< 22 May	24 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 redirect to Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools. The fundamental agreement is that the subject is not notable enough for a standalone article, as determined by Wikipedia guidelines. There were a few suggestions to delete the article before redirecting, but as Kudpung mentioned, that's not standard practice, and no reason has been provided for why we should deviate from standard practice in this case. Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary Joseph's High School, Hyderabad[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Meatsgains (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGO. It's fine as a line within a section in Hyderabad until notability standards can be met. South Nashua (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hyderabad article is too high-level for a list of high schools; Kukatpally might be a place to put info if there are sources that aren't sufficient for GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools. bd2412 T 16:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Yep, as above, to Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its locality or Education in Hyderabad#Secondary schools, noting that we do not delete the page, @Deathlibrarian, BD2412, and South Nashua:. We blank it and add the Redirect template and the ((R from school)) template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with a redirect. South Nashua (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viking (knjiga)[edit]

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

The article is referring to Odinn's Child, by Tim Severin. Besides being a foreign language article, it also fails WP:GNG. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in English, lacking references, fails WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No idea what the author typed there, so i couldnt find any refs. I am not sure, but I think "en" of enwiki stands for English. Maybe i am wrong. @Stikkyy: By Odinn, do you mean the norse god, and Thor's father? Then why does Tim have a different family name? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:50, 29 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion regarding article content and potential improvements can continue on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of military disasters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article with a faulty premise: a disaster, according to m-w.com, is a "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life". A war or a battle is not a natural catastrophe, but a planned event. In addition, the list strikes me as a POV creation, as one side's "disaster" is another side's "brilliant success".

The article has been tagged as OR since Aug 2016 and has not been improved since, or since the two prior AfDs for that matter. It is still almost entirely unsourced, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of books have been written about this: World's Worst Military Disasters, Great Military Blunders: History's Worst Battlefield Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day, Roman Military Disasters: Dark Days & Lost Legions, etc. Also articles: "The greatest disasters in military history". The Burnsides and Custers of this world are not to be denied. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a POV problem, and the language seems to be in use in secondary sources - if an event is described as a "military disaster" in secondary sources, it would be suitable for inlcusion here. Since there are numerous sources for this, I don't see any problem with keeping the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I grant the nom's point regarding inclusion criteria, but also the previous keep !voters' objections that such issues can be overcome by regular editing--that is, proper sourcing and inclusion criteria can be applied without needing deletion. 'Military disaster' has plenty of RS coverage, so the list is not NN. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1st point the term "Military Disaster" is the common term used for military failures in literature written about this. Secondly, there are a number of books, articles and websites that address this topic, so it would be worthy of an article. It may need more references, but there are no ground to delete it, IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See no grounds for deletion. Maybe a clear list inclusion criteria, which can be addressed by WP:NOTDUP. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I do not see the sources listed as convincing. They are popular history books mostly by non-notable authors:

Chris McNab: The World's Worst Military Disasters. The author does not have a wiki article, appears to be a popular history & militaria author (other books include The FN Minimi Light Machine Gun: M249, L108A1, L110A2, and other variants, among others). Published by Rosen Publishing, which produces books for children ages through K12.
Geoffrey Regan: Great Military Blunders: History's Worst Battlefield Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Regan is a popular history author.
Paul Chrystal: Roman Military Disasters, published by Pen & Sword. Comes from a militaria publisher & a nn author.

The list is too subjective to be encyclopedically relevant, IMO. The article on the topic of Military disaster is a redirect to this list, with the definition of "military disaster" being cited to said McNab.

The only way I see of salvaging this article is to remove anything uncited (two prior AfD is plenty of chances for improvement) and / or move it to List of events (possibly) described as military disasters in popular history books. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one wonders when we became the Academicpedia? I see no prohibition on using popular histories in WP:RS. What the nominator fails to understand is that popular histories are not automatically unreliable or poor quality - Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August is a classic, Pulitzer-winning history of the outbreak of the First World War. And yet no one need hold one's nose to crack open that piece of "popular" history. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's clearly a POV issue here. The number of "disasters" related to the British Isles in the Medieval era section should strike anyone as biased (Medieval history is certainly not limited to a tiny portion of the smallest continent). To further illustrate the POV bias, French vocabulary includes the expression un coup de Trafalgar in reference to what is considered one of the worst military disaster in France's history, the battle of Trafalgar. The list of 19th century disasters doesn't even include that battle but does include Waterloo, although French historians simply consider that this battle was won by a largely superior force (60% + more troops according to Wikipedia) against Napoleon's desperate attempt to reconquer his empire. I could of course fix the list to include Trafalgar, but this would be yet another form of POV. Such intrinsically biased lists don't belong to Wikipedia. JR Bouvier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 30 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy Lake[edit]

