< 1 May	3 May >

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Yoon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

IMO this is different enough from the previously-deleted version that it's not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G4 but I'd like the community's opinion on whether he is now notable - as far as I can tell, the awards and sources cited are on the edge of notability, but Malaysian artists are hardly my area of expertise. GoldenRing (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a subject deleted at AfD twice previously. The comments in the March 2017 AfD discussion are equally relevant to this version. I see no reason to overturn the consensus established there; youth competition awards fail WP:ARTIST by a long distance and are I think sufficiently run of the mill to fail WP:GNG. I note there is also a biography at User:Cypher5658, a dormant account. If this is deleted again, I suggest WP:SALT for the name variants. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist. This artist does not have anything near a credible track-record, which BTW at 20-years old would be very difficult to achieve. It seems this is a promotional article lacking in-depth achievements. The subject of the article does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNP. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dvdlee561. Timmyshin (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Awards won by her is only in Malaysia so she was only famous in Malaysia but not internationally. Too soon for an article. --QianCheng_虔诚 11:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Winning a Coloring and Drawing Contest at age six is not something we ought to even mention. Lacks any credible claim to notability, no substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: per AllyD and Mduvekot. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and others. Citobun (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not known internationally and not notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoenig9352 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Izumi[edit]

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

Manga illustrator for .hack//Legend of the Twilight and Hibiki's Magic, but not much notability on her own. ANN has no news articles for her, and her JA wikipedia article is also a credits dump. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no significant coverage by independent RSes. Searching found credits as an illustrator. Still no detailed coverage in depth. Fails to satisfy any notability guideline. Gab4gab (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom I followed the link to the anime news network hoping there'd be significant coverage there if anywhere. Disappointed.Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darussalam Education Centre[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this mosque per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no independent RSes. Searching found nothing helpful. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above It is remarkable that this has been in this (unreferenced, promotional) state for more than a year.Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 May Day protests[edit]

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

This fails WP:NOTNEWS. There are May Day protests every year. They turn violent almost every year, too, just look into Seattle's May Day history. There's no indication that anything that happened yesterday stands apart. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (note: article creator): Can we please stop nominating obviously notable topics for deletion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the yearly articles into May Day protests in the Pacific Northwest or something similar. It happens every year, with varying degrees of notability, and warrants inclusion as a series of events rather than a single instance each time. Sounder Bruce 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Except this article will not be about the Pacific Northwest specifically, once expanded. 2017 protests took place throughout the United States and around the world. An expanded article would look more like Not My Presidents Day or March for Science, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous May Day articles only seem to focus on the Pacific Northwest. The only violent incidents reported nationally were from Olympia and Portland. I don't think run-of-the-mill peaceful demonstrations can be considered notable when they happen literally every weekend. Sounder Bruce 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, riots in Olympia are not commonplace. Especially considering it was a political riot in the Washington state capital, this is actually an historic event. - Bri (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Hmm, ok. I disagree, and I'd hope this article would also mention the thousands who protested in Chicago and San Francisco, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (edit conflict) Once again a vexatious, knee-jerk delete nomination to go along with progressive-related Northwest and national themes immediately nominated for deletion like WP:Articles for deletion/Marissa Johnson, WP:Articles for deletion/Women's March on Seattle, and WP:Articles for deletion/Scientists' March on Washington. Agree with AB's comment above, this should stop. - Bri (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vexatious" and "knee-jerk"? NOTNEWS is clear. Also unlikely to evidence any WP:LASTING impact. Age of the article doesn't matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand by those characterizations. - Bri (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should learn to WP:AGF. I created March for Science. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - With respect to your article creation history 1) nominating an article barely 6 hours old counts as "knee jerk" in my book and 2) repeated nominations of this sort as a whole constitute vexatious under the Wikipedia definition "repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions". If the examples I gave were not meritless the articles would not now stand. I do AGF, but when facts and circumstances shout at me, then assumptions are no longer assumptions. Clearly the enduring notability of this event was not considered when arguments made on this page contravene facts, such as labeling this as a routine peaceful demonstration.

Other recent noms I'd consider vexatious, with similar reasoning include WP:NOTNEWS for WP:Articles for deletion/2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey and essentially same appeal of non-SUSTAINED coverage in WP:Articles for deletion/Wikitribune. We just waste a lot of time on this stuff. The community should take it easy on the NOTNEWS noms. That's all I'm saying. - Bri (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since editors weren't given sufficient time to expand this article, much like many of the other articles recently with even the slightest anti-Trump sentiment, I now feel forced to add a list of cities with protests just to rescue this article from AfD. Hopefully I'll have time to convert this list to prose later. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be rather a lot of them. Perhaps a group nom would be better. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And/or perhaps May Day Protests should be converted from a disambiguation page into a parent article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to take a side here, but I do see a double standard. For example, articles relating to protests in India, the largest democracy in the world, are routinely deleted. I have created articles about protests in the UK. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 London general election protest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Reclaim Brixton protest. Both were unanimously deleted with large participation. AusLondonder (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but at first glance I'd assume the two protests you mention each took place in one city? There were May Day protests this week all around the world. I'm not proposing we keep articles about May Day protests for each city; I'm proposing we keep one article about all the May Day protests around the world in 2017. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two paragraphs to the May 1 strike section of the Protests against Donald Trump article yesterday, and started a discussion on the talk page about creating a full article. I was somewhat surprised and a bit disappointed that you started this new article without chiming in on that, Another Believer, but as long as you already have, you can go ahead and incorporate my text from that article into this one. I'd rather not expend the effort myself in case this article ends up getting deleted. FWIW, I'm also about to upload to Commons 70+ photos from the May Day demonstrations in San Francisco. Funcrunch (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Funcrunch: Re: "I was somewhat surprised and a bit disappointed that you started this new article without chiming in on that, Another Believer". I'm sorry, I did not see this talk page discussion and the "Protests against Donald Trump" article is not on my watchlist. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images now uploaded. Funcrunch (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, the fact that these happen every year is more reason to keep this article because it's a large event with a lot of international media attention and lasting effects. Not to mention the fact that this took place in multiple different cities and is a part of an ongoing WP:SERIES of protests against Donald Trump. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, "There are May Day protests every year", just as there is a World Series, Oscars and a host of other annual events. What makes it notable is the worldwide breadth and scope of sources about the protests that day. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a factual, well-referenced article which given time may be expanded. The Category "May Day protests" includes over a dozen articles, and this should be kept as per Alansohn. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Article describes a noteworthy event, which was the May Day protests of 2017. It most certainly was a widespread event, triggering protests worldwide and some riots. "There are May Day protests every year," but there are superbowls, world series and NBA playoffs every year. We have separate articles about all of that. We even have articles about years in general. The year 2016 has an article. Under your logic, why does it exist? Years happen all the time. Yet we have articles for thousands of different years in history, some of which were very uneventful. Either keep this article, or merge it into a larger May Day article, but deleting it is a mistake. Lilahdog568 (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The have been May Day protests every year since it became a politically charged annual occurrence. A few of them were particularly significant, for various reasons. There is no reason to think this is, except that it's the one people here are most recently aware of, and are in a particular extremely popular cause--to avoid misunderstanding, in my opinion popular for good reason. They might become been notable if they should turn out to lead to something historic, like a presidential renomination. Otherwise, the votes here are basically ISUPPORTIT. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I respect your opinion and want to understand your position better. Do you think the Olympia, Portland riots are currently significant? Should we keep other recurring events where nothing out of the ordinary occurred? Like, say, an annual beauty contest? Seems like your answer to both has to be "no" for consistency, or else I misunderstand you. - Bri (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "currently significant". If so, that's a direct violation of NOT NEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. " This is an encyclopedia , and we need permanent significance.

Is the articles about riots concerning Trump? If so, most of the outside US riots do not belong--according to CNN, the ones outside the US were on unrelated causes. Or is the article about 2017 May Day events in general--if so, it does not belong under the series. Your argument about May Day being notable each year individually would implies that this does not belong under Trump. It also means we should have separate articles for each 4th of July since 1777. Not to mention each individual Guy Fawkes Night, Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, etc. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that the deletion debate for any "current event" becomes a kind of WP:CRYSTAL prediction of that event's future significance to rebut WP:NOTNEWS. Would the Mount Pleasant riot merit an article in the days after it occurred (it also involved crowds blocking streets and men in bandannas smashing stores)? I don't know. So we leave ourselves open to I like it/I don't like it arguments. To me there's a high likelihood of enduring significance -- I know the region pretty well, and like I said before, political riots are uncommon. Kind of like Black Panthers on the capitol steps [1] is notable enough to be included in a serious history book. - Bri (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Another Believer. It seems like a reflex for each of these protest articles to go to AfD. The only way we are going to be able to deal with these repeated, individualized, massive number of protests is through sidebar articles like this. Trackinfo (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an attempt to use Wikipedia for publicity and/or original research. Most of the sources are news articles about annual occurrences. If no individual protest was notable, gathering a list of twenty of them should not make it notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tider the Young[edit]

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

This appears to represent nothing but a confused and unreliable family origin legend, a 'sound-alike just-so-story' from the Toutant family. There is no reason to think it even represents a historical individual, and one credulous 1907 book and a mailing list discussion post don't amount to NOTABILITY. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not notable individual based on reliable sources. There are a few other old brief references relating the Toutant-Beauregard family history of a Welsh chief last to yield "to proud England's power" (e.g. [2] and [3]). Given the stories of the French court, and such, The tale may be a corruption of a 1751 book, The life and amours of Owen Tideric prince of Wales, otherwise Owen Tudor, which in France may have been considered true history at the time, see [4]. If any of this is to be kept it should probably be merged to P.G.T._Beauregard#Family and identified as notable family legend based on the references. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a lot of sources repeating this story, as can be found on google books. However, the story seems unreliable. For instance after the Battle of Orewin Bridge, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's brother, Dafydd ap Gruffydd took control of the Welsh army. Dafydd was captured and executed the next year and the name of Tider or Tudor, (or Titur or Theodric, etc) doesn't seem to appear. His marriage to a Mile (a typo for Mlle, that is Madomoiselle) Lefayette is also a bit fantastical - what early American wouldn't want to be related to these two families! Anyway, the article passes NOR (it is almost an exact copy of its sources) and the subject, in my opinion, passes GNG (it is repeated a lot, but perhaps repeating the same story means that different versions aren't strictly independent), but doesn't really pass NPOV. That is, the only POV represented is that of an ambitious early American family and not that of a professional genealogist or historian of the 13th-century. However, I also don't find any reliable sources criticizing the likely fabrication - so adding such a thing to the article would be OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. 19th century biographies and genealogies are simply not credible, by the standards of modern scholarly history or genealogy, when naming famous ancestors 700 years earlier - so lacking in credibility that no modern scholar is going to go out of their way to bother refuting in print each and every family foundation legend that has ever appeared. The consequence is that to describe it as a legend or fabrication would be to fail NOR, but the sources lack the historical credibility to pretend it is notable as reliable, authentic history. Agricolae (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the story is almost certainly a fabrication. However, it is beyond me to judge the quality of the sourcing, whose publishers include:

LSU Press: (1) Williams, T. Harry.c. LSU Press, 1995. p3 and (2) de Caro, Frank. Ghost Stories of Old New Orleans. LSU Press, 2013.

