is in need of some serious cleanup. South Nashua (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: Come on now, those are both PR references. They're not independent and therefore don't count at AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: and I can't believe one independent source somewhere didn't pick up something from those press releases and didn't use them as part of something. If an expert on this subject can't clean it up in a few weeks, that's one thing, but how it looks now, this article can be fixed if some time is put into it. AFD is not cleanup. South Nashua (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Living Persons are held to a high level of sourcing. If the sources do not meet the GNG then the article must be deleted. Have a read through WP:BLP and WP:GNG - there's simply no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this person. Stick to policy - BLP articles are one area where Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to keep articles because they think sources might exist somewhere. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. I'll give it a look. If I can't find anything, I'll remove my comment. Fair enough? South Nashua (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. Took 30 seconds. Speaking of policy, you should check out WP:BEFORE. South Nashua (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what I'm meant to be seeing. The weak sources are still there and no GNG-ready sources have been provided. Take a step back, this isn't some sort of argument. If the subject met the GNG then I wouldn't have started this deletion discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion and I appreciate it, but I disagree with it as well. This article is a mess, but it can be fixed with enough time and effort. The seeds of that better article are already there. South Nashua (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a glorified CV, not an encyclopedia article. Casting directors and / or documentary producers need to be truly remarkable to meet GNG / BIO; this is not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not overly impressed with the sourcing which I think does not ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - casting director for several major films. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too promotional to keep, would need a rewrite from scratch. No opinion about notability.  Sandstein  09:03, 20 June 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 defaulting to Keep. This is w/o prejudice to a future nomination though I would suggest a reasonable interlude before sending this back to AfD. Perhaps the article can be improved. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WeRe Bank[edit]

WeRe Bank (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 the notability guidelines. Cannot find coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a scam, but it may be a notable scam. The name "were bank" consisting of two frequent words makes it difficult to find references. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I promoted this page from the vast sea of junk that is [[[WP:STALE]] userspace because I don't believe that the notability of a company is in play here, but rather that this is a notable long term scam that several government bodies have deemed notable enough to issue warnings about. It's also an older scam, so I doubt there will be much future coverage and the online accessibility of material may decrease, but the quality of sourcing suggests notability. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember an FBI warning on this scam, but I couldn't find it. If I saw it, that was a couple of years ago. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be restored to User:4shires/WeRe Bank as opposed to deleted if it is found unsuitable for the mainspace per WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4), i.e. If a draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which wouldn't apply in the userspace, it should be returned to the userspace (move). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stalking my edits Godsy. You are following me around like a puppy dog. Godsy also conveniently forgets the community reached agreement that material deemed unsuitable for mainspace should not be retained indefinately. I think it belongs in mainspace, but if the community disagrees, there is no point keeping a WP:STALE draft forever where the author is long gone. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Was deprodded with the rationale put forward by Godsy above. Then moved back to draftspace. Then moved back to mainspace. As I said in the prod: Because of the commonality of the name, very difficult to research. I couldn't come up with enough in-depth coverage to show it merits inclusion. In its current incarnation, it is mostly OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• much as it rankles my inner deletionist-- userfy. I think to Godsy's user space, with the understanding that progress will be made in making this into an article. Considering how long it takes for something to be considered too stale, I think we have a while.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Or back to where it came from. It is clearly not ready for main space. Were it not for the strictures of stale, I would say delete. But it's not dlohkipedia, so meh.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy/Rename no objections to moving it to Legacypac's personal draft space or its original location; the title needs to reflect WP:PROFRINGE if it is kept in main space. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, to Legacypac's. That's the place.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apparently a notable fraud. There does appear to be a reasonable basis for changing thetitle sdo as not to misrepresent the contents. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 14 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Boswell[edit]

Gina Boswell (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 seem to pass WP:Notability. Sources are affiliated with the subject. Nota: Pages about other personnel at the same company may face the same issues. darthbunk pakt dunft 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep She's got quite a bit of coverage in specialist/business press.[7][8][9][10] There's also a Times article that mentions her in the headline but it's paywalled[11], as are some WWD articles[12][13]. Not conclusive, but she holds an important role at a FTSE 100 company, one of the largest in its sector worldwide, and possibly meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator.....Sulaimandaud (talk) 22:16, 12 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neotel (cycling team)[edit]