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

Not a proper dab page, consisting only of two partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search shows Dummy Lake, Ontario and Dummy Lake, Manitoba. Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Boleyn comment; disambiguation pages are navigational tools for the reader to find articles. Concerning disambiguation pages, flexibility is needed. User Boleyn mentioned there are some lakes named Dummy Lake in Canada. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a partial title match where the non-matching word is something as generic as "Big" or "Little" seems a useful title entry for a dab page. Times two. PamD 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Partial title matching aside, there is a Dummy Lake in Ontario, a Lac Dummy in Quebec, and a Dummy Lake (now renamed Wargatie Lake) in Manitoba. I'm working on a stub for at least the Manitoba one; others potentially to follow. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Two English and one French lakes are enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: per nomination being withdrawn with !voting at 100% keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, snowball. --Lockley (talk) 02:43, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel D'Souza[edit]

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

This appears to be partly a hoax or patent nonsense about a real person, and an effort to squeeze in just enough fact to avoid speedy deletion. There is no indication that the real Noel D'Souza, as mayor of a small town, is notable, but this is blather. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I dispute your assumption that the City of Randwick is a "small town", D'Souza as a subject does not even come close to satisfying notability. This 'page' however (using that term lightly), is borderline vandalism.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd also dispute the characterization of Randwick as a small town — a population of 145K is more than enough that a mayor would be considered notable if he or she were properly sourced, because the inclusion bar for mayors is nowhere near as restrictive as the one for city councillors is. But I do agree with the nominator's characterization of the article's content — apart from the statement that he exists, all that's here is his purported involvement in a human rights campaign to prevent discrimination on the basis of pupil size. But that kind of discrimination isn't a thing in the first place — for one thing, pupils routinely dilate or contract in response to lighting conditions, and apart from a couple of very rare medical conditions no human being has significantly different-sized pupils than any other. So that's absolutely a pile of bullshit. And the sole source present here is the search results for his name on a search engine, which mostly brings up primary sources. So no prejudice against recreation if it can be written and sourced properly, but this version is a clear candidate for the WP:TNT treatment regardless of his notability or lack thereof — even if somebody were willing and able to tackle cleaning it up right away, we'd still have to REVDEL the current content out of the visible edit history. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is probably quite literally a joke inside of a hoax. Though eventualism shouldn't be applied to BLPs, the fact that I tagged/categorized the article probably wouldn't hurt if there's any hope for it at all (and I don't think there is at the moment). I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 09:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay. At 145,000 people, Randwick is a medium-sized city. Mayors of medium-sized cities often meet general notability. This doesn't say anything notable about him, except for some bad jokes. (At least I think that they are bad jokes, when on the Internet no one can see you smile.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.lot parking[edit]

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

I'm not entirely convinced by the sources that the company is notable. Nearly all are primary, and I couldn't find any sources on Google. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. The entire article is clearly marketing and puffery. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- entirely promotional with 0 encyclopediacally relevant content. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Shūichi[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see any reason why he's notable, in the article or via Google, but I don't read Japanese; if deleted could replace by a redirect to Shuichi Abe (I don't see any evidence that they are related). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created in 2013. Is a mess (e.g. YYYYs and DD.MM.YYs all over the place) - and hasn't really improved since it was created (and the original author seems to have left wiki shortly after creation). no sources (sorry - a Czech forum post with the same text and a dead website). Google doesn't find any additional sources. He might meeting SOLDIER (arguable) for his airfield group command (hard for me to assess) - but given the state of the article and sourcing - it should be deleted.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - looking for each of the commands listed- 8th Air District, Baicheng Air District, 30th Area Air Command, 3rd Airfield Group - I can't find any refence that supports these existed. (Baicheng is a city in the environs of Manchukuo (which would be under the 2nd air army) - but other than that, I simply don't see any references to any of these commands. I think this entry is probably a hoax (and if not - it is un-sourced).Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article probably should have been created in draft space and died there.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article ultimately seems to be based on this (archived from the original) and has as its sole source "上法快男監修,外山操編『陸海軍将官人事総覧』陸軍篇（芙蓉書房、昭和56年）（327頁)". The Japanese Wikipedia on the ja:第4飛行師団 seems well sourced, and shows him with the same last assignment. Otherwise, I can't find anything in Japanese on the net. I doubt that this is a hoax, but unless there is a lot in print sources, I also think it's clear that he does not pass WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree the article is a mess and also does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for articles on soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree article is a mess. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 30 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. Fuzheado | Talk 02:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing[edit]