Southern Historical Society: Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 36, page 76

American Historical Society: Cutter, William Richard, ed. American Biography: A New Cyclopedia. Vol. 50. Pub. under the direction of the American historical society, 1932. p58

Otherwise, I think I agree with the rest of your comment - I don't see this article as improving wikipedia in its current state. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying about the publishers, about them looking respectable, but the two from LSU (the first of which actually first published in 1955) and the SHS one cannot be considered as giving anything but passing reference (a single sentence each). As to the AHS, sure, it is now viewed as a reliable publisher, but times change and scholarly standards have changed with them. Science journals of earlier times reported 'theories' that now make scientists laugh, and certainly would not lead them to fire off a new wikipedia page on the subject. Historical publications often credulously repeated stories without any independent investigation, and genealogy publlishers would just take your word for it rather than requiring evidentiary support for the claims being made, and often made up. While these sources may be considered reliable for events near-contemporary with their publication, not so for completely unsupported and descriptions of events 700 years before, even when they are not as obviously flawed as this account. Plus, the changing standards exacerbate the problem - making it much harder to publish a refutation now than it was a century ago to publish the original ridiculous claim. These all appear to have simply taken at face value the claims made in a biography of PGT written by his son in the 1880s. No, these reports should not considered reliable, and if they are not reliable, they can't prove notability. Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sounds like we more or less agree. The main reason I am not !voting delete, though, is that the reporting of the seeming fabrication is so common. A preferable outcome, in my opinion, would be to clarify the issue for our readers, as there are multiple independent respectable sources reporting it as if it is definitely true. So while I am fine with the article being deleted, I point these issues out in case someone has a more reliable source that can be used to improve the issues with the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- This whole thing has the feel of WP:OR. I expect the "original research" (i.e. invention) is by genealogists, rather than by a WP editor. If this has any validity, I would expect the article to be able to cite a WP:RS standard histories of Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Meena. clpo13_(talk) 18:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandawat[edit]

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

Recommend a merge, as the article provides little meaningful information. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and redirect to main article Meena. Move anything that adds information to that article. The fork article about Mandawat does not add sufficent additional information to be a free standing article in its current form. Jake Brockman (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep, withdrawn by nominator. User:Kiteinthewind accidentally used the MFD template when closing this discussion, which was causing this entry to persist in the open AfDs log. I've preserved his original comment below. A Train^talk 21:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was: Snowball Keep. Non-admin close by nominator, who has decided to withdraw the deletion nomination. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 05:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Frank Cross (baseball)[edit]

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

I believe the subject does not meet a notability threshold. He played one game over a century ago for the Cleveland Indians. I don't think that means much, in the grand scheme of things. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presumed notable per WP:NBASE for that one game of MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- the MLB did not exist back in the time this guy played, so we can't say that was an MLB game. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - MLB traces it's existence back to the formation of the National League in 1876. Spanneraol (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NBASE requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASE and precedence towards keeping these turn of the century players whose primary sourcing is not readily available on the internet. Spanneraol (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was the briefest cup of coffee possible, but it satisfies WP:BASEBALL/N. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junko Kitanishi[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actress. Article is just a credits dump filmography that shows no significance, other than that she voiced some Avengers films. Her only major role is Anastasia in Drifters. She has at most supporting roles as Shoko Inari on Princess Jellyfish, Sakiko Okudaira in Sweet Blue Flowers. No references. BTVA has no checkmarks so it is useless to verify anything. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP: BLP without sufficient reliable sourcing. I attempted searching the subject's name in Goodsearch and came up with nothing better than what's already in the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Searching finds plenty of mentions as 'the voice of' some character but no depth of coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matse Uwatse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, ran a search on her and couldn't find anything notable- except her been fired by a radio station! ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO reads like a resumé, very promotional without any sort of major claim of notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sir, can you take a second look at the article and reconsider your earlier assertion that there isn't a major claim of notability? Darreg (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable OAP. One of the best in her field nationally. Article needs work, but she's clearly notable. Use Google as i just did, if you need sources. Darreg (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: On a second thought, let me add some references here. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Delete There is some minor coverage. From the current sources in the article there are several paragraphs about her. The rest are interviews with her non-independent comments about herself or brief mentions. There are some notable awards listed although I'm not certain if any would be considered 'well known'. Most are unsourced claims. Of the four sources listed by Darreg one is a dead link for me (takes me to [5]) and the others are again interviews of the subject which are not helpful to notability. FailsWP:ANYBIO. Happy to reconsider if better sources surface. Gab4gab (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to convince you, I didn't create the article, I'm on Wikipedia to add content on Nigerian topics, not to socialize, make friends or please anyone by !voting delete abruptly. If Wikipedia still thinks this article should be deleted despite the references I added then so be it, I really do not care. It just pains me that Wikipedia adopts an hypocritical ideology in handling issues. One thing I've noticed in my 7 years of creating articles here is that Wikipedia always fake a concern that women and African topics are lacking in coverage and more editors are needed in these areas yet they delete articles in these areas that actually contain REFERENCES at the slightest opportunities. The irony of this is that there is a general understanding among the deletionist camp that coverage in these areas are not as prevalent as others.

I've lived in Lagos for most of my life and I listen to radio quite often. I know the impact Matse had during her time at Wazobia FM above her contemporaries in other frequencies. When you delete the most popular OAP (with references) of a nation (Yes Lagos is the media capital of Nigeria) on some illogical grounds then there is certainly a problem somewhere. You are inadvertently implying that you don't want any female OAP from Nigeria, a nation that actually still listens to radio, having articles on Wikipedia.

And I can only lol at your comment that implied that multiple non-promotional independent interviews in reliable sources doesn't amount to significant coverage. If not for the more specific guidelines we have for sportpeople, entertainers, politicians, etc. there wouldn't be any Nigerian article on Wikipedia based on that statement. Sorry to say, but to me you sound quite uninformed and lacking in recognition that Africa is essentially different from Europe and the West. Better I stop here so I wouldn't be accused of not adhering to AFD etiquette. Darreg (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Darreg: You get very emotional when responding to others. You need to stop making comments about AFD participants. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Some of the comments you made above are conflicting to say the least. If you do not care about the outcome of this AFD discussion, why participate in it? You are overreacting Darreg. WP:NTEMP supports the notion that articles on Wikipedia can be nominated for deletion at any point in time. AFD exists in order for the community to derive consensus about the notability of a topic. I disagree with your point about Wikipedia faking "a concern that women and African topics are lacking in coverage." The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia welcomes contributions from everyone. If this wasn't the case, newcomers wouldn't be able to create a page by simply adding double brackets around the page's title. If Wikipedia was more stringent, new articles would only be created via AFC. One being a popular OAP doesn't mean that they deserve to have stand-alone articles written about them. I just want you to keep this in mind. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Initially I was heading for a keep; while broadcasters/presenters are rarely notable, this subject had multiple awards listed. On further look, the awards themselves appear small or very recent in inception. Therefore, it doesn't really support her notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I love the direction this AFD is going. Darreg (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just don't see enough here to meet notability criteria. Yes, there's some awards, but they are not notable awards, and the awards must be notable to help confer notability on an article subject. Waggie (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Horse[edit]

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

While a very beautiful and fine specimen of a Tang dynasty tomb figure, I question whether this particular "Standing Horse" is individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are many examples of standing horses from Tang dynasty tombs, so it is not unique as an object. I am not saying the horse is not notable, but I am saying it is not notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article, especially when there is already Tang dynasty tomb figures with a lede image of two more standing horses... Mabalu (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What a ridiculous argument, showing complete lack of understanding of how our notability policy works! Imagine saying: "While a very beautiful and fine specimen of a painting of the Virgin and Child, I question whether this particular "Virgin and Child" is individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are many examples of paintings of the Virgin and Child, so it is not unique as an object. I am not saying the painting is not notable, but I am saying it is not notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article, especially when there is already Virgin and Child with images of many more Virgin and Child... ". Nom says "I am not saying the horse is not notable" - WELL DON'T NOMINATE IT UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT! As with everything else it depends on independent sources on this individual horse, which the nom does not attempt to address. This article is very strange, as it used to be 10 times longer, but the sole editor cut it down for some reason. I have restored the longer version, and moved it to a better title. Articles on individual works are a very useful supplement to by type articles. This one joins several others in Category:Chinese ceramic works. It's pity the picture was non-free and has been deleted, but another one could be uploaded to Commons. NOTE TO CLOSER: The article contains much well-referenced background material, which could well be reused elsewhere. This should be saved somewhere if the article is deleted. Ping me first please. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod - When I saw the article, it had been cropped down, and I had noticed that the creator had removed a ton of text which looked like it had been copied and pasted over from elsewhere on Wikipedia, because it seemed very improbable that a brand new editor could produce work of such high standard and quality practically off the bat - not impossible, but it definitely looked copy-pasted (and then the deletion just looked like they had tried to remove what had been copied from elsewhere. I don't really understand why an editor would go to all this trouble and then just randomly delete so much hard work unless there was something very odd going on. I did a basic search to see whether this particular horse was notable, such as a Google search for '"Standing horse" Tang NGA' in Books and didn't see that it had received much commentary or coverage (only four books came up) Even less hits came up when I substituted Canberra for NGA in response to your page move. While I see what you are saying, this individual artwork doesn't seem particularly notable in itself, although the article could certainly be a general overview of standing horses from the Tang dynasty. However, since you are so impassioned in your defence, I bow to your experience and withdraw the nomination. Mabalu (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree it is odd - I asked them on their talk-page a few days ago. To me it looks like a student piece, but it doesn't seem to be part of a class effort or assignment. I'm pretty sure it is not copy-pasted, either from WP or a book, partly because it is not all that well-expressed, and the (rather good) sources it uses. I wrote the main Tang dynasty tomb figures, & it's certainly not from there. Sadly, Tang dynasty art has nothing like this much detail. The formatting etc is actually very quirky & I can believe it is a first-time effort, maybe posting an essay for college etc. Perhaps they were worried that by posting it they would get caught by plagiarism checks, which I believe can be an issue. Anyway, they released under the licence terms, so can't "retract" it. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 06:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Lewis[edit]

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

A producer and co creator of a animated series. The series seems notable enough but it is difficult to see notability for this co-creator. The sources are very brief passing mentions. Althou her co-creation is notable, that notability is not inherited by its co-creator. She appears to keep a very low profile since further searches yield nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is a producer and co creator of more than one animated series and she has won an emmy. The sources arent mentioned repeatedly because much of the information comes from the same source. She maintains a linkedin, instagram, and twitter regularly.

What changes could I make to avoid deletion?

Eaw2600 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)eaw2600[reply]

Add some sources that are actually about her, rather than just glancingly namechecking her existence in coverage of something else. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was co-producer for Beavis and Butt-head for 156 episodes, co-creator of Daria, supervising producer for Sea Rescue, as well as many other series listed on the page. Eaw2600 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)eaw2600[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have pages on wikipedia that do not have media coverage specifically about them, but the shows that they have contributed to. For example, Glenn Eichler (other co-creator of Daria), Craig McCracken, and Lauren Faust.

Susie Lewis is notable because she was a female co-creator on a show that was "for girls" by MTV (Daria) ^[1]

She is quoted directly in the articles linked on this page.

What other changes should be made?

