< 19 June	21 June >

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Russia and Southeastern Europe)[edit]

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

We already have List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and so we don't need separate articles - Sources so far in the article are extremely poor and unfortunately I cannot find any better, Fails NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per:

I would also add this one as a second nomination:

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic
Delete all All copies of the main article, and we can always mention what CN shows they don't broadcast in their individual articles. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here Category:Lists of Cartoon Network television series shows every other list of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network article specific to region. Ajf773 (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, would be better as a category. DrStrauss talk 21:29, 27 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anastagia Pierre[edit]

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

Subject has won a lot of titles and appeared on a reality tv show, but there is no evidence (in the article or through extensive google searches) of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. There are a lot of hits but they are mainly fluff pieces about her meeting Prince Harry in a one-off encounter and I can't see how that contributes to notability. Bahamas Weekly articles seem largely to have been provided by the Miss Bahamas Organization and thus can't be considered independent. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable pageant contestant. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several independent sources with significant coverage The Cayman Reporter, Breaking Travel News (where she co-hosted the World Travel Awards), IMDb (appeared in HBO "Ballers"); and the fact that it was a published story in major news outlets in regards to Prince Harry, thus WP:GNG is met, so the more specific notability guidelines don't matter. The Miss America Bahamas and newspapers of the Bahamas are too separate entitles as well and are third-parties; similar to articles written in the Cayman Islands, which is a separate geographical entity. Nom admits that "she has has won a lot of titles and appeared on a reality tv show", furthering GNG. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but those claims to evidence of notability are laughable. The Cayman Reporter article is about someone else entirely and simply name drops Pierre as a trainer. Ditto the Breaking Travel News (also not a reliable source) - being name dropped as a host of an event is not significant coverage nor does hosting that event make her notable. The Prince Harry thing is WP:BLP1E if ever I saw a more perfect example of it. IMDB is not a source that can establish notability. If the articles in the Bahamas news are simply entries provided by the Miss Bahamas Org rather than actual news they cannot be considered independent either. Lots of people win pageant titles and appear on reality tv shows, and as K.e.coffman says, they are routinely deleted or redirected. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable (did not place in Miss Universe pageant). She failed to meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable perennial Beauty pageant contestant who never reached a level of notability. Name dropping is not the same as significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Johnston[edit]

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

Non-notable reality tv personality/actor. No evidence (in the article or through extensive google searches) of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability guidelines under WP:BIO. Does not have significant coverage in third-party sources; the top google hits are for another person with the same name.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not true. This Deanna Johnston with a T is still the top Google response. Did you mistype?JefferShip (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry JefferShip but yet again you are showing a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's WP:NOTE and WP:BIO guidelines. I strongly recommend you read those and WP:RS --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. The article has only one source, and the argument that something is a top hit on Google adds nothing to its notability. DrStrauss talk 21:31, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Red Couture[edit]

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

Contest PROD (which was removed with a tirade against "Wikipedia staff"). The subject is a drag performer and host, however the only references provided confirm the existence of the show she hosts. The "Filmography" section contains a list of other performers who appear to have been on the show in the past, which perhaps points to notability for the show itself, but not necessarily the host. I note, too, that this comes uncomfortably close to being an unsourced BLP BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a professional wiki editor. All I know is that this person is just as famous as all the RuPaul drag queens and moreso. And if you people would get a damn life and research before deleting things....it would be nice. All you do is anger people that have contributed for over a decade! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photolarry (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 21 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) 00:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. I can't find any good ones, and all the existing sources are connected or likely connected to the subject (I believe anyone can add/edit entries on IMDB). - GretLomborg (talk) 04:52, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental Melee[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, which would involve independent discussion of the game. See notability of games and |Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, since this appears to be only about some of the details of playing the game. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled a bit, and I can't even be certain WHICH game this refers to. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N; finding no significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoodi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced since re-creation in April 2006 after deletion at AfD in Jan 2006. Had substantial content until recent major surgery to article, but no sources, and Google search found only a directory-type listing. No evidence of notability. PamD 23:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On the plus side, the article is potentially expandable with content from a New York Times article on the city's swing scene, and a book on the history of swing dancing. These few sentences, however, are all I could find in reliable sources; I'm not convinced that's enough significant coverage to warrant an article. gongshow talk 01:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and WP:SALT. Nothing indicating WP:CORP found. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 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 speedy close. Wrong namespace. To nominate this category for discussion, please go to WP:Categories for discussion. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mergenthaler Linotype Company typefaces[edit]

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

Duplicates the "Linotype typefaces" category. Already tagged for speedy deletion by the category's creator (who hasn't edited since), I suspect for this reason. Blythwood (talk) 23:47, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safiya Nygaard[edit]

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

Not that notable to worthy of article. Moreover all the refs are videos from her own youtube page Sulaimandaud (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:35, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Atef Aly[edit]

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

This autobiography does not establish biographical notability or general notability. It is nearly incomprehensible, but it doesn't appear to contain an obscure explanation of why the author is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as this appears to be an autobiography of a person with no support from references that have written about them. Also the books do not appear to have ever been reviewed. Wikipedia is being treated as though it were linkedin. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly a vanity page - GretLomborg (talk) 04:36, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IvaVerse[edit]

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

Declined CSD A9 as we have an artist for this. Was redirected to her page at one time, but that was reverted. Probably we should just do that rather than deleting entirely, but this has no free-standing notability. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 19:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An EP with hardly any independent sources. No prejudice against a redirect though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:14, 22 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. Consensus is that the available sourcing does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organisations. Many of the Keep comments cite considerations outside the notability guidelines. While these aren't inherently illegitimate it is harder for these to overcome comments which do draw on notability. Hut 8.5 21:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rose Anarchist Federation[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no reliable secondary sources. Vice doesn't cover them in any detail, one source confirms they were founded, that's it. Nothing better found on Google News. Huon (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to flagging this entry for deletion by the author: Below I have included numerous references in radio, mainstream press, and radical left printed and online publications. There are also existing references to the organization in the Platformism wikipedia entry and an entry for the group in the German language wikipedia. The existence of the organization is well established and the wide variety of sources, media, and websites all confirm this.

Wikipedia reference: Platformism: Group is listed in Platformism Today section: "Black Rose Anarchist Federation/Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN)[13]' in the United States," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism

German Wikipedia entry on Black Rose Anarchist Federation: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rose_Anarchist_Federation

Media references: The Final Straw Radio Podcast: "This week we spoke with Romina and César, who are two members of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation in LA." https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2017/03/05/i-dont-know-about-yall-but-im-in-it-to-win-it-a-conversation-with-black-rose-anarchist-federation-in-l-a/

Free Flow on KCHUNG in Los Angeles. Listen 1:00-1:05 for introduction for Romina Akemi, a member of Black Rose on her piece "Breaking the Waves" discussing anarchist feminism. http://lacarchive.com/item/free-flow-15

The Oregonian. May 3, 2017: "A member of Black Rose, a local anarchist group and one of the march's organizers, said on the organization's Facebook page that police use of force instigated violence that hadn't been happening." http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_may_day_march_organiz.html

The Oregonian. May 23, 2017. Op-Ed written by member: "Ayme S. Ueda is a member of the Portland Black Rose Anarchist Federation/Federacion Anarquista Rosa Negra. She lives in Southeast Portland." http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/05/may_day_protest_the_view_from.html

Writings Authored by members of BRRN: Truth Out author bio for Javier Sethness listing 10 published articles: "Javier Sethness is a libertarian socialist and health care provider, author of Imperiled Life: Revolution Against Climate Catastrophe, For a Free Nature: Critical Theory, Social Ecology, and Post-Developmentalism, and Eros and Revolution: The Critical Philosophy of Herbert Marcuse. He is a member of the Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, and his essays and articles have appeared in a number of radical publications. " http://www.truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/45576

Truth Out author bio for Enrique Guerrero-Lopz list two published articles: "Enrique Guerrero-López is a member of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) and a participant in Solidarity Networks in Austin, Texas." http://www.truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/51280

"Breaking the Waves: Challenging the Liberal Tendency within Anarchist Feminism" By Romina Akemi and Bree Busk. Published in Perspective Journal No. 29, (Spring 2016), issue theme "Anarcha-Feminisms." See issue description: "It also includes a manifesto challenging liberal tendencies in anarchist feminism by two members of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation writing from Chile, and drawing on South American militant movements" https://www.akpress.org/perspectivesonanarchisttheorymagazine.html See also full text of the article together with the author bios at the bottom: https://anarchiststudies.org/2016/06/29/breaking-the-waves-challenging-the-liberal-tendency-within-anarchist-feminism-by-romina-akemi-and-bree-busk/

Web series "No Borderd" that was sponsored by Black Rose:"No Borders, Social Struggles across the world (Sin Fronteras, La lucha social a través del mundo), is the name of a web series presenting experiences of social organizations and anti-capitalist resistance in different regions of the world. ... The first season of this web series was realized with the collaboration of Black Rose Anarchist Federation Locals (EEUU)" https://eng.surnegro.tv/third-chapter-social-struggles-boston/

Reposting of BRRN articles by similar radical left media pages:

It's Going Down https://itsgoingdown.org/author/black-rose-anarchist-federation/

libcom.org https://libcom.org/tags/black-rose-anarchist-federation

Social Media: See Facebook page with 26,000 followers: https://www.facebook.com/BRRNfed/

Other references: Rational Wiki listing of current anarchist organizations: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_organizations

Left Forum 2017 Left Forum 2017 Exhibitors: https://www.leftforum.org/left-forum-2017-exhibitors

Cali1155 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS to see what counts as a reliable source for establishing notability. Sources cannot be wikis (like Rational Wiki), social media (like Facebook), or self-published sources like an organisation's own web page or that of sister organisations, and news stories written by campaigners via campaigning websites won't normally count (unless they have rigorous editorial procedures and have a wide reputation for trustworthiness). You need to do more than prove the organisation exists (I don't think anyone disputes that): references must provide in-depth coverage, a couple of paragraphs at least specifically about the organisation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Colapeninsula: I have read and understand the guidelines. I have also included additional links in the entry which show coverage of activities by external and non-campaigner websites. There are now five citations of non-campaigner news outlets that reference or discuss the group and it's activities including The College Fix, North Jersey, The Guardian, The Oregonian, and Vice News. But there are plenty of entries that list major and minor organizations on the left that do not seem to be held to the same criteria. Also there is an existing German language wiki entry on this organization. And the Platformism wiki page now links to this page. There is also wiki entry for [Struggle] which merged into this group. You can verify this by looking at the archival website of the former group nefac.net