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

I don't consider this article notable according to WP:NOTE and WP:NNEWS. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance. The important condolences are mentioned in 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Creating a list over countries who condemn terrorism is just not relevant. It's not like we in years will search for which countries condemned the attack in Manchester 2017. We should hold it as we did under all the other attacks: a general political sentence about how the world condemns terrorism and only mentioning outstanding reactions - which perfectly fits under the section reactions in the event article. We don't need a new article about condolences. Rævhuld (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing[reply]

Seriously? And you didn't even bother making a page before doing your drive-by.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarysa (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I followed WP:HOWTODELETE. As you can read there, I first have to tag the page, then press the link that occurs on the saved article and I then have to fill out the formula on two pages. That takes 5 minutes. A little more patience next time, please.--Rævhuld (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on this - WP:HOWTODELETE is nothing more than a guide, not an official policy. Jayden (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good tip for future reference might be to work with two tabs. Have the article you want to nominate for deletion open in both tabs, add the afd to both, then press the preview button on both. You should see a preview of what the page looks like, so you can use one of the tabs to progress to the afd page, then save both together once you're finished. Might avoid further drama. Just a thought. This is Paul (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)And you could've just as easily created this page using Twinkle. That takes at most 10 seconds to do everything (including creating this page and editing the page up for AfD), plus the time it takes to write out your AfD argument. — Gestrid (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great tips. But please consider writing it into the guide. That is the thing people follow. If the guide is wrong, new user like me are doing it wrong. And to be fair: that is not really our fault. And it might be that the guide is not living up to Wikipedia policy, but then again, change the guideline. But thank you for the tips. I will use it in the future. Especially Twinkle was a great tip <3--Rævhuld (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Has precedent. -- sarysa (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I also move for Speedy close, for reasons given by User:Power~enwiki. -- sarysa (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of clarity, aside from precedent, it is needed to not clutter the main article. At the time of the split, the two articles were around 20k each, now they're over 30k each and rising. It's also useful as it records the subtle variations in international reactions, such as Iran's comparison with a domestic incident. -- sarysa (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are those subtle variations discussed in reliable sources? If not doing so here would be WP:OR. If there is no discussion or other prose about the quotes then why are you adding them here not Wikiquote? Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, every single one has a source. At least one Wikipedian is double-checking sources. (I constructed most of the country list myself from an old list that merely listed countries and references) As for why not Wikiquote, I suppose the #1 reason would be that it's a mix of quoting and paraphrasing, like the Orlando reaction article. Aside from that, it would be helpful for you to describe how Wikiquote could improve the article. -- sarysa (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above. You couldn't even be bothered to make a page explaining your reason for the AfD? Jayden (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can this be speedy closed? Jayden (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As stated above, there are numerous other similar pages. No clear reason why this one should be deleted. Kenyan105 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We do have precedence for this kind of thing, and it will no doubt grow into being more than how the nominator envisages it. This is Paul (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Gestrid (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP removing it. Its good to see the reactions from around the world which can keep it historically accurate and is a good thing to keep for future use. If you want to remove the page, move all the reactions to the main page Winsocker (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a repository of quotes from around the world - that's the purpose of Wikiquote. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this could be moved into 2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing, but there's no possible remedy from the AfD process. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several other pages like this one, so there is no need to delete. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just a small notice about WP:OTHERSTUFF existing. Also keep in mind WP:AFDFORMAT when discussing if that applies. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point, and I'll admit to being very dismissive in my argument. It originally seemed to be a drive-by tag, which is why. Will clarify my arguments. -- sarysa (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; just saw everyone following suite and just needed clarification for better consensus in the latter. (Also another note about the view stats, there's also another clause about that, make sure to review please (no hard feelings)). :D Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Retain for now. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are three parts to this article, a WP:QUOTEFARM that belongs on Wikiquote if anywhere, a collection of trivia and responses from non-notable people and organisations, a duplicates of what is in the main article. There is nothing here that needs an article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' These "reactions to" pages are all unencyclopedic cruft containing canned statements in a WP:QUOTEFARM method that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. The attack is notable. The reactions to it from governments and terrorist organizations is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:QUOTEFARM, aside from being only a guideline rather than a rule, is moot as virtually everything here is paraphrased to begin with. WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually recommends article splits (as had been done) but I'd also like to add that collating the reactions of nations is inherently dangerous. You risk misrepresenting a nation's reaction by trying to fit them into into "close enough" categories. World leaders also have a far lower threshold for notability than the examples on that page. As for WP:NOTNEWS, people seem to love to shoehorn things that don't belong. The reactions have been made. They are now history. -- sarysa (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm putting the reasoning I used at the AfD for International reactions to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt here, as it is the same reason why I think it should be kept: "I don't believe this is an "indiscriminate" collection of information, per the reasoning at WP:DISCRIMINATE, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy, as there are distinctions about which quotes can be put on the page, as a tweet from a random person wouldn't be put on, but a statement from the American President would be. But if people really don't like these quotes existing on Wikipedia at all, maybe Wikiquote would be a good place for them, as opposed to removing them all together?" And then have a redirect? Seagull123 Φ 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE/KEEP per Sarysa and splitting off from the article.Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note. I have changed the "oppose" !votes to "keep" so that they can be processed by the !vote counter. WWGB (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the future, academics, researchers and other interested parties can use this page and others like it to assess trends in how various governments and public figures have reacted to a range of world events. It's not just that most reactions are negative but is is of significance how reactions are expressed. Greenshed (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely no reason to delete it. To do so would be shameful as within this article the world's human response to a heinous attack is properly documented. 86.152.144.97 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Sarysa (talk · contribs)'s argument. (121.219.250.63 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, and Close - No need to drag this out for the full 7 days. An encyclopedic fork that prevents the main article from becoming cluttered, the article is not just a handful of quotes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as per Sarysa. Autarch (talk) 02:08, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Economy[edit]