References

^ https://mic.com/articles/173215/female-written-daria-was-groundbreaking-and-would-still-be-an-exception-today#.OpmFmGsIa

Eaw2600 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)eaw2600[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that you can find some other articles which are contradicting something you've been told about how to improve this one does not mean this article is fine and has to be kept — it means those articles are not fine and have to be deleted, and just hadn't been noticed until you pointed them out. So what I told you the first time still applies: the referencing needs to be improved with more evidence of reliable source coverage about her — not "quoting" her: about her — and those other articles do not constitute evidence that that's not necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She could possibly meet WP:CREATIVE point 3, as co-creator of Daria. I don't know enough about the subject matter to say, can anyone comment on this? I don't see any other possible notability criteria under either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - low personal notability, unworth a personal biography. a mention in her main article. Are there promotional or paid editing concerns? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I am not a fan of her work. That fact that she won an Emmy and co-produced a very popular television show is enough to establish notability. In addition, she has been covered by the mainstream national press/ For example, these news organizations have covered her: The New York Times, Variety, etc. Google is showing 64,400 results for her name.[6] I have noticed that voice actresses are more likely to have their articles deleted than non-voice actresses. That is probably due to actresses connecting with the public in a greater way. It is kind of unfair to voice actresses though. With that being said, she doesn't have much of a Twitter following.[7] And her Facebook following appears to be nonexistent.Dean Esmay (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I do that search, none of the first three pages of results is independent coverage (not just mention) of the subject by reliable sources. Can you point to some that are? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the number of followers is gauged in relation to social media, but she is quite active on instagram and fairly so on twitter. There is a substantial IMDB profile for her. She is also on Linkedin and many articles can be found there that mention her in relation to Daria's 20th anniversary this year. Why is media coverage discounted if it is not specifically about her? Are there pieces of information that I could remove from the page rather than the entire page being deleted? She is one of the most active women in production, voice acting, and writing. Eaw2600 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)eaw2600[reply]

Have you not read our notability guidelines? WP:N is a good place to start. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Followers on social media count for nothing toward notability — if a person isn't the subject of reliable source coverage in media, then no number of followers on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram exempts her from having to clear WP:GNG. Having an IMDb profile doesn't assist notability either, because everybody who works in the film industry at all always has one — and because the content on IMDb is user-generated, it's far from rare for it to be wrong (e.g. erroneously conflating two different people who happen to have the same name.) And as for being "one of the most active women in production, voice acting, and writing", again, reliable source coverage about her has to show that to be as true as you claim it is.

The reason we insist on reliable source coverage about a person is that people regularly make inflated claims about themselves to look more notable than they really are — musicians regularly call their current single a "hit" in their PR kits even though it hasn't actually charted anywhere that counts as a notability-conferring chart; writers regularly claim that their book was a "bestseller" just because it sold ten copies on consignment at the local diner, and on and so forth. So what we require is verification in sources that aren't directly invested in the subject's own public relations bumf — if people could self-publish themselves into Wikipedia just by claiming stuff about themselves that didn't have to be verified properly, then we'd have to keep an article about everybody who ever signed up for a Tumblr account. Bearcat (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked about social media following because someone else on this page had mentioned her lower following on instagram as justification for deletion. I understand why these things are in question, but I feel that there are several reliable sources cited on her page at this time. She is notable because she is the co-producer of Daria and did production for Beavis and Butt-head. 143.43.146.225 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)eaw2600[reply]

A person is notable for something if and when they're the subject of media coverage for that something. Not "glancingly namechecked in other things", which is all that's been shown here — the subject in her own right, which hasn't been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I understand. Thank you for your patience explaining this. What about this article linked in the page? (http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/mtv-daria-cartoon-20-year-anniversary-1202000114/) she and the other co-creator have quotes throughout, so they were both interviewed because of creating Daria. Eaw2600 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)eaw2600[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We could argue about whether this coverage is significant, since the article is about Daria, not Lewis. I think it probably is, and it does meet the other criteria. The problem is that a single source is usually not considered enough to establish notability. If you can find a half dozen more sources like that one, or one source in which Lewis is the subject, I think you could sway some of us. The other possibility is to establish notability under WP:CREATIVE point 3. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a no-brainer. She's won an Emmy, passing WP:ANYBIO right there. She was a producer of one of the most successful and written-about shows of all time, and was the co-creator of a spinoff of that very show. Yes, the article needs to be fleshed out with more details on all three of those aspects of her notability, but that doesn't mean she isn't notable. Keep and improve. CrispyGlover (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though there is not enough in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, I agree with CrispyGlover that the Emmy is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO and that seems enough to justify keeping it. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
agree with above... her work plus the Emmy = Keeper Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some editors above have referred to her number of followers on social media, this does not contribute to wp notability, afterall, followers can be bought, what does, is the winning of an Emmy ie. 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. (from WP:ANYBIO) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a Daytime Emmy meets the notability standards, independently of whatever "Daria" is. The article could use revision, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How is an Emmy-winner not notable? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the available sources don't show notability independent of the company. clpo13_(talk) 18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vichea In[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. the only independent source is mostly about the company and his brother the CEO of the company they founded. Notability is not inherited. Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. The company may be notable, but that does not make its founders notable. Meters (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from the company. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now two major tech media confirmed him as the founder. One source confirmed he was in charge of operations from the start. He and his two brothers are the face and pioneers of Cambodian tech scene.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.188.253 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)— 103.9.188.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources help, but still appear to be mainly about the company. The concern wasn't whether he was a founder of the company but whether there was sufficient coverage about him to show his notability. I'm not sure this is sufficient. If he really is "the face and pioneer[s] of [the] Cambodian tech scene" we should easily be able to find good coverage about him. Meters (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Found one news source about a homonymic murdered labor leader. Notability is not inherited, and there is no in depth coverage about the subject. Unfortunately, it is not enough to style oneself as "the face and pioneer". Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Odabash[edit]

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

The article is classified as a stub 'deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject' and has only been self promoting since being on the site as well as various spamming Folexyz (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Subject of article is covered in Telegraph 2015, Telegraph 2016 (short), LA Times 2016 (short article), Evening Standard 2016, The Times 2016 (subscription), Marie Claire 2015, and is in the tabloids quite a bit. It's clear she's a designer to the rich & famous and her work also gets a lot of press. Also the article is hardly too short, though it could be expanded. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. This AfD is this editor's only contribution to Wikipedia. Article is more promotional than I would like, but perhaps less so than it was (and I've seen much worse), and hopefully people will stop trying to trim six years off her age! Edwardx (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VisaHQ[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. The entity has 155 appearances in Google News but the appearances are on non-reliable blogs, press releases, non-reliable newspapers and some notable, reliable newspapers. For the notable, reliable newspapers, they're just mentions of the name or are quotes from an employee (ie [8] or [9]). This is not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, a primary criteria of WP:GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertisement. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete might have gone as WP:CSD#G11. Sometimes subjects have inflated G-hits through google bombing. Certainly a page here could not hurt. This would explain lack of depth-- appearance w/o substance.Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grodzinski Bakery[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. While it clearly exists and is apparently a successful family operation, this advertorial-style article cannot be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources, per my WP:BEFORE search of Gnews. Passing mentions only in Gbooks. Am I missing any WP:RS? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very short of time onwiki, so here's a quick dump of some possible sources:

Hope that helps --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see only passing mentions. Perhaps these links point to the original location in Whitechapel having had some cultural notability -- but the article as currently composed is an advert that requires much more than these name drops here and there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fixture of London's Jewish life for 150 years. Detailed, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, including those covering it from the angles of London, Jewish and industry. (There is also plenty of local media coverage in London and Toronto, but as I've mentioned, I'm short of time):

[15] London Remembers (site marked by a London Remembers heritage plaque)

[16] British Baker

[17] Hackney Museum

[18] The Jewish Chronicle

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just sourced it to the first 5 hits that came up on a news archive search. There were more in that search. None of the hits I found replicate the ones given above by User:Dweller. AfD probably stems from the lamentable fact that Nom lives in Montreal, known to be a bit snobbish about their bakeries, chaps in Montreal are.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Shawn in Montreal says, the article has a PROMO tone and was largely unsourced when nominated. It needs to have the hot air out, although it is permissible to have some small bit of the history of the bakery sourced to a primary source like the baker's own website or a published family reminiscence. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hochschule für Musik Mainz[edit]

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

Only primary sources. The German-language article has none. Google search provides none. Most are database entries. I was hoping for info at links like http://www.fsjkultur-rlp.de/einsatzstellen/hochschule-fur-musik-mainz/ and http://musik-studium.info/institutionen/hochschule-fuer-musik-mainz/ but nothing to support notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a Musikhochschule, a German state-run public university, as the institutions in Hannover and Munich, among others. Their primary information is credible. Sadly, German articles often don't come with sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. So it should be kept because it's a ~~public school~~ in Germany? The school in Hanover has reliable sources. The one in Munich does not. Also, don't support the need for this article because there are already similar articles on this project. We can have the same discussion for either if needed. Could it be that the German project's article has no sources because there are none? I tried to find notability criteria for public schools but could not. But there is a note at WP:N that "articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Hochschule is not a school but a university. Please inform accordingly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Rewording: So it should be kept because it's a public post-secondary school in Germany Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One of the two links you provided offers work there, not exactly what we need. The other one is used, and the German Information Center (MIZ), and the site of the state that runs it as its only music university. De facto notable sounds good to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (if I may say so as an unregistered user):

There is absolutely no question about notability: "In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia." (WP:UNIGUIDE).

Reliable sources need to be provided of course, and the German article does in fact have the same problem. --93.212.229.181 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you may voice an opinion, and thank you for pointing to the guideline. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." I can't quite tell if they exist. The entries I saw in my Google search do not support independence. If one, or ideally two, can be found I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent proof of existence, now that should be easy:

Website of the city of Mainz, state capital of Rhineland-Palatinate
Hochschulgesetz Rheinland-Pfalz (legislative framework for universities in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate)

Is that good enough for starters? --93.212.229.181 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both are in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really did some work there. @Walter Görlitz, would that be o.k. for you now? --93.212.229.181 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that http://www.lmr-rlp.de is independent and somewhat reliable. Sure, I withdraw my request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the available sourcing on the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines. This doesn't mean the film he is known for making is not notable. Hut 8.5 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Țofei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was just soft-deleted, then restored. It's pretty obvious the IP behind the article is Țofei himself, a relentless self-promoter based on the number of articles where he's seeded this link. The fact, though, is that at present, his sole claim to notability rests on having directed a single film (itself of uncertain notability); that really doesn't appear enough to satisfy WP:BIO.