Neotel (cycling team) (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 is not notable. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable independent sources that significantly covered the subject. Therefore the article does not pass the WP:GNG and should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apparently you don't know, but UCI Continental teams do meet the guidelines for notability. They are professional cycling teams. The article needs expansion, which i was planning on doing today.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What guidelines are you talking about? The GNG didn't say anything about professional teams, last time I looked? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NCYC. it clearly states that all WT, PCT and CT (which this team is) are deemed notable for Wikipedia.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Seacactus 13, meets WP:NCYC XyZAn (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @XyZan: While the specific guideline has been provided, I would like to be reassured that the GNG is passed as well. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally merge somewhere as I believe KAP03's statement about search results and the GNG, and this was a very short-lived team. Keep it until a good place to merge has been found/created. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NCYC. Smartyllama (talk) 13:05, 14 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Nikiforov[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment His player credentials, if true, would pass NHOCKEY (player for Dinamo Riga in top russian league). However I do not believe they are true. On the other hand there are articles like this from NHL.com and this from the Ottawa Citizen, so GNG is a possibility if someone wishes to spend the time on it.18abruce (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep his credentials are true, few Lithuanian sport-related sources where it's mentioned [14] and [15]. Respublik (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it mentioned in english sources as well, unfortunately he appears on none of the riga rosters in available databases. If he played in the late '70s then it is plausible that they are incomplete.18abruce (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Besides the sources 18bruce and Respublik provided, there is also an article about him here. Plus an article in the New York Times, which although it only devotes one paragraph to the subject, refers to him as a "famed hockey coach." So even if he did not play for Dynamo Riga, we have multiple articles about him, plus the Times claiming that he is "famed." And I suspect he did play for Riga, since Lithuanian sources say he did, and Lithuanian Wikipedia claims he did (and I realize that Lithuania Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but I think their editors would know better than us whether a statement like that is correct). So I think he passes GNG, and most likely passes NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Riendog's comments have dispelled my doubts.18abruce (talk) 22:52, 19 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Velarde[edit]

Felix Velarde (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)