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

Business article sourced entirely to self-cites and no indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:BEFORE does not turn up any such coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written, promotional article that lacks added value to WP. gidonb (talk) 17:10, 29 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 Haikyū!! with no prejudice against recreating as a stand-alone article if stand-alone notability can be proven. Regards So Why 14:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haruichi Furudate[edit]

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

Manga artist only known for the Haikyu series. As shown in the opening paragraph, manga artist has never attended any event, so notability independent of the series is difficult to assess. Recommend direct to Haikyu. JA Wikipedia shows some interviews but most are in the context of Haikyu. But this can be reviewed to see if that has enough for Furudate's notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haikyū!!, this looks like a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Japanese wikipedia page seems to be developed... shame I can't read it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per WP:CREATIVE third bullet, if his work is notable (which it undoubtedly is), then he is notable. Additional content should be translated from .jp Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear there's any biographical info independent of Haikyu!! though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:39, 29 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 Deposition (law). Appropriate content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 16:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-evidence[edit]

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

Merge with deposition (law), as the article works better with the merge. As it stands, the article does not work well in a separate article. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone

My name is Mahesh and I am the creator of wikipedia page Tele-evidence. Being new to wikipedia I faced initial challenges of working with wiki (like adding links, references, pics etc) but with the help and guidance of others on wikipedia I could create a small page with some data, references and pics. I am a working professional and not very tech savvy, so can devote a very limited time to build the page further but I am doing my best and hope more people will chip in coming days as the concept expands.

However since the creation of this page, Kiteinthewind is suggesting to merge it with deposition. His/her argument is that it's one and same but is being done electronically in case of Tele-evidence.