Pinging @Somedifferentstuff:, who authored the first nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The movie's notability hasn't been disputed so far, only Țofei's page. But since he did almost everything on that movie - directing, writing, producing, acting, cinematography, editing, production design, casting, production management, sound, sound editing, color, special effects etc. and a lot of critics praised this achievement (it is actually Romania's first 100% indie/guerrilla feature film), I believe this is also proof of Țofei's notability. I was fascinated myself by the achievement, which is why I tried to contribute as much as possible to both the movie's page and Țofei's page and tag them whenever I saw them mentioned elsewhere. It's odd that this behavior is interpreted as a form of abuse or self-promotion. It is not. I am still searching for more info and references to add to Țofei's page in support of his notability, please don't delete it again. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the page more relevant info and sources in support of notability, compared to what was there when the deletion was requested, and will continue to add more. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just checked Biruitorul's contributions and looks like he even deleted any mention of Be My Cat: A Film for Anne in the article Cinema of Romania, although the movie is Romania's first found footage horror movie and the first Romanian horror movie to receive international recognition. I've restored that, but all his efforts to remove the movie or the movie's director from Wikipedia look suspicious. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I removed it per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTADVERTISING, and I'll likely remove it again once this discussion closes and you fade away from the project, which you probably will, given that your single purpose here is to promote Țofei and his film. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My single purpose here is to contribute objectively to things that I feel passionate about. Please do not manipulate the discussion, I never said that my single purpose is to promote Țofei and his film, I said that I am fascinated by the achievement. There is no conflict of interest in contributing to things that you feel passionate about. And I also contributed to other pages as well, unrelated to Țofei or his movie. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Untrue: whether as 88.237.199.171, 86.120.250.221 or 86.120.254.110, all your contributions deal with Țofei and his little movie. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - These were the IPs automatically assigned to me when I contributed to Țofei and his movie. I am not a constant contributor, I contribute to Wikipedia from time to time and when I do so I focus on a subject for a couple of days till I'm satisfied with the quality of the edits. I worked on various other pages in different periods of my life and all kinds of IPs have been assigned each time to me. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I addressed the undelete request to Juliancolton the first time Adrian Țofei was softdeleted. I explained to him in detail on User talk:Juliancolton why Țofei is notable and he restored the page. I need some help here from the Wikipedia community, the second attempt to soft-delete seems strange, to say at least, given all the circumstances and the fact that the user who proposed it went to delete even unquestionable info about Țofei's movie from another page (see the comment above). 86.120.254.110 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- There's nothing "strange" about a renomination under such circumstances. If anything is strange, it's that you haven't disclosed your apparent conflict of interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot have any conflict of interests about Be My Cat being mentioned on Cinema of Romania. I didn't add that paragraph, I've just expanded it. And some minutes ago I actually deleted two festivals because they are not relevant for the movie's international recognition. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked Biruitorul's page again and saw this in his "About me" section: "This user is a patriot who often veers into deranged right-wing nationalism." He is a Romanian, so it's possible that he deleted any mention of Be My Cat: A Film for Anne from Cinema of Romania because the movie is not spoken in Romanian and it's addressed to a Hollywood celebrity, so it's not Romanian enough in his views. If this is true, it makes him biased towards anything related to the production. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you're way off: I'm actually a filmmaker myself, and Țofei is a rival. My aim is to minimize mention of him throughout the Internet, and hopefully wreck his reputation in the process.
- As for who added that paragraph: another single-purpose IP. Whether or not that was you remains an open question. Registering an account helps dispel these sorts of doubts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I will consider registering an account from now on to remove any suspicion of single purpose. I contributed to a lot of other pages, but I don't have a static IP, it changes, so it's impossible for me to prove anything. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would be helpful if 86.120.254.110 could stop sniping at me and actually stick to the topic at hand, which is whether the subject under discussion is indeed notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article doesn't meet WP:N (just have a look at the sourcing) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything wrong with most of the sources. There are two important awards in two film festivals with international significance (Nashville Film Festival and A Night of Horror International Film Festival in Sydney), three praising reviews/listings in top film sites (Austin Chronicle by a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic, Dread Central and Blumhouse) and multiple other interviews in film sites where Țofei is praised for his revolutionary approach on the found footage concept. And there is much more relevant info on the internet which is not yet added - you can find a lot of those sources listed on Be My Cat: A Film for Anne. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article builds too much on the websites on Tofei and his film. We need 3rd party coverage of Tofei that is in depth about him, and the article does not show such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia's guidelines for articles without independent/third party sources, the article should not be deleted yet, but instead kept in an imperfect state and use the talk page to ask help with third party sources. There is no talk page and no proof that the community made any significant efforts to find third party sources, so the page should be given this chance until being proposed for deletion again. And also take into consideration that it's disputable whether there are currently no third parties at all, since some of the sources do not mention only direct reviews and critical opinions of the critic who wrote the article, they also contain a general analysis of the status of Țofei in the film world based on all the praise he received in the film community. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs independent secondary or tertiary sources, which I can't find any. The sources all rely on his film(s) one way or another. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most contemporary filmmakers on Wikipedia have only sources based on their films in one way or another, and they are accepted as secondary sources. It would be extremely hard to find a source about a filmmaker (even top filmmaker) that no one could accuse of being based on his films. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jekyll[edit]

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

CSD contested. Promo page for a CD at a creative agency and former member of a non-notable band. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find anything making him notable. All that seems to exist is social media accounts. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find evidence to suggest that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow talk 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above WP:Gale search unavailing, but I lack access to Biographies in context. I did find Billboard hits for "Jekyll and Hyde". Billboard was unavailing.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable autobiography. Ifnord (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: This is clearly not going to survive. Waggie (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gboyega Adedeji[edit]

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

Autobiography, sources given are of questionable veracity and does not meet WP:BIO. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just some guy with some websites who also fails WP:AUTHOR......if there was a WP:JUSTSOMEGUY, this would be a text book case.South Nashua (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.Procedural close, article speedily deleted G11/A7.(non-admin closure) Kleuske (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OFFICE OF ACP JALUKBARI[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best of current sources is routine coverage of the creation of the office. Searching found another article announcing. No coverage beyond that. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be a way of getting a mention for Ponjit Dowarah for whom this user has created an article 3 times in 1 week and each time was speedily deleted. Domdeparis (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An office building is not notable. ValarianB (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's thousands of offices that won't become an article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that this is anything other than a run of the mill police station. If we start creating articles for every local police station, where would we ever draw the line? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatla airstrike[edit]

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

I could find no further sources to cover this supposed air strike. If "hundreds" had really died from gas as the Syrian army claims then in 3 weeks there would have been confirmation. This fails WP:SUSTAINED and does not meet the criteria for notability for an event. this article contravenes WP:NOTNEWS. Domdeparis (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatla chemical attack, which was speedy kept. I do not see that notability was seriously considered during the short time that AfD was open, though. VQuakr (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the dearth of confirmation that this was a real event at all, this utterly fails WP:10YT. It also fails the notability guideline at WP:GNG since no sources have been found that are intellectually independent of the original, unsubstantiated Syrian govt claim. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:V and WP:EVENT. We have a statement by Syria that has not been independently verified as true. Reliable sources cover the resulting dispute of the facts but that coverage fades away at the end of the news cycle. The most charitable assessment would be the fog of war. For our purposes, this is non-notable propaganda. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is similar to the Bowling Green massacre, only without the cultural impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Jat people. Redirecting as a related topic. clpo13_(talk) 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dahiya Jat[edit]

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

List of random people with the same surname, with no sources whatsoever for them being members of the similarly named clan (gotra) of Jats (other than the article creator's claim on the talk page of the article about personally knowing some of them, and knowing they belong to the clan...), or even sources for there existing a notable clan of Jats by that name. I tried CSD first, since that would simplify things, but speedy deletion was denied, leaving AfD as the best available option. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Does not need a standalone page, There is a page Jat people which addresses the subject.FITINDIA (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced random list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hairston[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, or any lesser standard that applies. John from Idegon (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple mentions in this and this refs. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be WP:1E? John from Idegon (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Nope, it is clearly notable per WP:NGRIDIRON. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81:: How's that? He was drafted yesterday. Obviously he has not yet played in a game. Perhaps you've conflated NGRIDIRON with another athletic notability guideline (eg basketball) where being drafted early confers notability? John from Idegon (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Yes, whatever the subject has coverage in reliable sources regardless of sports drafts. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only was he just drafted, but he also has coverage:[19][20][21][22][23][24]--Yankees10 17:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the notability guideline. Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in any of that is sourcing to write a biography of this fella? There is no information whatsoever on his life, just his career, which really hasn't even started. If you extended this logic to non athletes, everyone that ever ran for political office, got promoted, graduated from high school or college, patented anything, got arrested....the list goes on, would be notable. The reason the sports notability guidelines were created was to give us a shorthand for when we could assume enough coverage existed to write a reasonable biography. All of the sources on the article and all of the sources cited here just talk about segments of his amateur career or him being drafted. Believe it or not, one has a life before and after football. But whatever.....I'll never understand the fascination with people who toss spheroids for a living. You can consider this Withdrawn. Wikipedia has ceased to be an attempt to gather the sum total of human knowledge and become a repository for everyone's favorite triviality. John from Idegon (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. We go through this every year, after every NFL draft. I've decided that, moving forward, I'm going to consider this a rite of passage, a sign that spring is finally here! Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Everything is certified to be safe, and the article should have no problem as of up to this date. Just waiting for admin action. Slasher405 (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources about him establish notability. WP:NCOLLATH would be more relevant here and he passes the criteria. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable under any of the relevant criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per sources cited by Yankees10. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there anything at all[edit]

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

This seems to be simply a philosophical argument, leaning towards WP:SYNTH. I note that Ultimate Question redirects to Hitchhiker's Guide, so we can't just merge it there. Tarl N. (discuss) 11:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tarl. This seems a worthwhile and important topic, but aware many changes (including title) to the draft may be needed. I would argue this is a physics (not philosophy) topic; why does matter (or laws of physics) exist, when it is surely more logical and easy for there to be nothing. Maybe a set of pages around 'before Big Bang' could be grouped, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre%E2%80%93Big_Bang_physics. Thanks again, all best, JCJC777

I've removed the 'Ultimate question' phrase (to prevent any confusion), and added content and organisation. JCJC777 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777[reply]

Comment Although there is significant room for improvement in the article (add more references to major philosophy), it's probably a notable topic; see e.g. the book A Universe from Nothing, or section 1 of [25]. My worry is whether there is duplication with other articles. The article Nothing (which Nothingness redirects to) doesn't address it specifically, and nor does Nothing comes from nothing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~but rename~~ - articles should not have titles in the form of questions hence this should be renamed to sth like "Origin of existence", "Reason for existence" or "Reason for existence rather than nothing". Other than that and that the article needs improvements / expansions I don't see any reason for why it shouldn't be kept. Imo "Ultimate question" and "Why is there anything at all" should then redirect there. --Fixuture (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a rename of the page: maybe this should be an exception to the rule (also I'm not sure if there is even any guideline/policy on that). I changed my mind regarding that especially as it seems to be predominantly referred to under "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (question). --Fixuture (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - I can't find a standard name for this problem, but I'm sure we can get a better title for this page. While the content would benefit from work it is encyclopaedic and referenced. The question is notable. Porphyro (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest as above, (1) rename the page to "Origin of existence", and (2) redirect of "Ultimate question" and "Why is there anything at all" to that renamed page. Please could some wizard with sublime wiki skill action that? JCJC777 (talk) 20.07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777

The move can be done easily - go to the article page, click on the "more" tab, and you'll see a sub-menu item "move". Click that, it brings you to a page that asks for a new title. Make sure the "move talk page" item is clicked (it is by default, just make sure).

However, I think some discussion on the title of the page should take place, first. Would a better title be "origin of matter"? That as it happens, re-directs to Baryogenesis. I'm still unsure of what you are trying to document, which is why I don't know if the title you are suggesting is appropriate. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Tarl N. (discuss) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Ref. what I am trying to document; it is the completely general question of how come anything at all exists (as set out by Liebniz et al refs in the page). i.e. atoms, laws, maths, pink guineau pigs, the universe(s), consciousness. I have added a sentence to the page intro to try to help on this.