BLP article full of puff. No notable article which asserts WP:BIO and subequently WP:GNG. Been prodded twice by two different editors. Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete'NeutralWeak KeepFails a basic google, google-news, and google-books test (both in amount of hits, and given the small amount - quality). Considering the subject's time period and web design activity - there should be ample on-line sources for him if he were notable.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Changing to neutral seeing there are some sources (+BBC doco?). If these are worked into the article - I will change my vote further.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Convinced by User:Fences and windows + BBC doco. This isn't a must-include article, but he is notable. The article needs quite a bit of work, however I think it is better to leave in than nuke.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the sources are lacking, and the profiles included in the article are interviews, and aren't independent. The entities that the subject is associated with are all non-notable, with one (Underwired) having been deleted as unambiguous advertising. The copy is highly promotional, as in: "... was the world's most awarded digital agency in 1999" (according to whom?) Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A broad range of independent industry press references dating back to 1995 or 1996 exist with the surname misspelt either Verlade or Verlarde. I haven't had time to convert the URLs from Google but a simple search using the misspellings shows a range of articles. I will convert these and post these within the next 48 hours. 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:30D7:C237:9752:ED1 (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a total of 7 hits for "Felix Verlade" - Most unusable or passing, one semi-usable - [16]. For "Felix Verlade" there are 17 hits. This is semi-usable - [17] (and this is a copy - [18]). Sorry - still not notable. I'd expect one of the first web designers, as per the article, to have a significant web presence if he were notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Icewhiz curiosity: why? Most internet trade publications and sources were not online in the 1990s; even Apple Expo or the many multimedia and internet expos had no online presence until the late 1990s. Doing a brief search on other digital companies in Wikipedia reveals that a large number of citation sources no longer exist or the pages have been removed. Notability is about achievements, awards and recognition, not about whether something exists on the internet today. Arcane (minor battles, pop producers, industry influencers) does not equate to not notable - fame is not at issue here. Or is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.9.98 (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My own personal experience with coverage - particularly relating to "internet firsts" (which tend to be celebrated years after the fact). Notability is first and foremost whether a person is considered notable by other secondary (or primary) sources - receiving WP:SIGCOV. News archives are mostly good back to the early 90s online (it starts to get more hazy in the 80s) - items that weren't online were often digital originally and uploaded later. At the moment - I don't see this. Books are also fairly easily searchable with google-books now. The only reference I found to him in a book - was - [19] which is really just a directory. If you bring up print sources (if they exist!) - then sure - he might meet notability.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that just because the link is broken - doesn't mean the citation isn't online. As long as the publisher didn't go bankrupt (with no one buying the archive) - the content usually stays online - it might however move (even several times) - to a different domain and/or location inside a given domain.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Further note - His 2000+ activities should have left a source imprint if they were notable. What arguably hasn't is "founded one of the world's first web design agencies, Hyperinteractive" - which isn't sourced in the article. If he was amongst the 100 first web designers - that's probably not too notable. If he was first - maybe yes. But I don't see sources referring to him as such - so what we are left with is an unsourced claim which could also be not notable in itself (say he setup the 88th web design firm - would that be notable by itself? Probably not). In any event - what is key is actual sources. Bring up actual sources from WP:RS - and that is a compelling argument (even if the article is stubbed down).Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Icewhiz. Thank you for explaining, however neither Centaur Publishing nor Haymarket (both the major advertising industry publishing houses, respectively publishing the leading industry journals New Media Age and Revolution as well as Campaign Magazine) have their 1990s archives online any longer. The Financial Times, which carried several articles about the future of the web by Velarde, does not list him in its search results (a statement that is self-evidently unsupportable, but you understand the problem); Apple Expo, at which Velarde was a speaker in 1995 or 96; and Flextech with its Interactive Television trials with - in this case - the world's largest retailer (Tesco) and one of the world's largest conglomerates (Unilever), of 1998, do not appear online. However there are references to two published books which include chapters by the subject: ISBN-13: 978-0749469627 and ISBN: 978-87-403-0560-9. Velarde was not a web designer but an award-winning businessman who was considered (in the UK) to be an industry thought leader in more than one discipline in which he was either a founder or well-known practitioner (for a list of non-notable web designers with neither citations, mentions nor awards, see Wikipedia). There is a lack of citations in several areas of puff in this article, and the article should arguably be reduced to a list of known, cited accomplishments (e.g Head-Space, which is documented elsewhere in Wikipedia), publications (see books above), industry awards, educator status at various business schools etc. The style is disagreeable. I would argue for a rewrite to remove the editorial style, leaving simply the verifiable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:E000:CEE8:CF05:A039 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally the BBC documentary ('In 1999, Holland and his then business partner, Felix Velarde were the subject of "Keeping Creativity", an episode of BBC Knowledge's 15 part series, "The Crunch", profiling innovative entrepreneurs. The documentary was made by Uden Associates and is still broadcast occasionally in Europe as part of BBC Worldwide's business education strand.') cannot be found online at the BBC as its accessible archives do not extend to the period in question, yet it is presumably an unimpeachable source. All remaining references to the documentary are therefore secondary. How is this dealt with?

• http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/10-websites-changed-world/article/1102817 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:E000:CEE8:CF05:A039 (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The speaking engagements and columns don't count for much for GNG (self-published material) nor are interviews necessarily significant. What is needed is coverage, from a reliable source, of the subject himself. The BBC doco - "Keeping Creativity" - might fit the bill, as might the two book references (978-0749469627, 978-87-403-0560-9) - can you post here excerpts from the books or the documentary (or describe the amount of profiling in it of Velarde)?Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Icewhiz, I think the article is possibly worth keeping, with reduced and copyedited article. Found this: Jason Michael Holland, Velardes partner and this: Head New Media which seems to confirm the details in the Management Today article. What we need is the domain name of the Head New Media agency, so it can be checked in the Wayback machine, and have a look at the About Us page if it existed back then, (which I don't remember it doing). scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• url was head-newmedia.com http://www.head-newmedia.com:80/index.html but the captures don't mention Velarde. Previous agency was this one, which has a list of articles that had been published around the time of the capture: http://web.archive.org/web/19961106051220/http://www.hyperinteractive.co.uk:80/articles.html