I'll explain as to how it is different in coming days. Please bear with me. Thanks

Hospadmnpgi (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being new I might not be getting what exactly 'merger' of Tele-evidence with Deposition means. Could you please explain it. Thanks Hospadmnpgi (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Hospadmnpgi - Tele-evidence is merely a deposition by electronic means, in which the underlying fundamentals is the same as deposition. We are confusing means with end here. As for a merger, it means that relevant articles in this article will be incorporated with deposition (law), and the Tele-evidence page will be redirected to that page. This is different from a delete, in that when an article is deleted, the article, and all of its contents, are completely removed from Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Much of this article appears as if it is a vehicle to promote the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research. The use of the tele-evidence arrangements have been reported in a small geographical area, although it does look as if the use of these arrangements will expand across India. I don't think there has currently been enough done to establish notability to a point where it could stand as an article on its own. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Oppose merge with Deposition (law) -- never heard of this in my law classes. Send this to WP:AfC before it shows up again. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is generally not considered to be a sound and convincing argument. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into another article. Digital/electronic methods in civil procedure is already covered in the deposition article. It should be merged into Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if anything. If videoconferencing has little or no relation to that law, then that article should be moved to Indian civil procedure law after merging, to match other articles (see law of India.) It is a detail of deposition methods as used in Indian civil procedure. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Demie[edit]

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

Self-promotional non-notable article Amisom (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very minor role in a film, not enough to pass the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Lopez[edit]

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

Unremarkable local politician. It's basically the third most common name in the world, so it's hard to really say there isn't any sources, but I'm not really seeing anything.

The article doesn't even make any claims that, were they true and source-able, would establish notability, but it probably falls short of A7.

The article is vaguely promotional throughout, but probably falls short of G11. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree that the article is too promotional and does not adhere to NPOV guidelines. The use of words with a promotional connotation such as "avid" seems to be

rampant and the little to no notability as well as frequent grammatical errors does not help its case. Feels like it was written by a campaign manager Wikicommandercros (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator has responded on the article's talk page. ansh 666 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Las Vegas is certainly a large enough city that its city councillors would be accepted as notable if they were written and sourced properly — but this article, as written, is essentially a campaign brochure rather than a proper encyclopedia article, and is referenced to a mix of primary sourcing, routine namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, and a single piece of coverage that is about him but is in a WordPress blog rather than a reliable source. This is neither the substance nor the sourcing that it takes to make a city councillor notable just for being a city councillor. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing present here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekashila Park[edit]

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

An ordinary park in a city. Nothing notable. No RS. Stub since July 2013. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite a small and non-notable park. --Lockley (talk) 04:09, 30 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. So Why 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Shadab[edit]

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

Notability issues. Advert like content. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely non-notable. NPOV issues in this article as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe that this article meets the criteria for establishing notability. Together with the awards, I'm leaning towards a Weak Keep which would become Keep if one more reference can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: It is just a passing reference, and the award isnt notable either, they hold competition for like once a month. Its like during diwali, monsoon, Ramzaan, summer and so on. Then there are too many categories as well. Not a big deal if such awards are won. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran Hmmm ... I disagree that it is only a passing reference - the article talks about a book launch for the "Times Good Food Guide" which this Hotel features in, written by an independent third party, and is therefore considered a good source and a good reference for establishing notability. Also, "hotel+shadab"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&ei=2xMsWYqwL8jcgAbdhb-QBg#q="hotel+shadab"&tbm=bks consider that the Hotel is mentioned in high a number of book and tourist guides - some of which do not meet the criteria for establishing notability, but a lot of others do. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: erm... It is their job to keep mentioning hotels. There are hundreds of hotels mentioned in this way, doesnt mean all of them are notable and should have a standalone article in an encyclopaedia. On a different note, are you in Ireland right now? —usernamekiran(talk) 12:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran If you can frame your objection with reference to a policy or guideline, I'll be better able to respond. The way it is currently phrased, it is simply your opinion. For example, are (some of) the books (shown in the search result above) in some way "sponsored" by the companies mentioned? Are lonely planet guides and books of that ilk not regarded as reliable secondary sources for some reasons? And yes, based in Ireland. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: yes, it is sort my personal opinion, but it is also the essence of wikipedia guidelines. I am not sure how to point at some particular guidelines. And no, I didnt mean it that way, i didnt mean it was paid review. My point was, it is what they do, write about hotels. So obviously, they will include many hotels. It does not necessarily make the hotels notable. Also, there are a few different hotels by the same name, like this one. The mentioned address is differen from our hotel of Medina circle, Charminar (aka Old City).