Assuming wiki does not allow questions as page names, then I agree we need better ideas for a page title.

"Origin of existence"; use of 'existence' alone is perhaps not ideal as I feel leads thoughts to 'what does existence mean?' and towards thinking about being aware, and consciousness (existence is defined as 'the fact or state of living') but may atill be best option.

"Origin of matter" leads towards thoughts on matter (atoms, etc), and towards mechanisms of Big Bang etc.. As above the scientists and thinkers referenced are pursuing the much more general question of how come anything at all exists. Also some thinkers believe our existence may be virtual, i.e. matter does not exist.

Also 'origin' is defined as 'the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.'

My best suggestions are

"Explanations for existence."

"Explanations for why anything exists."

"Explanations for why there is anything at all existing."

"Another option might be to base on Liebniz' words; "Explanations why there is something rather than nothing.'"

Can anyone improve? Thanks JCJC777 (talk) 11.00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

Comment: This is indeed an important topic in philosophy (I find the suggestion that it is more of a physics topic to be problematic, but maybe that's just me). "Why is there something rather than nothing" is how I normally think of it; see, for example, the Stanford article on Nothingness. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "article titles shouldn't be questions"; I note that we have a former featured article called Who is a Jew?. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not just you. I also think that it's a fundamentally metaphysical (philosophical) question as physical laws don't explain why anything akin to physical laws exist in the first place. I also found some sources on this (see the recent change). However some, most prominently Lawrence M. Krauss, find it to be a physics question for whatever reason. --Fixuture (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For me this is a physics/engineering question, i.e. how did we, practically, get to be - but maybe that's just me. Maybe this is the point where physics and philosophy meet? JCJC777 (talk) 14.00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

I have changed the page title to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" following Josh' thinking above, and to match both the original Liebniz question and the current Stanford wording https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ JCJC777 (talk) 16.23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

Comment This doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article to me. It feels more like a conversation that you're having with the reader, and a conversation with a specific point of view. For example, the section on "Apparent explanations that are incomplete" is one-sided. You're not saying "Possible explanations" and then discussing those explanations from a neutral point of view. You're automatically labeling them as "apparent" and "incomplete" explanations, and then rebutting them -- "However the question then becomes why and how does X exist?" -- as if the article has a specific person's voice (yours), and that voice is explicitly challenging the reader. It doesn't help that that challenge is fairly shallow, just an endless series of one-ups with no apparent way to resolve, until the person you're challenging gets frustrated and gives up. -- Danny (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to improve the artcle. JCJC777 (talk) 05.40 29 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly notable question. If renamed (no seeing need for that), "Problem of why there is anything at all. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but full disclosure I originated the page and thus may be bias (or not allowed to vote under wiki rules?). I think the subject is a well known and notable question (e.g. it's position in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy section^[1]) - one reaction to me has been from folk surprised that this question did not already have an article on wiki. I think the range and depth of the various refs people have now contributed support this view. I also feel the article is now good enough quality that it will build positively from here; that it will attract good contributions that will trend the quality higher from here over time. Hyperbolick's suggestion of a name of "Problem of why there is anything at all" seems good to me also. User:JCJC777
Keep Notable question. The article needs work, and there's a discussion to be had about the best title, but I hardly think the page needs deleting. 786b6364 (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article has improved since it was first listed. I think it needs further improvement in order to reach the level of quality that the page's originator is aiming for, but JCJC777 has been working steadily on it for more than a week, and attracting other people to help improve it. I think there are currently two ways in which the article isn't complete. #1) The way that various thinkers are introduced is haphazard, with no explanations for who they are -- often just a last name, with no sense of where they come from, or what era they belong to. An example is: "Leslie and Kuhn[12] Krauss[13] and others[14][15][16][17][18] list various explanations, but accept that none are satisfactory." The names "Leslie and Kuhn" are entirely unexplained, and the reference lists a book by "Wiley", also unexplained. It's sloppy, and hard to tell whether they're original thinkers, or summarizing other people's views. That problem is repeated in many places in the article. #2) Ideas are jumbled together in some places. An example is the first bullet point under "Explanations based on the question having an answer that may be found in the future". This section includes a "variant" about God's perfection in the second sentence, before any fleshing-out of the idea that bullet point is supposed to express. The sentence about Dean Rickles doesn't necessarily relate to that bullet point, either, and could easily be a separate bullet point, or even a section on its own. A possible suggestion for improvement is to try organizing the page by topic or era, rather than by the reason each idea can be discounted. The three bullet points under "Explanations that lead to regression" could instead be the starting points for three different sections -- one on physics, one on consciousness and one on religious explanations. There's a lot of work to be done, but JCJC777 seems committed to working on it. No reason to delete it right now. -- -- Danny (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the page has been renamed "Problem of why there is anything at all". I appreciate that this has been done to be in line with other articles posing questions in Philosophy. However, in those cases, the name "problem of X" is in common use. A search reveals that the phrase "problem of why there is anything at all" is not in use, and I can't find any meaningful hits for the phrase online. For what it's worth, I prefer the previous title "Why is there something rather than nothing?"- a Heidegger quotation- but am open to other article titles. Porphyro (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the current title as a problem. Get it? Problem? But seriously, maybe Problem of why anything exists or Problem of why there is something rather than nothing. Keeps the title from being a question like Who were the Presidents of the United States? Hyperbolick (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no specific wikipedia policy regarding titles being a question that I can see- and it seems natural in this case to me, at least. The reason I would favour "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that WP:TITLES suggests titles should strive for "naturalness", that is, a title that a reader is likely to look or search for. Coming up with a name for the problem that has never been used before seems to run contrary to this idea, to me. Perhaps some other users will have thoughts on this. Porphyro (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kind of feel the person searching "Why is there something rather than nothing?" wants an answer to the question - "There is something because..." and not discussion of who's asked it before and how, or why it can't be answered. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm open-minded, but also worth saying that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and some other similar wordings do redirect to this page anyway. JCJC777 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a notable problem of metaphysics, famously discussed by many philosophers (some of whom notably object that it is the wrong question). The article needs improvement (e.g. secondary sources may be cited for classifying/characterizing the different approaches to answering it, and the question of Douglas Adams is entirely unrelated) but the present version is a reasonable start. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the rename and re-work, the article now documents a problem in philosophy rather than presenting an unanswerable question and getting tied in knots. As nominator of this AFD, I'd suggest this be closed. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. JCJC777 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)User:JCJC777[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. clpo13_(talk) 18:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ross George[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently does not meet our notability criteria for business people. There were 600 people named in Forbes 30 under 30 in 2017, so that can hardly be seen as a "a well-known and significant award or honor" as understood at WP:ANYBIO.

This was deleted following this brief discussion, and subsequently re-created, apparently much as before. G4 was declined. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no notability here. The only claims are by association, and a thoroly non notable award/ It is perhaps not widely realized here that the 30 under 30 is 30 people in each of the 20 covered fields, and that there is a new set every year, and that in the first place it almost always means "will be notable someday, maybe". We need to check on every article that might rely upon that very weak distinction. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks significant in depth coverage. Found none. WP:Gale search unavailing, though I lack Biographies in context.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 09:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Bae[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any real claims of notability here. His claim to fame is a video/videos of him preparing his meat in a certain way, nothing extraordinarily special or unique. Also, if this article ends up staying, the subjects real name should be the article title rather than "Salt Bae". Andise1 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep popular memes usually have enough sustained coverage to form an article. Funnily enough, I found out about him for the first time today after reading this article. Next stop YouTube and "maybe I'll start an article on him later." I'm randomly scrolling through AfD and stumble across this nom. Pretty sure I saw a video with James Corden featuring him on his late night US TV show. There's that, this and other sources per WP:GNG. "Salt Bae" would be his common [nick]name as well. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two reliable sources discussing the subject is sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of refs. Seems to meet wp:n. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen the meme and I'm unimpressed, but the reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above + mass of google and google-news hits convinced me. I wouldn't rename the article - at least as long as he's mainly known for the meme.Icewhiz (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Binnall[edit]

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

The only claim for notability is the fact that probably as a publicity stunt at 17 he was a write-in candidate for a state senate primary (but withdrew after failing to receive the necessary votes to continue). The rest of the article covers his positions as a student senator at the University of Massachusetts. Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and this is a clear case of WP:BIO1E. This is a puff piece for an ambitious young man to further his policial ambitions and in my opinion way WP:TOOSOON. The only active editor is himself. Domdeparis (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. A young wannabe-politician. He may at some point become notable but for the moment, he's just a student. Neiltonks (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails WP:PROMO, sources are almost all low-circulation county papers which push the "Golly, a 17 year old running for office!" WP:BIO1E angle. Ravenswing 14:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a non-winning candidate in an election to the state legislature — and the fact that he would have become the youngest-ever holder of the office if he had won it does not provide a notability boost over other non-winning candidates. Furthermore, this is quite blatantly written as a campaign brochure rather than a genuine encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Npolitician. coverage enthusiastic, but not significant enough.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Judge Group[edit]

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

Run of the mill recruiting firm whose notability is not established. The list of "Recognitions and awards" are typical of the small industry-specific awards that any company in the field might amass. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance here. This content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Spindel[edit]

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

No reliable or significant coverage. Written like an advert to promote a business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytemanpacifist (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO and WP:PROMO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Though I consider the subject matter frivolous, and the article needs an NPOV cleanup, she has received in-depth coverage for a number of years in the media as a "premier" matchmaker. [26] (forbes staff, not contributor), [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep this WP:PROMO. Edit it for POV and hype. I say this reluctantly, since even a quick gNews search reveals that she peddles "clairvoyant premonition(s)" [37]. Thing is: sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~--Pediaorg (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dlohcierekim 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now - looks like it could be an article with work. Artw (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Sacrament Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this church per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: this article was part of the massive, multipage AfD entitled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut). That AfD was closed as keep on 31 January 2011, with the suggestion that each church should be evaluated on its own merits. There's only a bit of discussion of this particular church in that AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that AfD after nominating this for deletion. What a gigantic mess that was. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nothing in this stub shows it to be out of the ordinary: most local churches are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My feeling is that it is possible to add (local/regional) reliable sources to most (American?) churches which were built before 1950 (if not more recent). I've added sources to this article about the building and spot checking other articles in the previous AfD, the same can usually be done. In general, I think churches may be as notable as high schools, and am surprised that the belief is that local churches would usually be NN. Another recent example from the previous AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Philip Church (Norwalk, Connecticut). Peterkingiron and I made basically the same comments in the St. Philip Church AfD, with the differences in the articles right now are that the previous church's architecture won a local award while this one is an older congregation. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. as User:Smmurphy says, any large, long-established American churches are notable. I ran a news archive search on this one, significant coverage related to at least three events. 1.) extensive national news stories for several years, centered around 2002 when a priest formerly at the parish hanged himselfdue to scandal: "abused them when they were boys in the late 1970s and early '80s and he was assigned to Blessed Sacrament Church in Bridgeport". 2.) coverage including NYTimes 1998 "In Bridgeport, Beating Guns Into Church Bells to Curb Killings," about this parish running a program inviting community to leave guns at the altar (collected quite a few) [38]. separate coverage in WaPo and other papers. 3.) In 1965 the parish priest got national coverage supporting the John Birch Society [39], actually editing a John Birch newsletter [40].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jaraya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The Db-repost was declined however the content IS substantially identical and the original reason of not meeting WP:GNG or WP:KICK remains. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to show he's any more notable than he was when this article was first deleted. He doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:NKICK and he lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. His coverage is either from youtube, the promotion he's fighting for, simply a list of his statistics, or routine sports coverage of fight results. There's nothing to support a claim he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Papaursa. He doesn't meet any of the criteria. Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability requirements.ShadessKB (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sivagami (character)[edit]