Next, take a look at the entry for the [|International Socialist Organization], which is the one of the largest Trotskyist organizations in the US. All citations used for the sections for the Introduction, Ideology, and History (citations 1-19) all cite the organization, campaigner websites, or publications written by members of the organization. Even the citations in the Activities section mostly are either dead links, only mention the presence of the group at a demonstration or link to the organizations publication. Cali1155 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are 8 citations linking to mainstream media that discuss the activities of the group and establish notability. These include The College Fix, North Jersey, WXXI News, TWC News, USA Today, The Guardian, The Oregonian, and Vice News. Cali1155 (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am in favor of automatically keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to the size of the organization or its ideology. This is the sort of information that readers have a right to expect to be covered in a comprehensive, universal encyclopedia. If you want to file this under the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia), so be it. This does seem to be one of the leading anarchist organizations in the USA, for what it is worth, which is not to say that the group is large. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anarchism in the United States or delete. I'm not seeing any evidence that this org has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) In particular, the eight "mainstream media" citations above go into no detail about the org. They either mention Black Rose by name once without saying anything more or they don't go into any depth at all. Most of the sources, it seems appear to be about individual members rather than their actions in aggregate. This would be fine if the sources went into depth on those individual's actions as they pertain to the group or to the group's ideology, but I don't see them doing that either. Many of the sources are also affiliated with the members (primary sources, written by them) and thus can't be used to show how the org is notable in the independent press. The article's completely dependent on primary sources for basic details, and even with those removed, there's no reliable detail with which to do justice to the topic. Ping me if you have more sources, but I don't see the case for an separate article based on what stands. Anarchism in the United States is a mediocre target for redirection (bad sourcing) but the org is at least mentioned by name in the penultimate paragraph, while Common Struggle doesn't have reliable, secondary sourcing of its own. czar 01:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a German wiki article on the organization can anyone comment on whether there are foreign language sources to establish notability? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're all primary sources that don't establish notability czar 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG. Just WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable organisation; sources are primary or local. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is just a reminder that in deletion discussions like this (and also at AfC) you are asked to not make off-putting comments—the fact that something does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines does not make it inherently unremarkable. If inherently notable was the only criteria, then I would support inclusion, but we need independent secondary sources that speak to that inherent notability. In fact, editors have time and again been requested to explain carefully explain our notability guidelines precisely so new editors will understand the policy reasons for the decisions and not feel as though we are passing a judgment on the worth of their projects or work. Especially in a case like that, which appears to be a good faith attempt at article creation by a new editor (This editor made his first edit 4 days ago and it was to create this article.) A comment like "WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable organization" is unecessary Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mainstream media sources cited show a level of activity over several years and in various regions/cities in the US. By their nature far-left groups such as this are unlikely to give interviews providing details on their group such as membership figures, etc. Anarchism is a notable global political current in the far-left and this group does appear to be the largest and most active anarchist group within the US. I have reviewed the WP entries for numerous US-based far-left and socialist groups and nearly all could have the same criticisms apply such as most sources citing materials written by the organization and press coverage providing little detail on the actual group). But WP should be a resource and archive for helping the public better understand the histories and politics of these groups. Cali1155 (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not that and editors who come to Wikipedia with an idea of what WP "should" be are usually asked to read WP:ADVOCACY Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm well aware of WP:ADVOCACY guidelines. WP:PILLARS states that articles should be written in a manner that documents and explains in a neutral tone and that WP combines aspects of an encyclopaedia, which “is a reference work or compendium providing a comprehensive summary of information … from a particular field.” And just as WP would have entries for the Republican and Democratic parties, providing a “comprehensive summary of information” is best fulfilled by including entries for minor parties such as the Libertarian, Green or Constitutional party and even regional parties that only exist in a single state. Cali1155 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage fails WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The specific standard this article falls short of is the notability guideline for organizations, WP:ORG. The sources originally in the article, and those subsequently added, generally fall into one of three categories: Some are by Black Rose members, some are published on anarchist sites of dubious reliability, and those which were published by clearly reliable independent sources only mention the Black Rose Anarchist Federation in passing - those do not represent the depth of coverage we require (see WP:ORGDEPTH). Huon (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doubting the reliability of sources stemming from a specific political tendency simply for being of that tendency is an incredibly biased and subjective form of moderation. Also for the organization to be mentioned in passing makes sense for a political organization of a radical nature. Your standards are obviously biased and fail to recognize the circumstances in which such an org would not be forthcoming with things like membership stats etc. Together the 3 sets of sources provided illustrate a clear notability within the movement and within the locations they are active. — 2.84.9.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Except even these mentions are trivial, lists of attendees and such. This is not enough to establish notability, as not even fellow anarchists consider them worthy of more then a couple of lines.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:RS to establish notability - GretLomborg (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of SPS sources, and a couple of trivial mentions in RS, sorry not seeing any notability here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anarchism in the United States or delete. Please note that the French and Spanish language pages are actually for the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists which is already a redirect to Anarchism in the United States ! Leutha (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, or really anything at all that establishes notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: offers few WP:RS and gives no indication of passing WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 06:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anarchism in the United States. Obviously anarchist groups are unlikely to get decent coverage in mainstream, reliable media outlets. This still presents a problem for us, because without such coverage we can't be sure that we are writing an accurate and balanced article. However, it might be a reasonable search term, and a redirect would be cheap and of assistance to our users. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The sources provided illustrate at the very least notability within the anarchist movement and within the locations the organization operates. I think you all need to ask yourself if you are really holding this to an honest and meetable standard for a radical organization or if certain anti-anarchist sentiment is influencing your ideas. One comment above for example questions the reliability of anarchist sources, as if any source is inherently relatable and as if anarchist sources aren't a reasonable place to look for information on anarchist movements generally actively ignored in more mainstream outlets. The sources here allign closely and in many cases surpass the quality of sources for a wide variety of small political organizations and there should be a basic acknowledgement that the largest political organization for a notable tendency in radical though in the US warrants an article. — 2.84.9.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

I note that the first two "anarchist" sources are either a Trivial mention (and appears to be by members of the organisation, thus is not independent) or does not even seem to mention this group.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that even the anarchist sources seem to largely just say "and Black Rose Anarchist Federation showed up", one sentence trivial mentions (in fact the largest just seems to be "they came, they listened, they left", about two lines). So there is no indepth coverage, even in dubious sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 29 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 20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of tear gas manufacturers[edit]

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

A fine example of points 1 and 5 of WP:DOAL, and then some. I can't envision a need for this list as a freestanding article, the list obviously isn't complete, it appears to be a magnet for non-notable companies to add themselves via inline external links (without references and without filling in requested information), and the notion of "notable uses" of a company's tear gas is bizarre and appears inherently unconfirmable. (Caveat: I haven't nominated a list for deletion before and if I did this wrong, I kindly implore someone to tell me where there are better instructions and/or guidelines; I looked, and gave up after a fruitless half-hour and plowed boldly ahead.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 1/5 of the companies has a WP article (and even that 1 - just barely). Probably far from complete. Tear gas is not a particularly notable implement of war or a particularly notable or difficult chemical. WP:NOTCATALOG.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-complete, subjective list. Kierzek (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What does this have to do with point 1 of WP:DOAL. As for point 5 - there are plenty of notable companies that produce tear gas, in fact most of the companies that produce tear gas seem to be notable. There is more then enough in published books (mostly books) to preclude deletion through AfD. There is TransTechnology, which has been covered in many books; Condor, who has been the subject of numerous articles in mainstream publications, including WSJ; Combined Systems, Inc - one of the companies mentioned in the article - has been discussed in published books; Federal Laboratories .... None of the reasons given above have even a remote connection to our policies on deletion. "Tear gas is not a difficult chemical?" "Non-complete subjective list?" What could possibly be subjective about whether a company produces tear gas - they either do, or they don't. I don't see a single policy reason that would justify deleting this article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not difficult = tear gas could be produced by just about any chemical concern. It could be carried by just about any police/non-lethal weapon manufacturer (who might manufacture either entirely or by repackaging the chemical into tactical rounds). It is a trivial compound. Would we carry an article with a list of companies that produce blue paint? At some point, this becomes trivial. The current article state is rather poor - in terms of only company deemed to be notable enough for a wiki article, in terms of list completeness, and in terms of "Notable uses" (since when is this the subject of a list? Should we place such a list next to ammo manufacturers and track each time live ammunition (and of which type) was fired at a group of rioters?).Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:PROMO in the current form, with ext links in body. This is much better handled via a category. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links. Again, to both comments above, "in the current form" or not liking the content are not valid grounds for deletion. Neither is making up unsourced OR about who could theoretically produce tear gas or how easy it is to produce. All the companies I have found that produce and sell tear gas are notable, in particular because there have been protests and pressure on the companies for selling the tear gas to Israel. Unlike blue paint, tear gas is listed and regulated as toxicological agents under federal law, amongst various other US laws that are significantly more restrictive then Federal regulations for paint maufacturers. Whether any single company should be included is a content dispute that needs to be resolved by discussion. There are enough notable companies to justify a list, there have been federal lawsuits, and there are published books. I would rather improve the article, expand the lede to discuss notability and source to secondary sources instead of external links. But if it's deleted without any policy justification there is nothing barring recreation with more sourcing to establish notability―our guidelines allow this WP:AFTERDELETE, but the AfD process is supposed to be based on whether the subject is notable in the sources available, not only the sources provided. It is notable, mostly in sources discussing protests against the manufacturers, lawsuits, government inquirys and media attention that is mostly focused on U.S. companies that export tear gas to countries accused of human rights violations and who have been accused of using the tear gas inappropriately, in a way that has been harmful for civilians. If the subject is notable, which it is, based on WP:RS and not the personal off the cuff opinions of our editors, it should not be deleted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tear-gas is very easy to manufacture - look it up. This is very much old tech, and its use is pervasive. This quite the same as blue-paint, as most of these manufacturers don't define themselves as "tear gas manufacturers" but rather as "non-lethal weapon manufacturers" - with much wider lines of products than just tear gas. WP:NOTCATALOG - we should not maintain lists of niche product produced by a random set of changing manufacturers. It is one thing to maintain List of automobile manufacturers - where this is the major business of the companies. It is another to start listing each individual sub-product - blue paint, white paint, orange paint, etc. (Or rubber bullet, tear gas, acoustic crowd dispersal, water cannons, bean bags, etc.) - based on some non-described criteria (did the company ever do produce this? Is it currently?). I'll note that the wider parent lists (e.g. - "list of non-lethal weapon manufacturers" or "list of riot control equipment manufacturers") seem to be non-existent as well.Icewhiz (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure WP:OR these companies have received significant attention in WP:RS specifically for their manufacture of tear gas, unlike paint companies, who as far as I know have never been singled out for blue paint over red paint. The fact that you think it is easy to manufacture, or that's it's use is pervasive, or that the companies describe themselves one way are all things that have no bearing on an AfD discussion. You are supposed to at least check google before voting delete during AfD. Non policy based, non source based comments are both inappropriate under WP:FORUM and they do not count towards consensus. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a point of this list. There's one blue linked article. The connections between these companies and various protests is trivial and incidental. For example, the fact that the gas used in Turkey protests was manufactured by Condor Non-Lethal Technologies SA is immaterial. The Turkey authorities could have used any other company as a supplier. What encyclopedic purpose do these connections serve? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman - I believe there has been (not sourced in the article, which I'll note is basically close to un-sourced - the article has a broken activist website ("Tracking tear gas"), a PR stmt from Carlyle (broken link), and two sources with a date but without a title (Fox News Latino & Raw Story) - which makes finding them not so easy) some activist efforts to organize various boycotts (or other sanctions/measures such as attempting to sue the producer for alleged improper use by consumers) on tear-gas producing companies. I'm not sure of the degree of coverage this has received in RS (this is hard to discern easily, as most "tear gas" references simply go to mundane usage reports in riots, and most lawsuits are primarily directed against the consumers (e.g. [1] - suing the respective police forces, suits against producers are probably attempted when the respective consumer is a foreign entity that can't easily be sued). However - I also believe the same is true of other riot control gear (e.g. rubber bullets or water cannons). If this is indeed the justification for a list (activists calling for a boycott/other measures/lawsuits/protests against the company) - then this would have to be covered by RS in a significant fashion, and I think this should probably be merged (or name-changed) to contain other riot-control gear producers/distributors who have faced calls for boycott (or other measures - e.g. lawsuits), and the inclusion criteria should be such coverage in RS. The current article's contents (contents of the list - which isn't close to representing major tear gas manufacturers), sourcing (essentially non-existent), and assertion of significance is very lacking.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article has little meaningful content, most of the entries are redlinks, possible case of WP:YELLOWPAGES. DrStrauss talk 06:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not cleanup. I'm not sure of the degree of coverage this has received in RS is a pretty bad reason to vote delete, you are supposed to check and base this decision on sources. ALso how is it a possible case of WP:YELLOWPAGES—I don't see any contact info in the article and the companies are notable. This seems to be editors who are ignoring the rules of AfD to delete an article because they don't like the content and not for policy reasons. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one is blue-linked - so only one passed WP's standards of notability. Regarding your quote of me of "I'm not sure" - that was in relation to riot control companies that have faced legal/activist action - but that is not what this list is asserting - it is purporting to be a list of tear gas manufacturers - but rather what I think might be a significant list in this general area - but this isn't the current article title or contents.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far the editors have supported deletion for the following reasons:

Unsourced WP:OR/POV that the connection between companies and the use of tear gas at protests is "trivial and incidental" and "immaterial"
The articles sources need to be improved
I'm not sure how much coverage it has received in WP:RS, so we should delete it because the current contents don't establish notability.
"Assertion of significance is very lacking"
Article has "little meaningful content"
WP:YELLOWPAGES
The entries are redlinks. Unless a company is blue-linked it does not pass notability standards (this is not true).
Tear gas is very easy to manufacture
Tear gas is like blue paint
These companies are a "random set of changing manufacturers" (I won't list them all but basically unsourced content-based assertions that are not based on our notability guidelines)
WP:PROMO because of external links in the body, which I have sinced removed.
"No encyclopedic value"
"non-complete, subjective list"

Did I miss any? IMHO, editors who say things like "only blue-linked companies pass notability standards" should probably not even be allowed to participate in AfD discussions until they have a better understanding of our notability guidelines. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about providing WP:RS to back up claims to notability? The current article is un-sourced. There is one activist website (broken - and probably not RS). a PR release from Carlyle (broken, and not RS). And two items - "Raw Story, 28 January 2011," (doubtful as a RS - [2] [3]) and "Fox News Latino, 12 June 2013" without a title or author. Lists are often constructed of notable items - which are those that have a WP article - that's not to say a red-linked item couldn't be notable - it could be - it just isn't established to be so at the moment. You most definitely have to provide a WP:RS for any red-linked item in a list. Some of the items - e.g. for [4] Narendra Explosives it doesn't seem there is an on-line RS establishing this (6 GHITs, 1 WP, manufacturer site, trademarking.in, and ofbindia.gov (which possibly would be a primary source)). Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I was working through the backlog at AfC I have seen articles that bluelink to articles that fail notability (imo), when I have found them I have put the bluelinked articles up for AfD. You can't just assume that a subject is notable because the article exists. It does happen that some non-notable articles get by us, or the AfD's close as no consensus—sometimes they are deleted in subsequent AfD rounds, but sometimes the result is just "no consensus" for lack of participation. So there is no policy that says the existence of a bluelink counts towards establishing notability, it does not. As far as I know our policies do not say we should assume notability has been established for subjects that have a blue link.

I am working on too many different articles right now, including trying to bring one up for GA, but if this article is deleted this round, I will create it with a proper lead and more thorough sourcing at a later time, and remove the "notable uses" column Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:33, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steeljaw[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, fails GNG. Nice piece of fancruft, but we have wikia for this nowadays: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Steeljaw --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to established notability. --24.112.231.178 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock. Reyk _YO! 14:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. If anyone is really keen to see the content merged somewhere, I suppose I don't object to that. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 24 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. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 08:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayasa Itō[edit]

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

Voice actress known mainly for her role as Alice in the Milky Holmes franchise. That's about it. No other notable roles according to ANN [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Milky Holmes and Bang Dream are both starring roles, and she has a main role in another upcoming Bushiroad franchise, which should be enough to warrant inclusion. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shōjo Kageki Revue Starlight Bushiroad one is down on the list among eight characters. Is there enough secondary coverage of these to meet WP:GNG? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Under WP:NACTOR #1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Agreeing with Xezbeth. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At least two lead roles, and she has been the subject of some coverage in Japanese sources such as this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead roles is a good indication of notability, I also added some biographical info about her through found interviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of overlooked scientific innovators[edit]

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

Contested PROD. "Overlooked" and "long after" are WP:OR and opinionated criteria. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while no doubt the innovators are notable and worthy of being mentioned in a list article, the criteria for this particular list based on its title is completely unmeasurable and subjective. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRITERIA as a classic case of subjective criteria. We'd need reliable sources that each and every person is "overlooked," not just the list creator's opinion. It's just an impossibly vague and subjective idea. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem encyclopedic. It's closer to a list of trivia. Maybe there is an article about factors that lead to inventions being ignored and rediscovered, because the topic is covered in some books and articles, but because there's no real definition of what it is to be overlooked, it can't be made rigorous either by objective criteria or by treatment in authoritative sources (like the Four Great Inventions). --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – if there were widely-recognized criteria for "overlooked scientists," like we have for, say, the worst movies ever made, then it would be a different story. As it is, the page invites the question, "Overlooked by whom?" And why, for example, does it list William Harvey but not Ibn al-Nafis? Etc. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should include Ibn al-Nafis on a List of scientific innovators overlooked by the List of overlooked scientific innovators. Deli nk (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leading us eventually to the List of scientific innovators overlooked by the overlooked scientific innovators' fathers' cousins' husbands' former roommates. XOR'easter (talk) 03:40, 23 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 merge to Greyhawk. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 08:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Dust (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd support a redirect to Greyhawk, but I don't see anything that says Flanaess is an accurate target. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Greyhawk per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greyhawk. There is not much else to do with this super niche entity that clearly fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mellain Center[edit]

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

[{WP:PROMO]] article. scope_creep (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing indicates this building is in any way notable. It's the third tallest building in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A WP:MILL building. MB 03:45, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Nair[edit]

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

Entirely non notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn pageant contestant. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable, failed WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:07, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Cook (writer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Cook's (mostly self-published) works do not appear to be "significant or notable", and Cook has not received "significant critical attention". The cited sources demonstrate that (a) Cook was featured in one episode of a locally produced series that runs on public television affiliates viewable in northern New Jersey and regions of surrounding states, (b) she was quoted briefly in a USA Today article about beach town storm damage from Hurricane Sandy, and (c) she was one of a host of people who won a regional public television station's "Everyday Hero" awards for helping folks with addictions. She has otherwise only contributed to and/or been mentioned in the Huffington Post, some other blogs, and regional newspapers. Laudable, but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, let alone the place to create background articles on everyone quoted as a person on the street in major news publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this writer who wrote an op-ed in a local paper, privately published two books at a vanity press, and blogged a few times at Huffington Post. Please explain to me how, even if it's all true, how this person is not run of the mill? Bearian (talk) 02:08, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual Learning[edit]

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

Non-notable software lab/company with no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third-party indication of corporate notability. Promotional article about non-notable company. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with nom and Robert McClenon. Fails WP:NCORP. Waggie (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The name makes it very hard to find sources for it, but when searching for perpetualny.com, I didn't see relevant sources. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:47, 21 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 per G11 Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parvez Alam[edit]

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

Non-notable person. All citations are merely this person's name included in a list. Many websites thank all of the people who report any security vulnerabilities, and Alam has been included in several such lists, but there is no evidence of any significant coverage of this individual. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (as I tagged it - the author removed the tag) self promotional puff. Cabayi (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Lien[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:filmmaker scope_creep (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. GretLomborg (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Wikipedia is not a place for fighting legal battles. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 22 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 merge to 2017 Finsbury Park attack. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 09:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Spinoff from 2017 Finsbury Park attack, and this is just a quote farm. An unnecessary list of people and countries just saying "we're thinking of you, and this attack was bad". No encyclopedic value. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination This should be in the article about the actual event. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: Not enough information here to justify a standalone article. All of this could be included in the main article. But there's no harm in keeping this as a search term. This is Paul (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is merged, then I feel that in view of length it would be better pared back (which would lead to some difficult choices about which quotations to keep), or the list reworded as prose with many of the full quotations moved to footnotes, but not simply pasted as-is. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the domestic responses back, and only the relevant international ones (like nations whose citizens were injured, possibly; nobody really cares what Bulgaria or Singapore had to say). ansh 666 20:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems appropriate to me. The parent article is not overly long, so this content should be moved over to there, then possibly trimmed to serve as a summary, if the list of quotes is inappropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and decrease the number of reactions. sikander (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but don't delete any individual country's reaction while moving it to the main article. Instead, we could have an identical note at the bottom of the page such as appears on the 2017 Westminster attack#Notes page. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but trim some of the material so the main page does not become the new host to a quote farm.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a pointless list of "thoughts and prayers". It would clutter the main article with a long list of people saying the same thing.RustlingLeaves (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Rævhuld (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - WP:NOTNEWS, most of the reaction is ordinary to most reactions to incidents such as these, sorry but few people care what the head of state of the Bahamas has to say about this event. The reaction section is already adequately summarized in the main article. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ; these reactions are no more unique than those of any other terrorist attack or disaster. MeanMotherJr (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Finsbury Park attack per WP:SIZE. If/when more sections are added with things like political after effects, or long term stuff then we can talk about a possible split. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Knowledgekid87's reason. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and fast. We have people on the main article's talk page seriously arguing that an anti-Muslim hate group's response should be cited because at present all the "organisations" cited are "Muslim groups". This still isn't true, but it would be easier to argue if the opinions of the presidents of France and Ireland were already there as well as those of unspecified local politicians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect I agree with most of the reasons given, not enough to warrant it's own article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindran Chetambath[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for academics or the general criteria. A brief search didn't reveal any coverage of this person in reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 33 cites on GS totally inadequate for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mroads[edit]

Lot of information which has been shared is from websites and from Dallas news. this should be considered.

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

Despite the sources recently added the company fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH; The sources are essentially press releases and 2 local news stories that cover Panna their product and a passing mention of one of the co-founders in a local newspaper. Domdeparis (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 26 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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica(Merchant of Venice)[edit]

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

Essay that reads like a homework assignment. It consists almost entirely of quotes from the play. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merchant of Venice South Nashua (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic in nature, very poorly written Seasider91 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to Category:Female Shakespearean characters, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also to Template:The Merchant of Venice, with the other characters, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep character in an unquestionably notable play. I note that Jessica (Merchant of Venice) (proper spacing before parenthesis) already exists as a redirect, and had even less content than this, so obviously there's work to be done here. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A smattering of sources from Google Scholar: "Now by My Hood, a Gentle and No Jew": Jessica, The Merchant of Venice, and the Discourse of Early Modern English Identity , In Defense of Jessica: The Runaway Daughter in The Merchant of Venice, Jessica's Mother: Medieval Constructions of Jewish Race and Gender in The Merchant of Venice, for just a smattering of scholarly articles that mention Jessica in the title... Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was a bit surprised In didn't find more on Jessica when I did a quick Gbooks search earlier. You've found just enough for me and I'm confident there's more. The Merchant of Venice was the quintessential Shakespearean problem play for me when I read Shakespeare as a post-grad at McGill (so I'm a bit surprised it rates only a passing mention there). Anyway, it has a particular notability because of its (mis)treatment of Jews and Jessica is a notable part of it. Weak keep. I say weak because it's so atrocious and very little of value would be lost if deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Jstor source has potential, but none of it is used in the article. If Jessica is such an important character in The Merchant of Venice, this article needs to be blown up and started over. Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep following Xover's amazing rewrite. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that WP:TNT is a very valid option in this case, it's so terrible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While I respect that it will take a lot of work to make this a proper article, WP:TNT is an essay, while WP:DEL-CONTENT is policy. TNT is often cited inappropriately in cases like this. Sure, it's easier to delete content that currently sucks, but that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. We fix fixable things in preference to deleting them. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (technical move to Jessica (Merchant of Venice)). This IS a homework assignment. It is however encyclopedic in nature (meets WP:GNG). I agree with User:Jclemens here - which, mind you, doesn't happen that often. The student added one academic work dedicated to the subject (Slights 2008), through they haven't used it, and the article is somewhat messy plot summary. Given that sources clearly exist (this time again I agree with Jclemens, the provided links are sound), the only question is - is this so bad it warrants WP:TNT? And to that, I say no. The article has a lead that makes sense, summarizes the plot (somewhat), and cites one reliable source. The structure and prose are poor, but IMHO they don't raise to the level of needing a nuke and a restart. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since sources exist we should allow the article to remain in hopes that those sources get incorporated effectively.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now)-- if it makes any difference, the students are English learners and did their best; and if there's a page for the tiniest sci-fi minutiae, there most certainly should be one for Shakespearean characters. Though I agree the page needs considerable work and improvement. Keneckert (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)keneckert[reply]
Keep given the above commentary, and I also support a technical move to Jessica (Merchant of Venice). Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close. This is a lousy article about a notable Shakespearean character. It was created in good faith by an editor who wanted to improve Wikipedia, in an area where our coverage is grossly deficient. The appropriate action would be for an editor who is reasonably familiar with available sources to stub the article and add suitable references, so that there is a clear framework for improvement. The article creator is the sort of editor who merits encouragement, not being callously driven off. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Xover (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and move to Jessica (The Merchant of Venice) (play name includes the the). --Xover (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Snow" keep, per Xover's excellent rewrite; unquestionably a notable topic and unquestionably a positive addition to the encyclopedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:59, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harrison Bendall[edit]