The BBC film (produced by Uden Associated for BBC Open University) exists somewhere, as does a clip of Velarde speaking about UGC prior to the launch of Head-Space (listed in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Archaeology_Project#Head-space_-_1997 and mentioned in the Forbes citation). Tracking them down may take a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.24.222 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Holding comment. I'm collecting sources about him on the talk page, some added already. I'll finish this tomorrow. Fences&Windows 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no information on the domain, except it was bought on March 1997. The way back machine didn't kick off until 1998. Currently he is not notable, as no sources to exist to verify his claims. Delete. scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to examine his websites ourselves using archives. That is not how Wikipedia works. Hyperinteractive, Head-Space etc. are verified in independent, reliable sources. Fences&Windows 16:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So far there is a BBC doc mentioned and some refs on the article talk page. The BBC doc ref can't be verified, as it's not been surfaced, merely conjecture at the moment and the refs on the talk aren't strong enough for the new WP:BLP rules, they are tenuous at best, and don't prove notability. scope_creep (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See link to .mpg copy of documentary below — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.24.222 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient coverage of Velarde in reliable sources, both in pieces specifically about him and in pieces that feature him (not only in passing). This coverage persists over the years, from 1997 to 2015. This bio therefore meets WP:GNG. These sources were not all trivial to find, which is why others may have missed them. One site, Campaign, can be viewed for free in two ways: 1. Search for the article by title or URL via a search engine. 2. Register for limited access.

• About Velarde.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}

Features Velarde.^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]} Fences&Windows 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment who posted the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:FCAB:8290:E23E:8502 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Fences and windows.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fences&Windows 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is a copy of the BBC doco, stored on Head-Space (end credit states produced for BBC Open University): http://head-space.com/download/crunch.mpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.24.222 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User talk:176.25.24.222 is a SPA account and is likely Felix Velarde himself or a paid shill. I watched the BBC video, the Crunch, which I vaguely remember watching some episodes back in the day, but a few minutes in a BBC video does not make you notable. Most of the profiles included in the article, which are supposed profiles, are interviews or one type of another. The article is complete mess, written as a list of achievements, almost like a marketing skit, with no details of the man himself, and the links above are not strong enough for BLP as they are merely interviews and profile, mostly about his companies and businesses, which make the business possibly notable but not him. scope_creep (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, I'm not a paid shill, but I was involved in Head-Space in the late 1990s. My personal opinion is that he is notable enough to have been in Wikipedia for ten years and to remain despite not being well known outside his industry. My primary concern is that the arguments for removing the article have so far been based on a) the terrible writing, b) the lack of citations (which has been addressed through fairly thorough research by others), c) changing positions by the proposers, ie no refs=delete (fixed), no archives=delete (irrelevant), no BBC=delete (shown), d) merely interviews (don't understand why interviews by credible publications do not show notability), and e) (no offence intended) emotional reactions (despite the fact that user: scope_creep recalls watching the doco themselves presumably 18 years ago). I think there is sufficient coverage dating back a sufficiently long time for the article to be rewritten (clearly needed) or stubbed and remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8209:F000:BD0E:4A4E:1648:FCDD (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I am the subject of this article!) I don't care either way. Felix Velarde 09:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixVelarde (talk • contribs)

• Comment FelixVelarde, personally I think you are probably notable. Anybody that was working back in the early days of html website development in 1993/94 was well known, and is notable. I remember surfing the web with a newly minted comp. sci. degree and reading about these guys who were earning a fortune doing html markup, and thinking whaoo, and a lot of them gained notoriety very quickly. But the problem is, WP now have new rules around BLP which means sourcing must be ironclad in verifiability. And I don't think they are there at the moment. As regards interviews, I think the reason they are not generally accepted as sources, is that they are not always under editorial control. See what the closing editor thinks. scope_creep (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kush Maini[edit]

Kush Maini (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)

Low-level amateur driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A fairly noticed racer. Longevitydude (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed by who? Indian press, which covers every driver who able to race in single seaters? He is a mid-grid driver in the Italian F4 Championship. It is the championship in which drivers go straight from the karting, and even place in the top-10 doesn't mean that he will go anywhere higher. Even the Italian F4 Championship leader's article was deleted because of lack of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Job van Uitert. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Ok, I believe you. Strong Delete now looks like one event. So much for WP:N. Longevitydude (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiLana[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. St0n3 BG (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom has made several of these nominations which clearly are notable. This one appears to pass WP:GNG even if unlike the others it has no wp.Bulgarian article behind it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, non-notable singer and reality-tv actor. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per User:In ictu oculi. Article needs work, but appears to pass GNG, which is we need. Montanabw^(talk) 23:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This one is not clear cut. However after three relists it's time to close this. IMO the weight of consensus and argument favors deletion and I don't think it's close enough to call it no consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Steven[edit]