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

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. -Varmapak ^(talk) 06:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Modify Notable character from a film franchise. Article needs major edits. Title known as Rajamata Sivagami Devi and can be included either as a standalone article or should be one article with all secondary characters outside of Amerandra Baahubali. With comics & short films to be introduced, character development is expected. - Kalyan (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah and have you read the policy on WP:CRYSTALBALL? We don't keep article for the assumption that they may become notable in the future. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough now. Once is, will create article.2.51.22.19 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhallala Deva[edit]

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

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. - Varmapak ^(talk) 06:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shivudu[edit]

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

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. -Varmapak ^(talk) 06:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baahubali (character)[edit]

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

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. -Varmapak ^(talk) 06:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avanthika[edit]

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

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. - Varmapak ^(talk) 06:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 18:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somos Los Otros NY[edit]

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

I want to nominate this article for deletion because the notability of the subject is in question. The article is about a Mexican-led protest in the U.S. as a result of the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping. It is important to note that protests happened all over the world, but this is no good reason for this article to have it's own article. The sources the article uses that mention the subject are unreliable and fan pages (this website, along with a YouTube video and Facebook post). The other reliable sources in the article do not even mention the group and were used to add more information on the political background of the protests in the U.S. A quick Google search will pull up some embarrassing results too, mostly fan pages. This also an inherent bias in favor of the group, since some of the information states as an absolute fact that the Mexican government tried to censor and intimidate in New York, while none of the sources directly reflect this. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, Somos Los Otros NY was cited as a source for Proceso in coverage pertaining to the upcoming elections. This happened well before the article was submitted for deletion. I would question the altruistic nature of ComputerJA's actions since the Mexican government is quite excellent at financing online propagandists to defame and question the reputability of sources that don't quite say what they like. Please see [41] They used their content to contextualize and define Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's statements to Antonio Tizapa.

Agreed on your comment about Proceso. But that doesn't mean Somos Los Otros NY should have a standing article of it's own. There is no in-depth details about the organization. I can post a Facebook photo that turns viral, but that doesn't mean I should have an article about myself. Please see WP:ORG for more details. The article fails to meet a number of the requirements. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much to debate regarding Somos Los Otros NY role as content providers via a facebook page. If they are notable for blogs and newspapers, then they are notable for a publicly curated digital encyclopedia used to make sense of a changing world. The sources in question are varied from little known outlets to Voices of NY where the subject is that collective/group. Mexico media outlets/collectives denouncing human rights tend to work in such a way to maintain a presence with an audience. See Desinformemonos. The fact is that the group functions as a media entity that is hard to classify. Wikipedia gives us tools to somewhat categorize these unconventional outlets. Otherwise, we are bound to recreating the same taxonomy and data linked to a traditional encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.87 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to promote any noble cause. It fails to meet our notability requirements (see WP:ORG) and thereby should not be in this encyclopedia. The fact that Somos Los Otros NY exists does not mean we should include it here. I wrote Valor por Tamaulipas a few years ago. This is a social media page/organization that was widely publicized in the press (with reliable sources) beyond simple mentions. Please look at the sources in the article. There are several reliable sources that are about Valor por Tamaulipas. Somos Los Otros NY is no where near that. Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect a condensed version to 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping or Delete as per WP:SOAPBOX, but more importantly because I began checking the sources on the page, many are blogs and other non-RS social media, but the ones I checked did not even mention "Somos Los Otros" (I did not check every article linked) Instead, I ran a gNews search: [42] and "Somos los otros" does not appear to be notable. We can't keep a free standing article about a group unless we can establish notability, but mention of the NY area protests could be usefully added to the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La Cartita[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources and a quick Google search will show that the notability of this organization is in question. The article is standing on a single mention made by TeleSur (a video about the protests, but no mention of the organization is mentioned in the source). If you see the video, La Cartita is shown in a Twitter post. That's about it. This article also makes absolute statements of fact about the Mexican government slandering political groups favoring La Cartita, but yet gives no source to back this up. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no citations for the notion that somehow one political group favours La Cartita or not. Political affiliation looks difficult to pin down. No political group is actually named so it becomes difficult to evaluate validity (let alone veracity). Telesur cites the content of the news wire's original video and shared the twitter feed, which is standard practice for videos of that nature. That means there is some minimum amount of validation on the dimension of newsworthiness. Its an emerging website from an emerging market by its own description, which likely explains scale. As for absolutist statements, its an unfortunate state of affairs that in Mexico the easy part of their crimes is documenting them. An independent international court (the InterAmerican Court of Human rights) issued several statements condemning the government at every level. A sad state of affairs, indeed. Regards.

They do have terrible SEO, I must say, which certainly clogs up the Google search. Horrid!

@Nyc media research: Hi, unfortunately La Carita fails to meet our notability requirements. Please see WP:ORG for more details. I hope this clarifies my concern a bit more. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references advanced to support notability do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and cannot find any other sources to satisfy notability requirements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devasena (character)[edit]

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

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

KEEP: Critics have praised her character and every single character in the film deserves its own article because the "Baahubali" brand is bigger and is notable enough to command an article. Just because she is getting all the attention in this film? Just because her characters evolves in the new installment? Still there is enough notability to keep the article.Krish | Talk 06:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if every Lost character can have an article, so can "Baahubali". The fandom is huge, the brand is biggest India has ever gotten introduced to and her character is very crucial for the entire series.Krish | Talk 06:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because critics "praise" a character it automatically doesn't qualify to have an article over here. Please read the relevant guideline. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to side with Krish here. It might not be clear enough from his defensedefense, but atleast Devasana (and possibly the Baahubali (s)) have had enough independent commentary to warrant an article. This is a meaty commentary on the character's impact on a film industry's handling of women. More pieces here and here talks about the female characters of the film, in a manner you rarely see Indian film/television characters being talked about. As far as the popularity goes, the character has warranted merchandise sales as it says here, which again i think further helps establish notability. I am sure on further digging more notable commentary is bound to come up. It can establish notability, there are way less notable characters that have a page here. I am not saying that it justifies the creation of more articles, in any way but i do believe that as per the standards of notability, this very well satisfies it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a suggestion, it may be better to do individual nominations for these characters so that way users can provide links to support whether or not the individual article has enough notability to stay or not (I know that is a pain, but it might be the easiest way of doing this; mass nominations can be tricky. I have done one before and I have seen them done, but this case may be better with individual nominations if that makes sense). Take this suggestion with a great pinch of salt though as I am still relatively inexperienced on here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Yes, that seems like the sensible thing to do, however, I am not sure if we're going to get any commentary at the individual pages at all. I am not underestimating anyone's interest here, but I just think a lot of unrelated conflicts have come up during the procesd already. That said, I think this article clearly has enough independent research to warrant an individual article. Can't say about the rest, and honestly I don't think I have the energy or the interest to play a part in any of the rulings, but I can say with some assurance that Vensatry might have misjudged this one. NumerounovedantTalk 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and that makes sense to me. Thank you for providing the sources for the primary article being put up for deletion. I would lean more towards keep based on your provided links/references. It is difficult for me to assess these articles as they are so outside of my knowledge/understanding as I am not familiar with Indian cinema at all so I do not want to make a misstep or misjudge anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your doubts, in cases like these even the editors well versed with the topic face trouble reaching a verdict. Still, thank you for your valuable time Aoba47, I am sure that it'll really help the reviewers reach a decision. NumerounovedantTalk 19:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. I'm afraid TNM isn't a reliable source. Besides, the site (and this particular author) is known to call out sexism in almost all newly released Tamil films. She analyses even the smallest of a misrepresented female character in the smallest film. Second, talking about the characters of a "blockbuster" film isn't a new thing as far as South Indian cinema is concerned. As a matter of fact, even the Dhansika character in Kabali was much talked about and "analysed" by a few critics. Good point about merchandising, but unfortunately Amrapali Jewels is the official jewelry designer for the film. So this is clearly a case of promotional stunt (for both the film and the store). To cite a few examples, we've had Gautami hairstyle (based on her character from a particular film), Kushboo Sari (again from various films of the actress) in the past. Going by that logic, practically we might end up with an article on almost every character of Rajinikanth in the last 1.5 decades or so. To sum up, the "prominence" of a fictional character cannot be determined overnight; we're looking for longtime significance. If WP were to exist in 1975, even an iconic character Gabbar Singh would not have passed WP:FICT overnight. —Vensatry _(talk) 05:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not familiar with the trends of the South Indian cinema, the point that the prominence of a character cannot be judged overnight makes sense to me. Also justified are your comments regarding fandom, which can be a major problem if we proceed at the this rate. However, considering that I as someone unfamiliar with the South Indian cinema, having heard so much about the character (I am sorry, but I am totally clueless as to who any of the other (South Indian) characters you mention are), believe that a little more digging on the independent research on this particular character wouldn't hurt anyone. It'll also make sure that we don't miss out on any non-South Indian analytical piece. I reiterate that I am only offering a defense for Devasena and not the others. Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 05:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. If Imperator Furiosa and Nux can have their articles just after the release of the film (overnight), then I think these nominations are questionable. Like Furiosa, the female characters of Baahubali have created a huge debate (positive or negative it does not matter). Avanthika's character received massive backlash and 1000s of articles were dedicated to point out the miscogny of Baahubali and their relationship. And, Sivagami was another character which everyone praised and again it received massive coverage. It's just Devasena's main storyline was revealed in second part, which also has received huge press. And, don't even get me started on the male characters. They are huge too. Coming to Rajnikanth's characters, well, I am sure he can have a Chitti article arfter the release of Robot 2. I am sure it should have been created just after the release of the first part. Anyways, coming back to Baahubali, I would like to add that it has become a huge brand in India as has received massive attention of everyone. Each and every character deserves its own article. I am even surprised that the nominator even nominated the most popular characters of the film: Kattapa and Baahubali. Kattapa is already an iconic character, and millions of articles are dedicated to him. I am surprised that he didn't even think once before nominating his article.Krish | Talk 07:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend providing links to these sources either here or putting them in the article to support your point. Also, please refrain from hyperbole during your argument. While it may be true that there are several articles out there about these character, I highly doubt that there are "millions" of articles (that have significant coverage from third-party, outside sources other than plot summary) as that can weaken your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. -Varmapak ^(talk) 06:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - outside of the film, absolutely no notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of photovoltaic power stations under 100MW[edit]

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

Unmaintainable collection of unremarkable items. There must be thousands of items that could added, most of which are barely significant. The largest ones are listed at List of photovoltaic power stations but this list has no minimum size. Rmhermen (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indiscriminate list. SL93 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list. No minimum size and we're we're even including colocation plants. We're already have listings in this article for stations as tiny as 30 kW. Meters (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron de Wael[edit]