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

Basically an extra as far as I can see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Autobiography and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that notability standards are met. No coverage in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:38, 22 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. No consensus after three relists. (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Derby Awards[edit]

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

I have nominated this page for deletion as I don't think this particular awards ceremony meets WP:GNG as it doesn't have significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only coverage I could find is a simple list of award wins. Cowlibob (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or change the title to just Gold Derby, being that Gold Derby is a website owned by Penske Media Corporation. And Gold Derby itself has significant independent coverage. - AffeL (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are also pages for a number of individual awards. Too late to add them to this AfD.PRehse (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism for an unremarkable award: "...awards given by the website Goldderby.com for television and film". No secondary reliable coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gold Derby (which I just created) per AffeL. The awards are of questionable notability but the page itself seems notable enough (see GNews hits). Regards So Why 10:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I rarely relist an AfD that has already been relisted twice but I am hoping we can get some kind of consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 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 delete. So Why 12:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Feifel[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Julian Feifel apears on many gold and platinum awarded records worldwide as a producer writer musician. His songs and productions have reached international top charts positions. Julian Feifel gets more than 18000 results on Google. I think its a notable and relevant article for Wikipedia Martinfissler (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try GHits 188 for "Julian Feifel". reddogsix (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand: Try GHits 188 for "Julian Feifel"? Martinfissler (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are only 188 Google hits for the individual Julian Feifel using quotation marks to remove the unrelated hits for Julian and Feifel. reddogsix (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried also "Julian Feifel" using quotation marks at google right now and I got 2820 hits. Please have also a look at Sofia Reyes Interview mentioning Julian Feifel as an amazing producer. Sofias song "Conmigo", a co-write with Julian Feifel, reached over 16 million views on youtube until now, and went #31 on the billboard Latin Pop charts. Or please look at the german official database for gold and platinum awards it verifies the 7x gold awards for the album "Elle'ments" where Julian Feifel wrote the song "Faith can move a mountain" Martinfissler (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC) — Martinfissler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. created the thing.[reply]

Keep the article about Julian Feifel seems to be relevant for me. There are just a few german producer with worldwide success. I found a wikipedia article of Julian Feifel in German that is existing since 2007. So thats already notable for Wikipedia since 10 years. Jlanzas.089 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) — Jlanzas.089 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited. Just because the Germans have something doesn't mean it meets notability requirements. Does not have significant coverage in RS needed to meet the GNG. G-hits are not a mesure of notability. (Who resurrected this debunked notion anyway. I remember the furor it caused.) Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50 Shades of L.O.V.E. - Learning Our Various Emotions[edit]

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

Possible WP:TNT. No evidence of worth. Strong advertising component. scope_creep (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No independent WP:RS confirm notability, so fails WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:43, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Truman Show delusion[edit]

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

I'm proposing the deletion of The Truman Show delusion based on the fact that, according to the stub itself: "The term was coined in 2008 by brothers Joel and Ian Gold, a psychiatrist and a neurophilosopher, respectively, after the 1998 film The Truman Show. It is not officially recognized nor listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association." So how is it any different than Schizophrenia, which actually is recognized and listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association? Furthermore, as an editor mentioned on the article's Talk page, the article isn't just lacking in notability or credibility (as the brothers who coined the term do not meet the criterion for WP:NOTABILITY themselves), it could also be viewed as destructive in lieu of real domestic surveillance crimes against citizens such as COINTELPRO, also known as "Gang Stalking". WikiEditorial101 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- No real policy basis given for deletion. Article (which is not a stub) is well-sourced by secondary sources. Notability is not dependent on the notability of the people connected to the subject, nor is every psychological condition listed in the DSM, since there can be a lag between clinical experience and inclusion in the Manual. (And one should also be aware that homosexuality was listed in the DSM until 1973, an object lesson in putting too much reliance on the DSM.) As to the claim that the article "could also be viewed as destructive in lieu of real domestic surveillance crimes against citizens such as COINTELPRO, also known as 'Gang Stalking'", I have no idea what to make of that, or what its relevance is to whether an article should be included in Wikipedia. I can't think of any policy -- aside from BLP in some circumstances -- that disallows an article on the basis that it might have social consequences, even assuming that what the nom claims might happen were the case, which seems far-fetched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is clearly notable, as the 17 citations of the original Gold and Gold article listed on Google Scholar show (https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=15948633786574470182&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en). It has even entered mainstream media, with for instance the New Yorker reporting on it in the Sep 16, 2013 issue. I do not understand the second objection. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @WikiEditorial101: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 14:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm at a loss how an article with cites to New York Times, Newsweek, and the British Journal of Psychiatry, all of which significantly cover the topic, could ever not pass WP:GNG, whether the DSM recognizes it or not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may have been coined by two people connected to its use, but it caught on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abenson (WalterMart)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. This article has changed names several times from "The WalterMart Group" to "Walter Mart" to "WalterMart" to "Abenson (WalterMart)" none of these names through up very much and sticking the 2 names on the same article seems to be a way of accumulating the very meager notability of both companies to pass the notability guidelines. IMHO it is a failed attempt. Domdeparis (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this page has just turned into a WP:PROMO article with the addition of this kind of phrase "their mission is to bring the "good life" to every Filipino home by taking particular care in pre-selecting brands from it's partners and manufacturers, ensuring high quality products and reliable warranties resulting in happy customers." Domdeparis (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a corporate blurb at this point. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 26 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. No prejudice on re-nominating. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 07:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krigsseilerregisteret[edit]

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

Website lacks notability from independent reliable sources. Prod removed by page creator, but reply on talk page shows misunderstanding of what notability is and what Wikipedia is for (basically, the page is needed because the website may be useful to our readers). Fram (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason for the article to be deleted. It has notability because that site is helpful to those who conduct research. For your information, many people who sailed on Norwegian ships during WWII were not Norwegians, and some also emigrated to other countries. The war sailors register has both a Norwegian and an English edition. I am convinced that there are users of English Wikipedia that need information that the website Krigsseilerregisteret exists. So why delete the article? User:Carsten R D (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2017 (CEST)
In Norway, the register has had national interest, see the coverage of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, a link from the article.(User talk:Carsten R D) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (CEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arkivet (Kristiansand), the institution responsible for the project, and redirect there. --Hegvald (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge the article with Arkivet (Kristiansand) when it provides supplementary information? A merge will mean multiple issues, which is also not good according to Wikipedia policy? Leave the article Krigsseilerregisteret as it is now. What is the reason for all the efforts to get the article deleted? User:Carsten R D talk 12:46, 8 June 2017 (CEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like a sensible solution. Carsten R D, which "multiple issues" do you see with a merge? The important information wlll still be available to all English-language readers, and the info will be embedded in a relevant article about the parent organization, which offers more to our readers, not less. Fram (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge and do not delete: Krigsseilerregisteret and the Arkivet (Kristiansand) have a common address, but different tasks. Arkivet is about human rights in Norway and museum of the cruelty that took place there during WWII, while the registry is about crews and ships sailing with great risk. Arkivet is, of course, the owner of the register, but on Wikipedia the difference should be emphasized. The best way to distinguish this two institutions is in two separate articles. Why all this hesitation to leave it as it is, and why do you see mergeing as sthe best solution, Fram? Why not separate the two articles which refer to each other, like now? What's the big deal? User:Carsten R D (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2017 (CEST)

Carsten R D, even the article creator may enter only one bolded !vote, please. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arkivet (Kristiansand); anything useful can be picked up from the article history. A merge is not necessary, as the article does not cite 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would not want to dissent from a merge to Arkivet (Kristiansand); I do not speak Norwegian, but it looks like "war-sail-register", which sounds like a notable project. Arkivet means the archive, but it appears this is housing the Gestapo archive. To deal in one place with Norwegians under occupation and those at sea for the duration of the war seems not unreasonable, but if they are different, they should perhaps stay separate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 14:02, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open Data Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, doesn't comply with the notability guidelines for web content or organizations. Contains no evidence of notability from reliable independent sources. The references that are cited are either a primary source or a mention in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find anything meaningful to add reliable sources after more BEFORE searching. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:18, 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 keep. Sandstein 20:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Paget-Brown[edit]

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

BLP with all sources being primary, or WP:PUS (Mirror, blog), and/or non-independent (interviews). Notability in interviews is for the topic Grenfell Tower fire, and is WP:NOTINHERITED by this person. Creating BLP on those notability grounds seems a BLP violation e.g. a balanced article cannot be created right now, and stringing together a BLP from primaries in connection with this potentially criminal topic is best avoided (with current sourcing), and this article currently WP:COATRACKs controversy sourced to the Mirror and a blog. Without a single secondary, independent RS about the subject this fails notability WP:GNG. Don't think K&C region counts per WP:NPOLITICIAN either. (no objection to article if the BLP is based on WP:RS per WP:BLP) Widefox; talk 13:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grenfell Tower fire which mentions him multiple times. He's not notable per WP:ONEEVENT: aside from some local reporting of everyday council business, he doesn't seem to have attracted significant press interest before last week. If he's shown to be criminally liable over the fire, or (very unlikely) continues to higher political office, then he may become notable, but currently he is not. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while British councillors are not inherently notable by WP:NPOL, there's enough coverage of him related to the fire for it to meet WP:GNG. Any speculation about un-filed criminal charges should be removed from the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki Which coverage? Primary sources don't count for notability, which is most of them. I don't see a single source that counts for notability, so it fails GNG. WP:ONEEVENT also applies - the topic is clearly Grenfell Tower fire, so we shouldn't have an article on this BLP, but on the event. Widefox; talk 08:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or redirect as suggested by Colapeninsula. Nicholas Paget-Brown is not merely an elected local official, he has been the Leader of the Council of a significant London Borough, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, since 2013. People will seek neutral, reliable information about him, especially in light of the recent disaster at Grenfell Tower, which is a block of flats owned by and situated in that Borough. The information about Mr Paget-Brown could, for instance, include his party affiliation and details of the responsibilities of the leader. I should prefer unreliably sourced material to be edited out of the article than that the article be deleted altogether. If proceedings are brought against him, care should be taken that Wikipedia does not find itself in contempt of court — the law in England and Wales in this field is not like the law in the United States. I hope this deletion debate can be kept free of Wikipedia editors' jargon. --Frans Fowler (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Fowler, Leader of the Council are not notable per WP:NPOL (they are just local councillors who are leaders of the largest group, to see examples of UK ones without articles or redlinks see List of United Kingdom council leaders#London borough councils). The argument seems WP:USEFUL - one to avoid at AfD. Although reasonable to look for answers and hold those responsible to account, this is not the place to WP:RIGHT WRONGS, even more so because of ongoing criminal investigations, we must strictly follow WP:BLP and policies such as WP:ONEEVENT / WP:BLP1E and avoid creating BLPs when they are in the news for one event. Widefox; talk 08:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', as per above. 188.74.64.210 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