Maybe we can create a new article like "Hotels in Hyderabad", and redirect this to there. There are a few other hotels with article on wikipedia, which are stubs and might get deleted because of the notability issue. It would be a good idea to consolidate all of them in one article. I am a hibernophile. :-D —usernamekiran(talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a travel brochure. I don't see encyclopedic relevance here; such material can be just as successfully housed on the hotel's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 29 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 soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alurralde[edit]

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

This is a non-notable surname per WP:APONOTE as there are not at least two notable people with the name. It doesn't appear to be notable per WP:GNG either. The cited reference is a sketch of a coat of arms, which does nothing to establish notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nortek[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:CORP. The company that it is a subsidiary of doesn't have an article. SL93 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. No indication of any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article whose only sources are the firm's own Wayback-ed defunct website. Searches find sources on similarly-named firms in other fields, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that this peripheral firm was ever notable. AllyD (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources. I mean it's hard to even say if the company is still active. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 02:10, 30 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 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent catastrophism[edit]

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

WP:FRINGE of WP:FRINGE. This is an off-shoot of Velikovskian ideas that was described as a rehabilitation by certain critics (C. Leroy Ellenberger among them). However, there isn't any acknowledgment in reliable sources that this idea as a research line actually exists. It's simply a collection of people who were somewhat sympathetic to certain Velikovskian claims who later moved towards more prosaic proposals. As such, this article is basically serving as a WP:POV Fork of Immanuel Velikovsky and/or geochronology, seems to be a soapbox for the beliefs that it represents a "coherent" line of study, and is also painfully WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, and non-notable. jps (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:This is absolutely not an off-shoot of Velikovskian ideas. It has nothing to do with Velikovsky. To suggest it is, is seriously misleading and ignorant of the scientific literature. Honestly! if you use a scientific search engine, such as Web of Knowledge (the standard one that most scientists use) you will find it difficult to find any criticism at all of coherent catastrophism in the last 20 years. Go ahead, try. It is accepted in the astronomical cannon. Ellenberger, whoever he is, has not been mentioned in a generation.

What IS debated, and this is really the only debate, is whether the latest period of coherent catastrophism caused by the Taurid meteor shower has had any obvious effect on Earth's history, and especially the development of human culture over the last 20 thousand years or so. Of course, this is matter of debate, and this is where the action is. The principle of coherent catastrophism itself is physically sound. That is, when a giant comet enters the inner solar system such that its orbit, or the orbits of its debris, intersects earth's orbit at regular intervals, Earth is exposed to enhanced risk during this period. Common sense - no scientist would argue with this.

The fact the WIki editors are STILL peddling these old-fashioned ideas about Velikovsky just shows how out of touch with modern developments they are. One particular editor, Doug, clearly has a personal bias on this issue. Doug, go and read the scientific literature, and get yourself up to date. As things stand, Wiki is looking tired and dusty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps this will help you. First look here at Centaur (minor planet) . Next look here at comets, especially the Jupiter family of short period comets. Next look here at orbital decay. Now look at meteor showers. Then look at the Taurids, and the beta Taurids, and comet Encke, and finally the Tunguska event. You see, Wikipedia already has the underlying information that leads to the conclusion that 'coherent catastrophism' is a real phenomenon. And Velikovsky wasn't mentioned once - just up-to-date astronomy. The only debate is whether the Taurids have caused Earth any problems. I think a Wiki page that collects all this information together would be helpful for the general public. Not fringe.