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

No independent verifiable sources found in the article. My Google searches also pointed at nothing. Is this is a personal project of someone wants be a baron? Or maybe I didn't search good enough? In any case, we need sources for the core information in the article. gidonb (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNot the sort of person you will find in a google search. Dlohcierekim 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, a Baron born in 1702 may not have a lot written online. Sourcing is done through musty books on dusty shelves, probably down back corridors of universities and local historical caches. There maybe something in Google books. I don't know how they do archiving Dutch predigital age records. Probably the best course in such instances is to not AfD, but to seek help from those knowledgeable of such matters. I did ask the creator for sourcing ab initio. Perhaps, before taking to AfD, it would have been better to establish a dialogue with the user and explain essential nature of citing sources. Dlohcierekim 18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a person does not appear in searches is rationale to delete, not a rationale to keep. You say that this person might be notable because he is not the kind of person who can be found on Google, but shouldn't notability be established? And how does this support a keep? The creator now uploads a lot genealogical links. They may establish that the subject of the article has existed. I do not see proof that he is notable. You elude to this yourself in your more compelling comment below. Please reconsider the opinion above in the interest of WP's quality. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to before: there clearly was a before. This article was prodded. The creator just removed it. It's his right but I think this should go together with serous sourcing. The article didn't provide proof of notability and still doesn't. An AfD is the next step in cases like this. It shouldn't be removed and explicitly says so. Creator removed the AfD message 3 times! This person does not come across as WP friendly. He doesn't seem to care about rules and community decisions. The article rambles on about North of the Netherlands. It's a qualified disaster. I would have improved it, I often do with people who work on their first WP project, I'm no deletionist, but could not find proof that the person is notable. So AfD was my best bet and still is. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Clearly creator does not understand how to cite his sources. In a panic, he is now trying to source. I recommend patience as he is relying on paper sources. Dlohcierekim 18:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Most of the article takes the form of a background essay or are weasel words ("an influential political figure", a claim supported only by the fact that he at some point received the title of Baron). I don't believe the Dutch Wikipedia covers this person at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing has greatly improved and I think has become significant enough to show notability since the AfD began in terms of depth. Formatting is a different matter. Unfortunately, some of it is in Dutch, and if memory serves, German. I cannot read Dutch and my German is inadequate. Dlohcierekim 03:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing has greatly improved, has it? I'm seeing mostly genealogy sites for "referencing", not reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I call upon User:Dlohcierekim to withdraw his support for this article as its sourcing is less than flimsy and built upon trust where no basis for trust was established. Your claim that we should keep an article because the topic is difficult to verify runs against everything we stand for. You're an admin at the English-language Wikipedia, please respect our core principles and assist in reaching community consensus against what may very well be a total distortion of the history of a fine Dutch family. The problem is not that you reach out to this baron-hood pusher. That is really nice of you! The problem is that your reasoning in this discussion does not hold water. gidonb (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the depth and quality of sourcing that it takes. As currently written and sourced, this is much more a genealogy than an encyclopedia article — there's no evidence being shown of reliable source coverage about him at all. Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be locatable online via a Google search — print-only books and newspaper archives are acceptable — but we do have a requirement that reliable sources exist. But that's not what the sources here are, and nothing stated in the article is strong or substantiated well enough to earn him a free presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrated GNG pass either. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after long digging I've managed to find the obituary of the wife of Evert de Waal, claimed to be baron and baroness in our amateur article and the linked family trees. In the obituary nothing of this sort is mentioned. A regular lady who died, the widow of her husband Evert, mother of J. (Jan), mother in law of A.C.E, more regular folks. The obituary was published in De Telegraaf, the most common Dutch paid newspaper. My concern is that we are assigning a regular family titles that most of its members did not ask for because of an outlier who aggressively (for example by time and again removing stuff that shouldn't be removed) seeks to push an agenda. Imho we should protect this family, as we aim to protect all living subjects, from unproven claims. gidonb (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: I take your point but I think you misunderstood mine. Just because internet sources are not available do not mean the subject is not notable. I was urging above patience and to allow the creator time to source as well as he could. It's been days. If the sourcing still does not hold up, at least he had time to try. I would like to review the sourcing, but I'm working-sleeping till some time Monday afternoon. BTW this is a first. It is the first time at AfD I've been criticized for calling for a "Keep" instead of a "Delete". Sorry if I sound incoherent, work is distracting me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't earn an exemption from having to show proper reliable sourcing just because it's theoretically possible that better sources might exist somewhere — if articles didn't have to show proper sourcing, and instead an article could be kept on the grounds that better sources might become possible, then we would have to keep every single article that anybody ever tried to create about anything at all. To get an article kept, accordingly, it's not enough to just say that better sources might exist somewhere — you need to do the work to find those better sources first, and then the article can be created if and when there's enough sourcing present in it. It's not "create with bad sources and earn inclusion freebie just in case better ones might turn up someday" — finding the better sources comes first and then the article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Dlohcierekim, I do not think I misunderstood. Offline sources can be legitimate, however, it should be clear what they support. These genealogical documents support the idea that one Sijmon de Wael existed but it is unclear if he was important, if he was a baron, and if his descendants were baron as well. Please do not forget that Holland has among the highest internet penetration rates worldwide, books are online, as are many newspaper and magazine archives. I could not find Sijmon de Wael in these. This does not prove but may indicate that his importance is limited. In any case, it does not strengthen the case to keep the article. As the topic of the article is vague – is it Sijmon (his name is not in bold and is not in the title), is it his alleged baron-hood, are it his descendants who are in bold? – it is even unclear what we are trying to source. With no documents found and strange claims made, this case should be straightforward according to WP policies. Wishing you all the best, also at work! gidonb (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working/sleeping tillMonday afternoon. The thing won't close till 5/9. I'll go oever erery thng when fully awake and not sneaking around at work. Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you can join the community quest for quality! gidonb (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck keep per above discussion.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AtlasCT[edit]

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

Unsourced since its creation and was made by a user with a possible COI (same username). I was unable to find any substantial sources online, and there are only a couple of passing mentions on Google Books. Fails WP:GNG because of those reasons. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA WP:COI article on a company. Highbeam returns various items on a partnership with Nokia 12 years ago (as also mentioned in the 2.5G-3G newsletter returned via Google Books), on subsequent routine release announcements, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that the firm meets the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything but press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brave Saint Saturn. Given the nominator's suggestion of "some sort of merge" I interpret this as a rough consensus to redirect to the relevant band. A Train^talk 18:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Anti-Meridian (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Online results are mirrors and sites that claim to have lyrics but don't. Not totally opposed to some sort of merge, but seeing as nothing in this article is verified, I don't think there is anything to merge. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reese Roper's catalogue is large, but his work with Brave Saint Saturn are not one of his notable recordings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brave Saint Saturn, the article of the band, per ((R from album)). f e minist 11:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Briggs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. I'm having difficulty find significant, nonroutine coverage online. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources in the article and the only coverage available online are also social media or from related music labels/organizations, e.g., one single interview from a "media ministry". There's far more coverage, in fact, for other two other Nigel Briggs: an estate agent and a competitive fisher. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC and I'm pretty sure we don't have a WP:NCLERICALLEADERS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NMUSICDlohcierekim (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Benson[edit]

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

Not individually notable outside creating Night in the Woods. I originally planned to redirect this, but all of the inbound links referred to other people also named Scott Benson (including a comic artist and a politician), so I feel a deletion is better to avoid confusion over any other Scott Bensons. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. A Kickstarter, Twitter and a promotional/non-credible blog are not sufficient citations to verify notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – cited references are not nearly enough to demonstrate that the subject meets relevant notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNGDlohcierekim (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC) ~~Not sure what to make of added links. Thanks Clpo13.~~[reply]

Added links go more toward notability of Night in the Woods than to subject here. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search on this person brings up a few sources not currently used in the article that might be worth looking into regarding notability, including (but not limited to):
Remember, notability is based on what sources are available, not just what the article uses (WP:NEXIST). clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clpo13's comment is well-taken, but still doesn't address the point made by TenPoundHammer that there is no notability outside Night in the Woods. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is certainly going to be kept in some way, but note that User:Seraphim System has been blocked as a WP:SOCK. Anyone may create a merger discussion on the talk page if desired. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Law 113-167[edit]

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

This is another short and trivial act of Congress, akin to the one deleted under this discussion, and created by the same editor. I've rolled it up into the article on the act it amended, Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act of 1968 ([43]), with the simple sentence "In 2014, the Act was amended to additionally apply to condominiums," which is all that's needed. All the procedural history, when it was submitted, which house passed it when, etc., is pretty much unnotable trivia. I don't see any reason to maintain the old page as a redirect.

For the convenience of those who want to look directly at the GPO info, see Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–167 (text) (PDF), 128 Stat. 1882 (statute); H.R. 2600 (bill). TJRC (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not "insignificant". "A significant amendment to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA)1 becomes effective on March 26, 2015." [44] "As we previously reported, a significant amendment to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) becomes effective on March 26, 2015."[45]. As noted by the ABA "In a rare showing of bipartisan cooperation..." [46]. Also [47], and plenty more. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:David Tornheim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim System (talk • contribs) 05:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act of 1968 (whose title could probably be shortened). This legislation is significant, but is best understood in the context of the parent law it was amending. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good disposition. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with user User:David Tornheim. --eLLey 02:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs) [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. A Train^talk 18:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infiniti Telecommunications[edit]

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

Company not meeting WP:CORP and lacking in significant coverage from reliable sources. Search for improvement was fruitless. Dlohcierekim 02:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha, NE 1997[edit]

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

Unnotable live albums sourced entirely by the band website and blogs. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also am bundling the following for the same reasons stated:

TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I'm unable to find coverage for these releases; they do not appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Gongshow talk 04:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all given lack of coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One week fter two relists, there is significant debate about whether or not the multiple sources indicated are reliable and in-depth. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Zakocela[edit]

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

Unverifiable BLP - see talk page ProgrammingGeek^talktome 17:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Most verifiable - see page. Notable as shown by media coverage.darthbunkpakt dunfT 07:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC) (Page creator, fwiw).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been improved since it was nominated and has references to reliable sources for models, passing WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. trivial coverage of trivial occurances. The coverage shows she's been on covers, but that's all. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Score (The Tender Box album)[edit]

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

Unsourced since February 2010 and has no evidence of notability. DBZFan30 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 04:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources linked and no WP:RS apparently available. Download sites and bare confirmation of contents and release dates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cossack Americans[edit]

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

Non-notable ethnic group. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom provided no rationale, but I'm saying Keep as it is a stub but a sourced article; there are census figures and two notable people that belong to this ethnic group. MB298 (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for improvement, since there are Russian-language sources. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Balukoff[edit]