188.74.64.210 which above, and please reason why (see "Comment" below). Widefox; talk 08:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and note to closer please be aware that this isn't a vote - see WP:AFD, arguments based on relevant policies such as WP:NPOL, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NBIO / WP:BLP1E have more weight, and this must follow WP:BLP. Widefox; talk 08:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOLITICIAN: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", which criterion he satisfied before the fire. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andy Mabbett is right, Paget-Brown does meet the WP:NPOLITICIAN criterion for a local politician. Edwardx (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage...in reliable sources that are independent". Has lots of such coverage even before the fire i.e. the major UK national newspapers going back the last 9 years: [6]. K&C isn't a region, it's a borough like Queens or the Bronx. London boroughs are smaller, as there's 30 rather than 5, but he's the political leader of a borough of 160 000 people, Tom B (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Point 2 of NPOL says "Major local political figures" and it is highly questionable if he is "major". He has obviously been reported in London area newspapers but not nationally. He became nationally known because of the Grenfell fire and, until then, he was hardly known about even within K&C or the Tory party. Point 3 of NPOL, which has been overlooked till now, says: "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability". At the end of the day, this local Tory was nothing more than that until the fire. He therefore fails WP:GNG. If we are going to have an article about one local Tory councillor, even if he is a council leader, where are all the rest? There is an element of WP:CRYSTAL in the creation of the article because there is much speculation in the British media about prosecutions to be made in future once the inquiry into the causes of the fire has been completed. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: fails WP:NPOL, but passes WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 06:44, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of Albania (series 6)[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG; de-PROD'd without reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fancruft & trivia; no need for a redirect in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 21 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. Already deleted as a copyvio, but there is consensus for removal even without that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geekography[edit]

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

No independent references. No evidence on Google search of independent coverage by third-party sources. Google search turns up nothing but mentions by Pantaleev. Just giving a name to something doesn't always make it notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any worthwhile sources out of the 86 which was all that Google could find once blogs etc excluded. No notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invented by the article's creator, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. Mduvekot (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio of https://exeypanteleev.com/geekography/. PamD 22:09, 21 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. The only argument to keep was an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redirecting to Lakewood Township, New Jersey#Local government seems like a reasonable plan, but there was no discussion of that, so I'm not going to implement it. If anybody wants to create the redirect on their own editorial initiative, there's nothing in this AfD that prevents them from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Coles[edit]

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

Local politician in a township in which the mayor is selected by the members of the council, not directly elected by the voters. Nothing in this article or available in a Google search would support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 08:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article say anything about him being an actor? Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an actor Ray Cole (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0170742/), but article is not about him.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The township has a much larger population than I expect something called "township" to have, meaning he probably would clear WP:NPOL #2 if he could be well-sourced enough to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" condition — but the automatic presumption of notability for mayors only applies to a directly-elected executive mayor rather than the kind who's selected internally among the municipal councillors. Which means that to actually qualify for an article, he would have to be shown to pass WP:GNG — but of the four sources shown here, two are primary sources, one is a WordPress blog, and the one that's actually a legitimately reliable source isn't about Coles, but just namechecks his existence in an article about the township's population growth. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to get a mayor into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL #2 isn't very clear, but doesn't seem to say automatic presumption of notability for mayors only applies to a directly-elected executive mayor rather than the kind who's selected internally among the municipal councillors.

Firstly, NPOL #2 doesn't have to say that for it to still be true. What actually happens at AFD, when mayors actually come up for discussion, remains true regardless of whether it's been formally codified into policy yet or not — and established AFD consensus most certainly does limit the presumption of notability to directly elected executive mayors. There are, for example, places in both England and the United States which are significantly larger than Lakewood, where the mayors have been deleted because the place was governed under a weak-mayor or appointed-mayor system rather than a directly-elected-mayor system and thus the depth of media coverage required to get the mayor past WP:GNG simply wasn't there.

Secondly, kindly note that what NPOL #2 does say — "who have received significant press coverage" — hasn't been satisfied here either. That's the bottom line for whether a mayor gets an article: regardless of variables like city size or system of election or appointment, the determining factor for whether they get an article for it or not is ultimately tied to whether or not the article can be reliably sourced to a WP:GNG-fulfilling depth and breadth of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to NPOL #2 because is was mentioned above, but if doesn't have to say that for it to still be true, why cite it? That's bit confusing and sounds like an interpretation. If indeed AFD consensus about a mayor being from the place governed under a weak-mayor or appointed-mayor system rather than a directly-elected-mayor system has been established that should be easy find. (Suggestions where to look?) Of course that makes the 100,000+ city mayors template somewhat useless, doesn't t?Djflem (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I referred to NPOL #2 in the context of the article's lack of press coverage to demonstrate a pass of the "who have received significant press coverage" condition, not in the context of the city size issue that you tried to connect it to. So that's "why cite it": because I cited it in the context of what it says, not in the context of what it doesn't.

Just to clarify in case it's unclear: the condition that every mayor always has to meet to be eligible for an article is "who have received significant press coverage". If enough coverage is shown to get the mayor over WP:GNG, then it doesn't actually matter whether the place is a major metropolitan city or a village of 10, or whether the council structure is strong-mayor or weak-mayor — the population size and strength-of-the-mayoralty tests come into play when we have to determine how much benefit of the doubt to grant to an article that isn't adequately referenced, as in this case. The size of the city and how much executive power the mayor does or doesn't have are irrelevant if the article is well-sourced and substantive — but they are controlling on the question of whether a poorly sourced article gets the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment or the "delete without prejudice against future recreation if somebody can do better" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If one looks at the below template, one sees that Wikipedia does encourage articles about mayors of New Jersey cities with 100,000+population as well as other states. If one clicks on other states one finds that all mayors of cities with 100,000+populations are listed, some in red, which the presumption that an article will be written. One will also note that some (Bill Bencini, Bill Saffo, Larry Wolgast, George Cretekos, Andre Quintero, Steve Callaway, Domenic Sarno, for example) in those states are stubs waiting for expansion, similar to this article.

Djflem (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we only grant an automatic presumption of notability to directly-elected mayors, not to the kind who are selected internally by the council members themselves. And secondly, please familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — while Wikipedia used to simply accept mayors as automatically notable if the city had attained a certain specific population and effectively ignore the matter of whether or not the article actually cited enough reliable source coverage to properly clear WP:GNG, consensus can and does change. The inclusion requirement for mayors now is much more strongly tied to whether the sourcing is up to scratch or not — a place's population does not confer a free exemption from the mayors' articles having to be sourced better than this anymore, and any other mayor whose article is sourced this badly is now a deletion candidate too. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In previous discussions, the community has distinguished between directly-elected mayors and those selected as mayor internally by the council members themselves. In a Council–manager government, an appointed city manager performs the executive functions of the jurisdiction, while the mayor presides over the council meeting, may be the official spokesperson for the jurisdiction (but remains an equal member of the council), and the title is primarily ceremonial. Both the method of election and powers of the office, I think, are significant in presuming the notability of the individual. Individuals campaigning for the position of mayor of large cities do receive more third-party coverage of their campaigns (than candidates for council). In addition, the actions of the mayor (including presentation of the budget, oversight of the police, and veto power of legislation) provide additional opportunities for independent news coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have sufficient coverage in RS to meet the GNG, WP:NPOL not withstanding.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lakewood Township, New Jersey#Local government per WP:ATD-R. He might not be notable on his own but there is no reason why the info cannot be added to the town's article and this article redirected there. Regards So Why 12:21, 28 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. consensus seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leetul Gogoi[edit]

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

Contested prod. I believe that this is a case of WP:BLP1E and NOTNEWS. The individual is likely to remain a low profile individual (criteria 2) but his role appears to be well documented, possibly a case of NOTNEWS Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "2017 Kashmir human shield incident" or equivalent. The individual in question is not notable: the incident has received too much attention to dismiss as "NOTNEWS". Vanamonde (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Redirect - I agree with Vanamonde93. For Gogoi himself, it is WP:TOOSOON, but the incident itself is notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see anything noteworthy in his career to warrant a stand-alone article, the incident seem trivial as well. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn person involved in an incident that does not seem to be notable enough itself. WP:BIO1E applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where to redirect/merge to or what to rename this article to exactly if consensus is not to delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO, seems a case of WP:1E. DrStrauss talk 06:46, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Adam Mahama[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILPEOPLE Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move I suggest moving the article to something like Murder of Maxwell Adam Mahama because it appears that the person in question, while not notable himself, was the victim of a notable incident (see links: 1 2 3 4), While the current article isn't very substantial, an extant article may encourage contributors --Hazarasp (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not Move). Classic WP:ONEEVENT situation here. Were it not for the circumstances of his death, there would be no article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move as suggested by User:Hazarasp as there is a lot of coverage over a period of time, so the oneevent appears to be notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But he died 8 days ago - so that "period of time" is hardly evidence of sustained coverage. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly a victim but not noteworthy for a stand-alone article, I dont think a stand-alone article on the murder would pass muster as wikipedia is not a newspaper. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. No need for a rename as the event itself is not sufficiently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sufficient coverage in RS to meet GNG. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a repository for all the rotten things that happen. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or the Obits.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:43, 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 delete. clear consrnsus DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technicism[edit]

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

This article is an attempt to discuss left-wing technocracy, but this is not supported by the sources. Although the term has been used, it has been as a synonym for technocracy (sometimes, but not always, implying a critical standpoint) and not specifically a left-wing incarnation of it.