Brandon Steven (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 had prodded this, but it was pointed out that this had been BLP-prodded before in its complicated history (a result of copy/paste jobs). It has also been at AfD--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Steven. So I'm choosing AfD again: non-notable local car dealer who made the local papers a few times--not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The Wichita Eagle is not exactly a "local" paper but is widely considered a regional source with circulation reported at 47,000 weekdays and 100,000 on Sunday. I don't buy the pitch that just because he's a car dealer means he's not notable. There's significant coverage here -- mainly from Wichita Eagle, but other sources too. Some of it looks a little awkward at times so there's some BLP issues to edit around.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Big deal poker player – see Poker News which passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looks like a vanity piece for a local businessman.--Rpclod (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A non notable local businessman Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paul McDonald. Significant, non-trivial coverage in a regional newspaper, plus a few other scattered sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete car dealers aren't generally notable. Coverage in the Wichita Eagle is not enough for general notability, and neither is finishing 10th in the World Series of Poker main event. I agree it's a marginal case, but there are WP:BLP/NPOV concerns in the article as written, so my vote is Delete. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a glorified CV of a nn entrepreneur. Reads like WP:ADVOCACY; no value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local coverage is local coverage, no matter how many people read that local paper. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies[edit]

Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 11:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename probably notable but this article has the wrong name - the organisation is called Semta. Peter James (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim of notability. Peter James is correct regarding a rename if the final decision is keep. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 13 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Guay[edit]

Joseph Guay (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)

Possibly non-notable artist (I'm not certain). The article is written like an advert, with a bunch of improperly-formatted URLs which don't appear to me to satisfy WP:GNG. A Gnews search threw up only two articles which might satisfy GNG: Curbed[20] and Billbord[21], but I am not sure that Curbed is an RS.
Note that the text was pasted in one blob[22] with the edit summary Uploaded the entire BIO for "Joseph Guay" which implies a possible COI or copyvio (though I haven't found a source for any copyvio).
If kept, this needs big cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Curbed source seems okay. I've read this exhaustive New York Times report on the source; NYT mentions: "To create that balance of power, the information needs to be reliable, and Curbed has made strides in ensuring the accuracy of its reporting." That, combined with the Billboard source and exhaustive reviews on the subject's work like this make me tend towards Keep. The subject, in my opinion, seems to qualify on GNG and perhaps more so on WP:NARTIST, having originated innovatively new concepts, which have been covered by multiple reliable sources. Of course, you are right. The article needs to be cleaned up significantly if kept. But this is not a TNT case. Thanks. Lourdes 10:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional blah-blah-blah with no sign of a single tangible accomplishment. Reliable sources are very thin at best. This is the only article edited by its major contributor. --Lockley (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and reduce to a stub. In its current state it's almost entirely promotional garbage with an unquestionable COI; how does the editor know that his sister is a well-established esthetician if not through some personal connection? The peacockery is insufferable and many of the references are noting but announcements. However, the subject does meet some of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE; his work has been the subject of some critical attention and his work is in notable collections. Hack away, please. Mduvekot (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a well established artist in the Atlanta community and his photography is known in international publications credibility as an artist and photographer: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Underwood (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He just about meets WP:GNG through the Billboard article and various Atlanta-area publications (primarily writing about his wall project). A lot of the cited references in the article are weak and a couple look like press releases. Taking photos of Elton John isn't itself a sign of notability, although John is well-known as an important collector of photography. The article and some of the keep comments over-sell him (posting a bunch of links to Google searches does not establish notability). But we should try and evaluate it dispassionately and while it's arguable I think he's just about above the bar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:46, 12 June 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. Not exactly unanimous but IMO the weight of consensus and argument favors Keep. If this were the first review I'd relist it. But after three relists it's time to for a judgement call and that's mine. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Del Percio[edit]