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

Failed candidate. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than failed candidate is a current trustee for one of the biggest school districts in the state and is a IDDP activist and serves in multiple roles in the party.IdahoSolo (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a Democratic Party activist! He backed Mitt Romney for President! AusLondonder (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as defeated candidate for office. No other credible claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Fails NPOL, but there is some external coverage. An expert on the subject might be able to bring this up to snuff, but it's not enough as it is right now. South Nashua (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Balukoff is not notable. Being a member of a school district board where the current enrollment is 26,000 (it seems to have been lower when Balukoff was on the board) is not a sign of notability. Some of the other things in this article seem aimed at boosting the subject's notability without actually drawing on the sources. The claim that Balukoff has held various LDS "leadership positions" is not backed by one of the two sources linked. That source only says that he has a temple recomend, although the author of the article did not know LDS terminology enough to use the right term. While due to the nature of the LDS Church I highly suspect that Balukoff has held "leadership postions" I doubt they have even risen to the level of being one of the 30,000 or so leaders worldwide of congregations with average attendance of maybe 200 (it varies by congregation, some are very small, but very few over 300 and virtually none with over 400 attendance), who serve for an average of maybe 5 years. The 44 minute long pod-cast produced by a highly partisan group might have given more insight, but it does not count as a reliable source. Being a major party nominee for governor is not enough to make one notable, and nothing else about Balukoff is even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His press coverage as a losing candidate for Governor of Idaho is not a sign of notability per site rules; it's possible he could be notable through his business career or through a position in the Democratic Party, but the article does not show this right now. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Idaho gubernatorial election, 2014. Support recreation if he is successful in future runs. MB298 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for statewide office are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates per se — at the gubernatorial level it's certainly possible that someone will have enough preexisting notability to have already earned an article for that other reason anyway, but the fact of being a candidate doesn't clinch inclusion all by itself in the absence of properly sourced evidence of preexisting notability. School board trustees do not get Wikipedia articles just for being school board trustees either, so that doesn't show any preexisting notability in and of itself. And when it comes to the sourcing, I see far too many primary sources and podcasts, and not even close to enough reliable, independent source coverage about him, to stack a WP:GNG claim on. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devbridge Group[edit]

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

Not convinced of notability per GNG and NCORP, Most press is from "PR Newswire". Being 1,313th on a list of 5,000 is not so great an achievement.* Bulk of the article is awards, which gives it a very promo-y tone. *Okay, they slot ahead of 4k other companies/orgs, but being a 1000 down isn't enough L3X1 (distant write) 18:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No real evidence of WP:NCORP. Sources in the article are either self-published content, unspectacular ranks in large lists, or awards with no known quality control and/or very narrow categories. My brief search found nothing further special, but maybe I didn't look deep enough. They apparently publish the software BetterCMS. Since the article's style is clearly one that only people in "marketing" use, presumably this is the best they were able to arrange. --Closeapple (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your page feedback. In response to the suggestions, I've added more sourcing to the page and have removed the awards section. Additional feedback is welcomed. --stevbro12 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the new sources added to the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bit confused whither article should be kept or deleted. My initiation google search found Fortune's ref and Forbes's ref. These references are reliable and have dept coverage. Someone check if a short article about Devbridge can be kept. These two notable references made me confused. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither sources meet the guidelines to establish notability as they are both considered WP:PRIMARY sources since both articles are either parroting company-provided data and information, or (e.g. the Forbes article) is an "advertorial" - that is, a "story" based entirely on interviews with company officials with is no evidence of independent research or critical analysis. A source must be "intellectually independent" and these sources fall well short. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Sources provided are WP:PRIMARY and fail to establish notability according to policy and guidelines. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, while the content is obvious "corp spam", with sections such as "Story" (??), "Office locations" and "Community involvement". Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unencyclopedic corporate spam that does not meet Wikipedia:NCORP. Citobun (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fall prevention. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perturbation training[edit]

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

No individual notablility for this training method. Article fails WP:DICDEF and an attempt to redirect it to Balance (ability)#Balance training was reverted by the article's creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Sorry I totally didn't see the AfD notice and I merged away all the good content to Falling (accident) and Fall prevention and redirected. My error was called out appropriately at WT:MED and I have reverted the removals and redirect. My mistake! There wasn't that much good content to merge as this was almost entirely sourced to old primary refs. So yes delete - duplicates existing stuff.. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge Trim all the primary sources. Merge to Fall prevention Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fall prevention. Three apparent secondary sources, none obviously specific to the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per prod Jmanprime (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete As per nominator. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In the light of discovered sources, this leans towards a keep. However, if anyone were to challenge them, it could be renominated with arguments refuting those sources. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 06:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Dasovich[edit]

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

This is a promotional article about a person who is successful in promoting himself but is not otherwise notable. All of the Google hits just show a woozle effect. The references are not reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO. Non-noteable online personality. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bluemask (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7, where he was a housemate. Blogging itself isn't enough to establish notability unless the blogger or blog has been covered in reliable sources, and/or has won an award. From what I can find online, there isn't much coverage about him that doesn't have to do with PBB (indeed, one of the only significant sources I could find is from the ABS-CBN-affiliate website Push). While the aforementioned Push article states that he won some kind of award "Influencer of the Year", I don't think that's enough to establish notability. However, he is a possible search term, and thus I don't see harm in redirecting his article to the PBB season he participated in. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per the sources mentioned below. There seems to be just enough to establish notability, though the article could use some improvement. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Notability" or being "notable" is subjective. Assuming but not conceding to the loose definition (as may be inferred from above comments) that notability is simply recognizability, that standard puts in shade thousands of articles of people who have no media mileage. These articles include those about clerics who may not have enough newspaper mentions but are still important to the organization or in certain cases, for historical archiving. Nevertheless, subject personality has, in fact, enjoyed a certain level of media attention before and after his stint as housemate of Pinoy Big Brother. Since no metric has been suggested either, we should recognize that subject personality has more than four hundred thousand subscribers on Youtube at the time of writing of this comment and has at least appeared on a number of television shows in the Philippines. User:Doocool

^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

References

^ https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/nothingness/
^ "Excerpt: Wil Dasovich's Q&A on Garage Magazine". Manila Bulletin Life. 2016-11-03. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
^ "Gretchen Ho, Wil Dasovich win in Asia's biggest social media awards". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2017-04-19. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
^ "Meet Wil, the man from the viral video of a foreigner fluently speaking bekinese". GMA News. 2015-08-26. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
^ "Foreignoy Wil Dasovich tuloy-tuloy sa kaniyang 'Christmas Serye'". GMA News. 2015-12-28. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
^ "Lifestyle Hotshots: Wil Dasovich, Travel Vlogger". ABS-CBN News. 2016-04-15. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
^ "Meet popular Fil-Am vlogger joining 'PBB'". ABS-CBN News. 2016-11-04. Retrieved 2017-04-22.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having a look through Google news and the sources provided on this afd I think he passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He may meeting GNG, as Google news found quite good sources. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOTE: As of May 9, 2017 1:09AM GMT+8, I have expanded the article with additional information and references. User:Doocool

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum[edit]

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

Unable to verify that this is an actual hadith. The article was created by someone known for committing WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and this does not look like an exception. Of the six mentioned references, four are related to neither the hadith nor the surah in question and one is a primary source (the Qur'an itself). HyperGaruda (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article seems to be about a hadith about the wager between Ubayy ibn Khalaf and Abu Bakr and Muhammad's correction of the date of the time period of the predicted battle. Based on [48], it is a hadith in Sunan al-Tirmidhi. It is also discussed in tasfir (commentary on the Quran); this book cites it to the tasfir, Ruh al-Ma'ani and this book about al-Tabari's work cites it to his tasfir. Do we have a policy or even an essay on which hadith might be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia? The prediction itself is mentioned in the article on the Quran chapter related to the event, Ar-Rum. It is too minor an event in the life of Abu Bakr for the wager to be mentioned there. It could be mentioned at the page for Ubay ibn Khalaf. The battle was a part of the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628, and I'm not sure if mention of it would fit there. I would support an article about the wager, as it is commonly used to show the ability of Muhammad to predict the future - and thus it could be added to Miracles of Muhammad. I think the issue here is that the title is OR and the article is unclear enough that it is hard to improve without totally rewriting it.

A common issue I feel when looking at articles like this one (often these are articles about concepts within Islam, but another connection is that they are written by people with apparently less good grasps of English) is that I could imagine an article that keeps parts of what they wrote, but under a different title and with substantial rewriting. I cannot be sure, however, that I am guessing correctly what they are getting at. I'm happy to make a suggestion as to their point, as I've done here, but if I'm not sure what such an article should look like, there is little improvement I can do. In this case, the title is about a hadith, not a story which may be an amalgamation of one or hadith (looking, I've read versions where Abu Bakr wins and where he loses the wager). If this is an article about a story, then why title it "hadith". If it is an article about a number of hadith, I only found one that matches. If it is about a single hadith, I'm not sure the one I found is the same version as the one referred in this article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- What the what? I don't see how this entry adds value to the project. This topic may or may not be notable, but it's not discernable from the page at all. Even if it were, this article ain't it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to tell what this is even intended to be about, much less what it is trying to convey. At best, it's WP:OR or personal essay. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to British Society for Developmental Biology. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryll Tickle Medal[edit]

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

New award that doesn't appear to be notable in itself. Sources found tend to be non-independent press releases or a video of the recipient receiving the award. A redirect to Tickle herself at this time doesn't seem appropriate since it is awarded by a distinct organization. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Society for Developmental Biology. With only two awards so far it is too soon to have an article. I've created an article for the scientific society and listed the awards there. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Society for Developmental Biology § Awards. Not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article, but this is a good contender for redirection per WP:ATD-R (valid search term). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with a redirect to the organization. It did not exist at the time of the AfD but it makes sense. Page creator objected to the initials redirection to Tickle herself, so it might make sense to let the AfD run. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect. There's an actual published and independent source, an announcement of the first medal in Nature, but that's all I found. I suspect that this medal will be notable someday but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PerceptIS[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but I don't feel comfortable with speedy deleting this, particularly as it has been an article for several years, apparently without challenge. Parts of it are rather promotional in tone, but that matters less with an article about a defunct company, and could be handled by cleanup in any case. The real issue here is notability. There seems not to be any sources clearly establishing the notability of this company, nor could I find any on a google search. DES ^(talk) 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the company did receive coverage from Crain's Cleveland Business - Eureka Lott 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Various pieces of content promoting this former Helpdesk service provider have been removed in recent months. However, all that is left is an article about a defunct firm whose proposition involved providing outsourced secondary services supporting Peoplesoft, Blackboard etc., which is all very run-of-the-mill. The residual coverage from its lifespan, such as the "Crain's Cleveland Business" items, look like no more than routine announcements. I see no evidence of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Sigauke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSICIAN JMHamo (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of advertising. Nothing improved from last afd. Fails WP:N --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close needed Ten days between AfD discussions is not a significant period of time to allow improvement, which is the purpose of softdelete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost a month has passed since the creation of the original article, clearly enough time for improvement, but there has been none. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajamanohar[edit]

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

Clearly just advertising. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick source check doesn't bring nearly enough sources for him. Not clear notability is asserted in article - after reading through the PROMO.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources given are either not significantly about the article subject, not independent, or not reliable. The Awards are mostly run-of-the-mill non-notable business awards. No demonstration of notability under general or specific notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rassemblement pour l'action municipale[edit]

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

Article about a political party at the municipal (i.e. city) level, which accomplished nothing of any notable consequence and has no reliable source coverage to clear WP:ORGDEPTH. They ran slates of candidates in two consecutive elections, but managed to elect only one councillor who then left the party to sit as an independent just one month after the election -- and the only "source" cited here is a private conversation with the city's own communications staff. Something like this is not guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it existed, if its record of accomplishment is this insignificant and its sourceability is this weak -- we would need real media coverage about it to justify keeping an article. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source available being a personal communication means that this is unverifiable, and therefore violates the core content policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable boutique law firm. Awards mentioned don't confer notability. Sources that mention the firm are passing coverage about other topics, not the firm itself, failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a web host for this firm's client prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication of significance. more smoke than substance.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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