The current content replaced earlier content which was an attempt to define the term, but was short and entirely unreferenced and so not worth reverting to. Unless it can be shown that this phrase is commonly used to refer to the purported subject of the article, it should be deleted and probably a redirect to technocracy put in its place. Warofdreams talk 23:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Warofdreams: I respectfully disagree with this proposal for deletion in that deletion of this article would seem a bit extreme for a solution that could be better obtained through many edits to better fit the Sources. Either that, or someone could provide more evidence for the claim of this article. However, the argument regarding the similarity to Technocracy still remains valid, so maybe it could be considered for a merging with Technicism? Even if all of these suggestions prove to be unsuccessful, there still would be a lack of an article to accurately describe this Political philosophy. I do think that at least one of these possible solutions could be an accurate substitue for deletion, and I would hope that it is more than just me who thinks so. Учхљёная (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it needs a lot of edits to improve it to a satisfactory level.--Darrelljon (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is original research as written, this isn't a commonly used term. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although many things may need to be reverted, it still is a term with active connotations. Please consider at least a merging with Technocracy. Thank you. User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)} 02:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is bad (poorly referenced), but the term appears notable. I don't think this warrants WP:TNT by deletion, but I would not object to anyone gutting most of the content before a rewrite at some point. Till then... this doesn't seem incorrect, does it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unilke many AfD discussions, this is one where it I feel it should be kept if and only if two reliable sources are presented. Right now it has one source that looks to have some level of reliability [7], and the images on the page appear to have no references at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the word "Technicism" has been used in other contexts, the author of this entry is using it to describe an alleged Left-wing or Communist tendency that does not exist with such a label. The closest concept that does exist is Alexander Bogdanov's Tektology and even this, although within the history of Communism, would not be identified as an operative tendency or movement. Otherwise what the entry describes is subsumed within the concept and movement known as Technocracy movement.LAWinans (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It's a violation of WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. The lack of WP:RS is masked by the adoption of neologism that has been independently coined and used in many different contexts to refer to different things. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOR and WP:NOTNEO apply here. DrStrauss talk 06:48, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbondale 2000[edit]

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

Unnotable live/archival album. Available references of information are limited to primary sources, no secondary reviews or press releases. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is an Allmusic review [8], but it's brief (~80 words) and I can't find anything else in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to the band's discography page, where this release is listed. gongshow talk 18:43, 24 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Fashion Week[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. No national news coverage, no indication that event has impact beyond its immediate area. Rogermx (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:09, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoho Bed[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, doesn't comply with the notability guidelines for web content or organizations. Contains no evidence of notability from reliable independent sources. The references that are cited are either a passing mention or a blog site. Dan arndt (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion – No evidence of notability, and what little text is there seems pretty promotional in nature. V2Blast (talk) 08:14, 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 delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Jesús Martínez Espinoza[edit]

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

I don't see anything that makes this person notable. The article has been around a long time, and a notability tag was removed without improvement in 2009 by an IP, and the article has languished ever since without much change. Most of the article is unsourced background of a routine nature, then a couple of sentences on a arrest for selling meth. BLP1E at the most. MB 04:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support-It definitely looks pretty lame. Perhaps the best part is that the person who created the article wrote the whole thing in Spanish. Display name 99 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At least one reliable source confirms that the subject has been convicted and sentenced to 14 years.[9] BLPCRIME does not apply, but that that does not establish ongoing non-trivial interest to satisfy WP:PERP. Looks like a secondary player in a larger conspiracy. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename/rewrite entirely – The man in itself is not notable, but he was part of a relatively important criminal ring based in South America with connections to Mexico. It received relatively good coverage in the media thanks to this man's partnership with "Rey de la Efedrina" (The Ephedrine King), Mario Segovia. Both condemned to 14 years. I would support this article if it was about the criminal group, not just this guy. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Espinoza fails biography notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 06:51, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Creek Broadcasting[edit]

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

Owner of six radio stations, all in one fairly small market. Probably does not meet the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 07:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Broadcasting companies are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG — with the added bonus that the coverage also has to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, by being more than just purely local. But the only source shown here at all is not coverage about the company, but just nominally namechecks its existence as the current employer of a person who's being quoted in the context of having helped the city to acquire a heritage airplane rather than in the context of his work as a broadcaster. This is not the kind of coverage it takes to make a small local company notable enough for a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siskiyou Media Council[edit]

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

I doubt this operator of two public access channels in far northern California meets the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 07:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 20:04, 21 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern California News[edit]

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

A brand that lasted four years for shared newscasts in a small TV market. Any unique content can probably be merged into KHSL-TV and KNVN. Raymie (t • c) 07:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there's little-to-nothing significant enough about this since-rebranded joint news operation to merit its own article separate from KHSL-TV or KNVN. (Two other similar operations, in Indiana and Minnesota/Wisconsin, didn't survive AfD as standalone articles. That doesn't in and of itself mean anything for this article, of course, but barring any verifiable evidence of independent notability it's not a good sign.) I suppose that any unique (and sourceable) material from this article could be merged to KHSL-TV and/or KNVN, but I'm not exactly holding my breath, especially since most of the unique content to this article appears to be the type of newscast time information that in other television station articles has been deemed to fail WP:NOTTVGUIDE and thus should probably go entirely. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local TV news show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher G. Nuttall[edit]

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

I have doubts he passes WP:CREATIVE or GNG. Self-published, he is popular enough to have several interviews, but no awards, nothing to suggest, well, notability. Two interviews that are linked (and I don't see anything more) don't seem to suffice for inclusion in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I've read several of his books and they're pretty good although some are desperately in need of a professional editor to polish them up. Although he's a very popular author on Amazon, I don't think he quite meets the notability threshold yet, but may do in the future. Shritwod (talk) 21:52, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon McGregor[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played 167 games in the AIHL, the highest level of competition in Australia and has played for the Australian national team in a World Championship competition. Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Players time in the third tier worlds and in a league with no pre-established notability criteria means GNG is the only guideline that needs to met (as always). Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources - GretLomborg (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This player has no business having an article given that they've never played at notable level of competition. Deadman137 (talk) 03:49, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sekura[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played 130 games in the AIHL the top level national competition in Australia and has represented the country as part of the national team in a number of world championship competitions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: every source found indicates WP:ROUTINE coverage which fails GNG. Fails NHOCKEY by playing in an amateur league that has not been proven to meet GNG consistently and in the third tier of the IIHF tournaments. Yosemiter (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing a single news article discussing his career. Just stats. WP:NOTSTATS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has no chance at passing the GNG criteria and the ice hockey criteria just makes the argument even weaker. Deadman137 (talk) 04:23, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stephenson[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: being that he was captain of the team, I was able to find some local coverage and short post-game interviews, but nothing I would consider non-routine or significant coverage – so I would say he fails GNG. Certainly below the current threshold of NHOCKEY standards by playing in a low-level league with assumed notability criteria for its players in the NHOCKEY League Assesment (which is why that exists as a reference because those leagues' players that are not listed usually fail GNG) and not playing the top division to actually compete for the World Championship. Yosemiter (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Deadman137 (talk) 04:17, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Stephenson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played in a top-level league (Australian Ice Hockey League), making him pass WP:NHOCKEY #1. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote because of the comment below. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources found in searches or used in the article that indicate this player passes GNG. Since the last time this was nominated, NHOCKEY has become more strict in its criteria as it was found that the 2011 version had many players that did not meet GNG (with this appearing to be one of them). It used to be just the senior national team, but now it is a top level division senior national team playing for the actual world championship, not the second or third tier trying to earn their way into that division. @Anarchyte: please read NHOCKEY#1 again, it says: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league", not Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league in a country/nation. (Also the AIHL is not professional league, it is an amateur league). Yosemiter (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I've stricken my !vote above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deadman137 (talk) 04:20, 23 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. So Why 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rummukainen[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played 292 games in the AIHL the top level national competition in Australia and has been a member of Australia's national team competing at a number of World Championships. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Lots of WP:ROUTINE mentions and some decent articles/interviews in the local Canberra paper. Unfortunately, none of those seem to be "significant coverage" by a non-local paper. I could go either way with this one, but I am not thoroughly convinced it meets GNG (as in it would be very borderline). Definitely does not meet NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times are not 'local' newspapers, neither is the ABC. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the Canberra Times is also the local paper for the CBR Braves, which also happens to have the best article about this player. Hard to tell if the article itself is more of a "and in local news, the captain of CBR Braves..." type article or actually independent coverage (which either way I might count as one good reference, hence my weak delete verdict instead of just delete). The Sydney Morning Herald and ABC articles are both about the team itself with passing mentions or brief interviews with the player. Yosemiter (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his hockey related material is a joke, he's never played at any level worthy of consideration. His GNG argument is a tiny bit stronger, but there's not enough there for an article. Deadman137 (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NHOCKEY. DrStrauss talk 06:54, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Riesen[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Drastically fails GNG. Could not even find decent WP:ROUTINE sources for this player. Yosemiter (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Kubara[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Player has gotten some decent, albeit WP:ROUTINE, coverage such as this write up from USA Hockey (which is more of "Weekly Update" type article), this coverage from the local Canberra Times about him and his brothers, and this brief blurb from ABC News in Australia. However, none of those are significant coverage, secondary, and independent (the first could be considered primary and possibly unreliable as it is blog-ish, the second does not appear to be independent as it is local, and the third does not have much in significant coverage). WP:TOOSOON for NHOCKEY requirements. Yosemiter (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not enough independent coverage to warrant an article here. Deadman137 (talk) 04:10, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DTRules[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of the article text is about other implementations of similar technology and the remainder mostly about this software's placement in standard repositories. Neither establishes notability for this project and the best that I could see elsewhere was a brief how-to usage guide in a Lulu.com book which I don't see as enough for WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:34, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Toivonen[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only found some local coverage of this player (such as this article from the Canberra Times) which is within the realm routine coverage and not enough to satisfy GNG. All other searches primarily brought up a Finnish MMA fighter who does not appear to be the same person (listed age for the fighter was 25 whereas this player would be 21 right now). Nowhere currently near NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Deadman137 (talk) 04:06, 23 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. While the keep comments before the latest relisting did not provide confidence (with no disrespect to the editors, including Brian) as none provided any policy or guideline based review, the three comments post the re-list tilt the discussion consensus towards keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PechaKucha[edit]

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

Apparently this is an advertisement for a technique that is trying to use its trademark to maintain a monopoly on the use of the term. Almost all the refs are to their own publicity.

It might be possible to have a NPOV article, but the first step is deleting this. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems advertisement and non notable to me.......Sulaimandaud (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the article. I came across the term 'Pecha Kucha style presentation' in some random blog, didn't know what it meant, googled it and found this wikipedia entry. wikipedia fulfilling exactly the job it is designed to do.Quarague (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the article. We do Pecha Kucha presentations in my office. They are fun and effective. It's nice to have this explanation and historical information available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.74.131 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article. I was looking for a link to describe PechaKucha (which are used at various IT-related conferences) and felt this was appropriate. BrianKelly (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Fix* Current form doesn't quite reflect the suggestion that it is entirely about publicity. Notability is established by reference to its use in events. There is a little bit of promo stuff but it can be much more easily cleaned up rather than outright deletion. A subject being tied to proprietary IP is in itself no more advertising than, say, Six Sigma or ISO 9001. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This certainly seems to be "a thing" as far as formats go (I actually once made one in one of my college classes). There certainly is a good deal of cruft requiring removal and a need to prevent the article from reading like an ad, but I do think the presentation format meets the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 07:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article hasn't been updated much since around 2010 but there is more recent media coverage[10][11][12] in addition to that cited (notably the Wired article). Google shows that the term is widely used, well beyond the original commercial applications - in academia, the arts, and other hobbyist contexts. If something is widely used and we have sufficient sources for an article, the article should be improved not deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Young (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played 43 games in the AIHL, the highest level of competition for the sport in Australia and has been a member of the national team, competing in a World Championship. Dan arndt (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Drastically fails GNG. Even using keywords on searches to sort out all the others of the same name gives me nothing but stats pages. Fails NHOCKEY by playing in an amateur league that has not been proven to meet GNG consistently and in the third and second tier of the IIHF tournaments. Yosemiter (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have never played at any significant level of competition and there is no where near enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 04:03, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McEwen Mining[edit]

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

No indications of notability, all sources present are primary, and a lot of information seems invalid as well; should be deleted or, if kept, rewritten from ground up by someone familiar to the company or at least the respective WikiProject. Lordtobi (✉) 17:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As stated, notability has not been established, and all but one of its citations point to the company's own site. V2Blast (talk) 08:38, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maks SF[edit]