Susan Del Percio (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 of a political consultant, which is (a) written more like the sell-yourself pitch at the top of a LinkedIn profile than anything resembling an actual encyclopedia article, and (b) parked on a single primary source rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about her. As always, political campaign strategists do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing; they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a mistaken tweet by a politician referenced her. [34]. She also sometimes writes articles for newspapers. [35]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not by being the author of media content or by getting tweeted about. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Weak keep For what it is worth, there seems to be a lot of hits in reliable sources for her name in search engines. LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a fair number of hits in reliable sources which glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other subjects; there do not seem to be any significant number of hits in reliable sources which have her as their subject. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since she is a long time political consultant, there are many passing mentions of her, and brief quotes of her doing her job, and tweets. Today, for example, she is irritated at a hotel with broken air conditioning. But I have been unable to find any significant coverage of her that demonstrates that she is notable. As always, I will change my mind if someone brings forward solid sources and adds a few good references to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your request is reasonable, so I ran a search with "Cuomo" as a keyword to see if there were "solid sources and added a few good references", found some, and added them to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There seems to be a lot of coverage by unreliable sources on both sides of the aisle. The few reliable sources give no more content than has already been revealed in this discussion (like [36]). But there are a LOT of unreliable sources covering her. The one incident with the like susan del percio hot tweet isn't enough per BLP1EVENT. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (No way this fits BLP1EVENT) Political consultant who has been a regular panelist/commentator on PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show, NY1, and Politico. A gNews search on her name is persuasive [37]. I have sourced the outline of her career to reliable daily newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Subject has had significant coverage by reliable sources, not just passing comments, which makes her notable. Reworked the article plus removed a social media link. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:02, 6 June 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I would however suggest a reasonable interlude before sending this back to AFD in the hopes of article improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Boldt[edit]

Laurence Boldt (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)

Author fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR; total lack of independent WP:RS.

Ineligible for PROD, PROD'd in 2008 for notability concerns & de-PROD'd because "Zen and the Art of Making a Living has a respectable Amazon uk ranking". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment His works are subjects of instructions in courses at Stanford (Design course), another course at Stanford (EDUC 338X), Duke University (Integrative Health Coaching course), Wake Forest University (program for not-for-profits), UMASS.edu (295C), Suffolk County College (HM60), UCLA, ACTCM.edu (ACM6545), Aquinas.edu, University of Notre Dame... Lourdes 16:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: His works are taught in college courses. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Total lack of reliable sources. Although his books feature on a few courses, that doesn't guarantee notability. Some of the courses are not mainstream academic subjects, e.g. he's included alongside texts on acupuncture and WP:FRINGE medicine here[38] and in other courses he's just one name on a long reading list or given as supplementary reading. He's not part of any widely used syllabus, or either subject or author of a commonly-used textbook, and he's not the subject of significant published criticism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colapeninsula, I understand what you're saying. Yet, I feel there are some examples that are compelling. Wakeforest University mentions in their Non-profit Immersion Program that they teach the program...: "...through discussions and reading various articles and books, including ‘How to Find The Work You Love’ by Laurence Boldt and excerpts from the anthology ‘Leading Lives that Matter.’...",[39] it provides support for the enduring significance of this author's works. UCLA's course on Leadership And Spirituality teaches “Service: The Call of Compassion” by Laurence G. Boldt as a course assignment.[40] Similarly, one of the tuition courses at Aquinas College has this statement: "Laurence Boldt authored The Tao of Abundance, and in this class through small group and experiential learning, we will explore samples of his text and engage in dialog and exercises to examine how we spend our time, circulate our gifts and talents, and how we cultivate chi or energy and joy in our lives".[41] All this, in my opinion, provides support for the enduring significance of the subject's works. With respect to whether the author's works are notable, I feel WP:NBOOK helps here, which mentions that any book that "has been the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" is notable. Would be nice if you could comment on this interpretation. Thanks. Lourdes 01:19, 14 June 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. The sole Keep !vote cited no policy or guideline but in the absence of any other participation after two relists, it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravipudi Venkatadri[edit]

Ravipudi Venkatadri (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 evidence of notability either in the article or based on a Google search. Only hits are on his own books, which only means that he wants to be notable, not that he is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Some notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. With only one !vote (keep) after two relists it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Boeva[edit]

Tanya Boeva (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)

Hardly notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER . She had some hits in her home country over the years, and minor media coverage but i don't think that's enough for her to have an article here. St0n3 BG (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep again, seems to have sufficient sources on Bulgarian article, and again nom has made several of these nominations which clearly are notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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