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

Promotional, questionable notability, refs are not independent, ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources all primary or unreliable, though do ping me if you find relevant, reliable Belarusian sources. No useful redirect targets. czar 07:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As stated above, notability is not clearly established. V2Blast (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I checked the version of article from 20 June 2017‎. The reference #4 is reliable. Also I added a reliable source from experty.by and an independent review to the fourth album. --Jarash (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarash, please review the following guidelines which I highly recommend for new editors who create or edit new articles that end up here because of notability issues and/or sourcing issues: Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:49, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MC Steppa[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. - TheMagnificentist 18:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Notability is not clearly established, and the article is poorly cited as well. V2Blast (talk) 08:49, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Véronnez[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. - TheMagnificentist 19:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:34, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Mistreț[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Mayor of a small rural Moldovan commune. XXN, 19:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It seems to me that the stronger notability claim here is his having been awarded the Order of the Star of Romania, rather than his mayoralty per se — though to make that a strong notability claim, I'd still want to see the article contain significantly more substance and sourcing than has actually been shown here. Like, for instance, what did he do to earn a distinction that isn't routinely handed out to mayors of small towns that aren't even in Romania? I'm willing to reconsider this if someone with Romanian language skills can do a Heymann on it — but this, as currently written and sourced, isn't convincing enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:34, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand School of Export[edit]

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

Tiny non-notable online-only school fails WP:GNG. I'm not even sure if it is properly classified as a school, it sounds more like a training program. I can find no WP:RS about the organization. The only two non-affiliated secondary sources I could find were trivial mentions where its founder was quoted discussing other matters. Most of the sources cited in the article are either non-independent or primary-source documents like government registrations. Also appears to be a violation of WP:PROMOTION: the article's creator appears to be affiliated with the school and has created several other self-promotion articles that are currently in AfD (1, 2, 3). This article also has an advertisement-like style and has content promoting non-notable theories and inventions of its founder. GretLomborg (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUCS, also by the same author, AfD ended as Delete.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prealism, also by the same author, AfD ended as Delete.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the Artists, also by the same author, AfD ended as Delete. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Rudzki's userpage has also just been deleted as self-promotion, so this is really the last of it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, with copy such as "...a leading provider of professional education for exporters within the country..." etc. Just corporate spam / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about. Fails WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 22:11, 26 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. And salt, this should only be restored through WP:AFC if anything. I've opted to discard dribe-by IPs given the sockpuppetry that seems to be happening Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credihealth[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is PR-driven or funding related. The company raised $1.5M strongly suggesting that it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. Created by Special:Contributions/Deepak.kumar8744 with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM, start-up spam, business as usual, sources are not much better than press releases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability. Blackguard 20:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, One of the Important healthcare player in India which is connecting hospitals in Importat cities of Country. Size of company as well as amount of covergae it make in India among patients make it Notable. Vaibhav Kumar (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC) blocked, suspected sock of Ramanuj Bhatnagar (Special:Contributions/Ramanuj_Bhatnagar) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oldest? It was founded in 2013! Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Credihealth, Practo, Lybrate, Netmeds and 1mg are the only top players in Indian healthtech space. Wiki's acknowledgement of these healthtech players is definitely important. Ramanuj Bhatnagar (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment alone fails WP:NPOV. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Credihealth is the oldest healthcare company which growing day by day. Deepak.kumar8744 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC) blocked, suspected sock of Ramanuj Bhatnagar (Special:Contributions/Ramanuj_Bhatnagar) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oldest? It was founded in 2013! Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Credihealth is top notch healthcare company . 42.111.122.235 (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — 42.111.122.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT is not a legitimate reason to support keep/delete in AfD's. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt. I cleaned this up, removing content based on press releases or churnalism and have been debating which way to go, as notability is marginal. In light of the obvious votestacking and promotional pressure above, this should be deleted. It is unlikely that the community will be able to maintain a neutral article in light of this kind of campaigning and it is likely that these folks will just keep trying to abuse WP. So - delete and salt. Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete Large audience and visibility in Country nake it notable. Although article can be expanded. 103.3.205.141 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — 103.3.205.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt Misused by creator/ owner of the company. Blatant promotional and no significance. Light2021 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declined an A11 speedy. It is not meant for COI situations like this, but to someone's hypothesis or imaginary creation or invention. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 25 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Josefsson[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, The company doesn't has a wiki page Sulaimandaud (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Swedish article has more coverage, and looking at the references there it seems he'd meet WP:GNG as well as verifiability criteria. The company doesn't seem to be lacking an article because it wouldn't be relevant; as far as I can tell, it'd be relevant if it existed (which it does in Swedish). /Julle (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Page or no page, Brummer & Partners are definitely notable in Swedish finance, and an article could be written based on reliable sources. Should Wikipedia also have an article on Per Josefsson? Possibly, but I am less certain. --Hegvald (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is in bad shape but that is no reason for deletion. Article simubject passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable businessman. I could not find sufficient sources to establish subject's individual notability. What comes up is PR-driven, not independent of the company and / or passing mentions, such as

Brummer launches longer-term hedge fund. Financial Times-Sep 4, 2012. The fund will be managed by Per Josefsson, Peter Thelin and Bo Börtemark, who formerly managed Brummer's Zenit fund... Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Development of Skills and Talent[edit]

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

That article was already created and deleted a year or so ago by WP:PROD. The same editor recreated it again; it is probably against the spirit of PROD to renominate it, but the institution is no more notable now that it was before.

I considered speedy deletion, but as an educational institution, it is not covered by WP:A7, and IMO it does not quite raise to the level of WP:G11. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a lot can be gleaned from this enterprise's rather boilerplate website, but it appears to offer school-level exam coaching. My searches are returning basic social media accounts but no independent coverage to indicate notability whether by WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources, and the circumstances around this seem like a WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:01, 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 delete. So Why 12:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Collins[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played around 150 AHL matches, NHOCKEY says 200. As part of a batch nomination, this is close enough to the cutoff I don't support deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Technically he's played 174 games that can be counted, but players that fell less than 10 games short of the 200 game criteria have been removed. There is nothing that I can find that would give him a GNG pass. Deadman137 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of NHOCKEY (which itself still is subject to GNG), all sources I found are stats pages or brief mentions. This is the very definition of WP:ROUTINE coverage which does not count towards GNG, and why the 200 game minimum has increased from 100 games over the years. I am sure there are a couple 200+ players that fail GNG as well (likely because they are defensive defensemen and don't score enough to generate coverage). Yosemiter (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Delete - I found this source, but it is his stats as part of Manitoba Moose hockey team. He fails WP:V#Notability as the source doesn't indicate his prominence to his field. Also, I found other sources, but they still don't indicate his notability. He even fails GNG because very few sources mention him, and even the sources barely cover him trivially. Even when retired from his field, the guy is still non-notable. No way should this article be used to recruit this guy as a coach in the future. By the way, there are some other people named "Dusty Collins", including non-notable ones. --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Redirecting this to an article on the AHL with a little paragraph about this player should work nicely.--Redandready (talk) 16:59, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 in Antarctica[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL as the article is nothing but speculation. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Meatsgains: as they prodded this article. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And this one too - 2020 in Antarctica? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating the following article as it also suffers from the same problem of being WP:CRYSTAL (per @Lugnuts:) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 06:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 2020 in Antarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete - Per nominator and as the one who originally PROD'd the page. Meatsgains (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:CRYSTAL unless someone can add something which will definitely happen in either of those years. I know it's fun to create a new page, but this is silly. Stub articles are ok, but we don't create placeholders on the basis that there may be some content to add later. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lovering[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: the added CBC article seems really good, the Sydney Herald only mentions his role. The other sources were all stats pages and lists. I could go either way with this if there is one more reliable non-routine source for this particular player/executive. Yosemiter (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is just not enough coverage to justify an article here. Deadman137 (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a player he falls far from notability. As a commissioner, Australian ice hockey is far too obscure to warrant the article on those grounds. Bill McKenna (talk) 03:27, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Miles[edit]

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

No indication of the subject passing WP:NMUSIC. Not signed to a major record label, no charting songs or albums, no major awards won, etc. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV either. JTtheOG (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Charting on Spotify is not a notability claim that passes WP:NMUSIC — to count as notability, chart success has to be on an IFPI-certified national multivendor chart on the order of Billboard, not one online streaming service. There's no other NMUSIC claim being made here at all, and no reliable source coverage in real media to support the article — every single citation here is to Spotify, Instagram, a podcast or a primary source profile on the website of an online radio station that carries the subject's show, with not even one piece of media coverage about them shown at all. This is not what it takes to get a band into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/Jef-Miles-Unveil-Remix-Package-of-Their-Spotify-Smash-Hit-Lights-20170519 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.143.11 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which offers...what, exactly, toward passing an WP:NMUSIC criterion? Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 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 delete. WP:SNOW. Indeed, it is non-notable and promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RUCS[edit]

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

"Process" invented by article creator. I originally tagged this as an advert-speedy, but after noticing the AfDs on the related articles, I think it would be better to consider these COI articles as a group. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prealism, also by the same author.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the Artists.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but a plug for the author's problem-solving method. No evidence that it is considered notable as a problem-solving method. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally nothing comes up on Google for "Rudzki’s Universal Creative Solutions" and the article reads like a WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – obvious spam/self-promotion. Non-notable. V2Blast (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. Mduvekot (talk) 10:36, 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 delete. Lacks reliable sourcing to verify claims. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Paneru[edit]

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

Unremarkable person that fails WP:ACTOR and WP:PORN Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article contains notable sources. for example the post by kantipur dainik.49.126.157.209 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia where your first post ever is on this deletion discussion. I'm assuming you may not be familiar with our inclusion policies Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am new here but I can say this article (created by me) is notable. This article is about the first pornstar of Nepal. For proof about her you can check the official website of Kantipur in the reference section provided in the article.KW Star 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First porn star in the country could be a valid claim to notability. Does she meet the requirements of WP:ACTOR and WP:PORN Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here so I can't say anything more about WP:ACTOR and WP:PORN but she is not an actress or pornstar wholly. She is just claimed by medias and news portal as well as by herself. You can try searching about her in search engines.--KW Star 07:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Legacypac: The subject has worked in multiple movies like Chhesko and Jism. Sources 1, 2 and 3. However the article needs rewriting. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rewrite the article. If you know anything more about her you can simply add there. Thanks.--KW Star 01:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Improperly closed by page creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft as nominator - I'm going to suggest move this to Draft:Archana Paneru as I'm now somewhat convinced the subject may be notable and this page can be fixed. Perhaps the creator can add high quality sources not in English that will help. I'll watch and maybe clean up the page until it's ready to put back in main or turns out to be hopeless. Legacypac (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac What you are talking about? There is no reason to move the page. You if get any sources or contents then you can simply add it on the current page.--KW Star 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm throwing you a chance to improve the page. Otherwise it could get deleted. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page has notibility so it must be keep at any cost.-KW Star 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft Agreed with nominator. She is an actoress now and saying erotic model as the main lead is absurd. I stick to my previous nomination and believe the article needs reworking from scratch. Should be moved to draft till then Bishal Shrestha (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds like she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. According to the subject's article, "Jism" wasn't finished and "Chhesko" was poorly received, but the criteria requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It seems like most of the actual article content may come from unreliable sources connected with the subject. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GretLomborg's analysis. There's a lack of notability here, although I agree that the subject could theoretically be so. I'm not seeing an awful lot of support for the draftification option, and the article creator seems against it, so that sounds like a non-starter, albeit a good idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz How can you say that the given sources are not reliable ? Check This link..its posted by kantipur's official site(one of the best news channel of Nepal) that she claims to be the first pornstar of Nepal. And similarly you can see the official site of 'The himalayan times' where about her movie chesko is posted. Check it.—Big Hero 06:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the "first Nepali pornstar" claim - she makes it other places but there are other porn stars from nepal like Bindu Pariyar Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition (and I'll be away for a week, so any pings etc won't reach me until I'm back), I'd add that that link appears from its format (not that I can read Nepali, but I can see bolded "questions" with their answers attached) to be an interview. People can largely say what they want in interviews, much as Legacypac has indicated. Further, GretLomborg's comment was that multiple notable film roles would be required, rather than simply a critique of the reliability of the provided sources. The first half of that comment still stands, regardless of the reliability of the sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I google translated the page. Wow, Nepali to English is poor translation! It's indeed mostly an interview with extensive quotes in the first section that is not Q&A format. Best I can make out, at the time of the interview she is 17 and says she dreams of being a pornstar. So far she'd only posted some racy photos to facebook. The first part discusses that for Nepali society and law this idea is strange. She also lives in India, but comes from Nepal. A 17 year old's dreams do not make her notable under WP:PORN Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 23 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 with WP:NPASR. Between a very weak deletion nomination, some very weak keep !votes and some !votes advocating draftifying I don't see any clear consensus how to handle this at this point. So Why 12:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Point Anime Convention[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reliable sources for this article are problematic. NJ.com has published several pieces (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that have yet to be added to the article, and they seem to be the best source available. "The Stute", the newspaper of the college where the convention occurs, has published several articles (1, 2), but I am unsure this would meet the independent sources requirement. AXS also has coverage (1, 2, 3, 4) but it's questionable where they fall within reliable sources as they are part of the entertainment organization AEG. I could not locate TV or any reliable industry coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A superficial search found such reliable and verifiable sources as "Thousands flock, in costume, to Castle Point Anime Convention at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken" and "Artists' alley at Castle Point Anime Convention in Hoboken". As it stands, the article doesn't have what it takes to meet the notability standards, but it appears that it may be able to with the sources that are out there. Between these and the other sources found by Esw01407, we may well be over the threshold. Alansohn (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - There doesn't seem to be much coverage out there for the even; even the only ANN links I could find are press release. However, the NJ.com links do appear to be significant, and more importantly multiple, so perhaps by the slimmest of margins this one's probably notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not want to vote either way on this because I was once affiliated with this organization, and might have a potential WP:COI. I'm willing to admit the independent coverage on the article is quite scarce. Not enough such that it should be prod-deleted, hence why I contested the deletion, but it is not exactly clearly notable. However, I think there is some coverage. The event is a lot more well-known since its original AfD, and now has some consistent year-to-year coverage. If I had to declare my "vote" officially, I'd say a very weak keep. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace - I don't think this article should be kept but don't think it needs to be deleted. If someone is willing to improve the page then it can always be moved back into mainspace, or on the converse deleted as an abandoned draft. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow the editor to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Nemska[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason listed above. St0n3 BG (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist is clearly notable if we look at the original Bulgarian article. Yes the English stub needs expansion. There is now an 'Expand Bulgarian' tag on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, and the mere fact that they have an article on another wiki is not a reason to keep. That article is even more poorly referenced than this one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 27 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. WP:SNOW. Indeed, it is non-notable and promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the Artists[edit]

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

Does not meet book notability. No references to reviews of the book. Purely promotional by the artist-author.

By the way, I can't even find a listing of this book by a Google search, and that is saying something. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prealism, also by the same author. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUCS by the same author.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find even unreliable sources about this book. Part of a group of promotional COI articles--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Completely non notable and a WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Blatant spam, and clearly non-notable. V2Blast (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously promotional, and failing all relevant notability criteria (WP:BK), no reviews, no awards, significant contribution, not subject of instruction, author not subject of academic study. Because no sources exist, it also fails our verifiability policy. I did find a reference on worldcat; the book is obviously self-published and only appears to be held in the National Library of New Zealand, which is not an indication of notability. Mduvekot (talk) 10:58, 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 delete. WP:SNOW. Indeed, it is non-notable and promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prealism[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to have had any independent coverage by third-party sources, and so appears to be a use of Wikipedia to promote original research or a new movement.

Portions of this appear to be copyvio. Have not had time to determine conclusively whether it is entirely copyvio.

No independent evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the Artists. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUCS by the same author.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find even unreliable sources about this concept. Part of a group of promotional COI articles to promote the author's book.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Completely non notable and a WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Blatant spam, and clearly non-notable. V2Blast (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost qualifies for WP:A11, the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. It makes the claim, of course, but it is hardly credible. Mduvekot (talk) 10:35, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrick Pennie[edit]

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

Subject of article appears to lack notability, as the subject is primarily known for filing a lawsuit in the wake of the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. In addition, the article's creator claimed to represent the subject of the article. Given that the article is mostly about the subject's lawsuits, there may be WP:COI concerns. Weazie (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not significant. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someone filed a lawsuit which courts promptly dismissed. Not encyclopedia material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few news stories about lawsuits (dismissed quickly or otherwise) do not impart notability on a plaintiff, no matter how notable the defendants may be. The obvious conflict of interest issues only strengthen my position. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator clarified, "When I said 'represent,' I think a better way to put it is 'doing in behalf of,' as an advocate. It wasn't meant in some legal sense or that I represent him in any capacity at all. He's an associate of mine." WP:COISELF ("You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes.") would appear to still apply. --Weazie (talk) 02:03, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Purist[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This "Bandcamp" article was the only source found, however, this suggests that Bandcamp exists for the self-promotion of bands, so likely the bio there is self-published. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

another interview http://www.passionweiss.com/2015/03/12/a-pyrex-scholar-an-interview-with-uk-producer-the-purist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.146.198 (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian pick at glastonbury https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/28/glastonbury-2015-what-to-look-forward-to-on-sunday

Producer of the year award http://wordplaymagazine.com/2013/03/uncategorized/wordplays-best-of-2012-awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.146.198 (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources to show that they pass either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 27 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 2U (album). MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2U (Keshia Chante song)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Listing at AfD to canvass opinions, but this would be appropriate as a redirect to 2U (album) as ((R from song)). f e minist 02:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. f e minist 02:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it charted, is it being deleted because of David Guetta? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I would recommend finding additional sources that show that this song has received a significant amount of coverage if you want to have a stronger argument to keep this. Charting is definitely a start, but it was not covered by several notable, third-party sources, then the information on the single's existence and commercial performance can easily be folded into the parent article. I am not sure what you were getting at with the David Guetta question tbh. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Given that it charted in the top 20 in Canada 10 years ago, this article does have notability and it should be expanded, not deleted. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I feel like this is just a way to say that the David Guetta song is a primary topic songwise. Either way, the song charted in Canada at #14 (not to mention that Canada is Bieber's home country), so that proves that the song received appropriate success to have an article on Wikipedia. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:8BB:55F:E0BA:1473 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2U (album) as suggested by the nominator. While this song has charted, I cannot find enough coverage in third-party, reliable sources that support its notability outside of the album. The information about its chart appearance can easily be put into the article on the album itself. If the voters above me can link me to a few references that have significant coverage on this song, I will change my vote. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nominator. While charting is one of the criteria for meeting WP:NSONG, that only means it may be notable. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary T. Matias[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources about her, all sources are from her publisher or related. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Fram (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesn ot meet any of our notability standards. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up in-depth coverage to warrant keeping under WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Grand Forks, North Dakota[edit]

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

Unsourced and no indication that any of the streets are important. Fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a reader looking for info on this topic is better served by a map. I spend a week once in Grand Forks, the entire town is not very notable (nice people though, amd I'm sure some enjoy living there). Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: I think that pages like this should either be kept or merged into their city page, in a "Transportation" or "Highways" section. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Turning a map into prose is unlikely to result in anything that belongs in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As stated above, this isn't really encyclopedic info or appropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V2Blast (talk • contribs)
Delete. What constitutes "major"? Without any fixed criteria, this is an arbitrary list that does not have encyclopedic value. As Metropolitan90 points out, converting a map of the city into a bulleted list does not improve on anything already said at Grand Forks, North Dakota#Road. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:47, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ji-hoo[edit]

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

He's not a noticeable person. Also he has not a notable career as an actor and model. Beside, He did not commit suicide because he was gay. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources referenced Ji-Hoo, and not being "the best" at one's profession doesn't automatically make you non-notable. If it were only a handful of sources from the same period then sure delete it, but this person is notable, and the reason for their suicide being incorrectly referenced in the article doesn't make the entire article automatically invalid. Donald Trung (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think one event applies here? MrBrug (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps part of an (incredibly depressing) list of celebrity suicides in South Korean and/or list of LGBT suicides in South Korea. MrBrug (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at, and with this link to Bing News I also seem to get various other people with the same name, but if you search the Korean language news sites there's more about his early life prior to his suicide, and I've seen plenty of articles with almost no Anglophone sources to cite. Donald Trung (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah maybe we have a WP:BIAS problem here and one event doesn't apply. Hopefully some Korean sources will be added, do you know any good ones? MrBrug (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After searching for his career in both English and Korean, I am not finding anything other than television appearances mentioned at the time of his death in 2008. Two of the three current page citations (which also need fixing as they are dead links) are from Fridae, a questionable social media site. The 3rd citation, the Korea Times article [13] lists an "apparent suicide" and a vague suicide note not confirming the reason. Whatever the cause of the suicide, which got some attention referencing his being gay, or attached with a list of other celebrity suicides......I agree that his notability is only related to the one event. Media coverage was not significant and his notability was temporary.

As to any bias....I can add that the nominating editor Kanghuitari is South Korean and has contributed many South Korean articles and those related to gay subjects in South Korea, albeit without strong English skills. I trust that if there were more articles verifying Kim Ji-hoo, he would not have nominated it for deletion.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He was notable to get an entry in Harris M. Lentz III (17 April 2009). Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2008: Film, Television, Radio, Theatre, Dance, Music, Cartoons and Pop Culture. McFarland. pp. 235–. ISBN 978-0-7864-5384-9.. I'd hesitate to delete it before getting an input from a Korean speaker for sources possibly available at [14], for example; mention in "association between Media Reporting and a Lower Suicide Rate in 2012" for example suggests there may be some scholarly analysis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem particularly notable and can't find any reliable sources outside the WP:BLP1E, since he's unlikely to get WP:SUSTAINED coverage due his death, this is delete. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Per revised deletion guidelines, after being relisted and with no votes or participation I am treating this as a de-facto expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezumi Harzani Ismail[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. References currently in the article are all affiliated (groups he sits on boards of). Google finds passing references, databases, and self-generated material, but nothing that establishes notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 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 delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyogthaeblisz[edit]

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

Not sourced. Alexf505 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 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) 12:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND. A band accused of being anti-semitic. Notwithstanding that, a bevy available in sources berating them, from LA Times to VICE to Tablet Mag to Chicago Reader to ZT Mag....[15][16][17][18][19][20] Lourdes 18:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no assertion of notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the extremely unique nature of their name, it's easily possible to find trivial references to them. There's no claim that this band is notable in any of them, and no references on the article. It should be deleted as it stands. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the style of music they play, I'm not even entirely convinced that anti-anything-much sentiments are in themselves a claim of notability (with a few notable exceptions, most of black metal is anti-Christianity, and there's an entire subculture which is anti-Judaism). As Power~enwiki points out, there's a lack of anything beyond trivial coverage, and with a name like this there's no chance of missing it on a search. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:52, 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 speedy delete. One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 11:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kekcroc[edit]

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

Neither the game itself or the rumour of its existence have been covered in reliable sources. It's possible that this is nothing more than an internet meme. Whatever the case, there's no hope of this becoming a proper encyclopaedia article. Adam9007 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

its just so obscure dude lmao KawaiiChurchill (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Other than the KnowYourMeme page linked in the article, pretty much the only Google results are links to 4chan... and this video points out how extremely unlikely it is that such a game actually existed. In any case, it's definitely not notable. V2Blast (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aight you can delete it ([[User talk:KawaiiChurhill]) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
In case the ((db-author)) doesn't do it.... Delete as very likely a hoax. The name has notoriety only because it has "KEK" in the name. I can't find any videos on YouTube that aren't joke videos. --Hirsutism (talk) 01:16, 27 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.