What you seem to have missed is that the coining of the neologism seems to have been done in the context of the aftermath of the mess Velikovsky wrought on public discourse surrounding science. "Catastrophism" as an idea contrasted with uniformitarianism in the nineteenth century before Charles Lyell forced the issue as to why uniformitarianism made sense. Then, in 1980, the Alvarez hypothesis was posited and developed to such an extent to provoke new interest in cataclysms, but no one is claiming that this is "coherent catastrophism". Rather, the term is associated entirely with neo-Velikoskians for better or worse (and if you doubt that Clube and Napier were so involved with Velikovskian fantasies, just do a little digging into their publication record). Now, it's obvious that trying to combine the K-T boundary event with the subject of this article would be outright original research ~~since, as far as I know, I'm the first person to point out the contradiction here in this discussion~~David Morrison actually makes this point here. But it just underscores the point that "coherent catastrophism" as an idea is simply a fringe offshoot of a fringe proposal. When similar ideas are arrived at from different lines of research, they aren't called "coherent catastrophism". That is the way the world is, and Wikipedia cannot fix the situation. We're way out in the weeds here and so should not be pushing the envelope. If "coherent catastrophism" is to become a thing, we need some third-party reliable sources that can explain how it as an idea is a thing. jps (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was on the fence. This is clearly a "niche" theory, but possibly not actually fringe. There is some published research, by more than one author, and some references to that research, but it is pretty much a phrase that was used a bit in the 1980s and things have now moved on. However MystifiedCitizen has convinced me that it is too fringe for Wikipedia. Rants, paranoid accusations, and synthesis are never signs of a good article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::Not fringe. Mainstream astronomy. Not paranoia, or synthesis, or the work of a single author. I am simply exasperated that senior editors here can be so far out of date. This concerns me as a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystifiedCitizen (talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep. At the moment, I do not see any compelling reason for deletion. Admittedly, I am not very "in the know" about what critical appraisals have been raised against the subject of the article. But I think the solution is to include critical commentary in the article, rather than refactor it into Velikovsky. There are apparently important differences with Velikovsky's brand of woo. For one thing, the "more prosaic" claims of coherent catastrophism seem to be based (to my uninitiated reading) on actual physics and astronomy, rather than wishful thinking. That is, admittedly, not a good reason for believing the theory, but it does seem like redirecting it to a thoroughly discredited theory is not very neutral. I feel like readers deserve to be told why this theory is not astronomically plausible, assuming this can be done within the usual WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE standards. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but what is your source demonstrating what the "theory" in question is? As far as I can tell, this is just a collection of "ideas that are more plausible than much of the Velikovskian nonsense" (which is what makes it "coherent"). That isn't a "theory" as much as it "glints spotted in the muck while panning for gold". How does one write an article on a claimed research program which nobody has summarized as a research program? What sources can we possibly base this article on that aren't naked WP:SYNTH? jps (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You already referred to an independent source that lumps the subject in with Velikovsky. Are there other such critical fringe sources? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I wouldn't say it is a "independent source" so much as it is an "critical opinion" offered by someone. Much the same way as if someone who criticized Flat Earthers called Lord Steven Christ a "concave Earther". Note that we don't have a concave Earth article on Wikipdia. jps (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. If there really aren't any independent sources, then the appropriate action is deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, this seems pretty convincing to me. Changed to weak delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doesn't seem to be fringe. I just ran a check on this Google Scholar, 96 hits. RS Articles seem to be using the term in a serious manner. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96 hits, but every last one to Clube, Napier, and Duncan Steele. Not a legitimate research program. jps (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Argument for Keep so it could be appropriately unpacked and countered within the article. This is a good few critical paragraphs that puts across this throughline of sensationalism, The Cosmic Serpent and The Cosmic Winter, talking about angels and the English Civil War, and the parallels to Dr. V. It's less like a scientific theory and more like a series of mental images. Are they setting out to show it happened historically? Do they want a prevention program? I don't see the relationship to proof -- having any or getting any -- and in the end it just doesn't smell right. --Lockley (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the website which seals the deal that this is fringe of fringe being followed by C. Leroy Ellenberger: [1]. Writing a WP:NPOV piece on such an obscure offshoot is simply not possible. Fails WP:NFRINGE! jps (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marley Brant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination only. I declined this as a prod because it has previously been through AFD. Since the originally deleted article was completely unreferenced and this one actually has some sort of referencing, and is somewhat less promotional, I didn't feel I could delete it as a CSD G4 either. SpinningSpark 17:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, didn't see the prior AfD. The article originally had a claim that she was a grammy nominee, but that claim was sourced by a non-rs. Can't find any indication she was nominated. There are a couple of nice sources, but they both deal with a single one of her books, and the articles are more about the book than the author (Freebirds...). Absent that, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she has a number of books under her belt, but there are scant references for her here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this user is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. SpinningSpark 15:29, 30 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^(T) 21:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bellatrix Female Warriors[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the following articles: SLAM! Sports [2]. Fighting Spirit Magazine [3]. Eastern Daily Press [4]. World News [5]. Plus, a mention in Sisterhood of the Squared Circle: The History and Rise of Women’s Wrestling, a book by ECW Press. Coverage from 2013 to present. Nikki♥311 23:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Nikki's findings.LM2000 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG; could use cleanup and expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice to anyone creating a redirect at this title, as long as there is a suitable target. Hut 8.5 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Public School, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Written by a WP:COI editor.At minimum could be redirected to Jaipur.Zero mention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, clear COI, fails notability criteria on all levels, the photo of school is not a photo, but a painting of building plan. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable references to this school. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If no independent source can be found, then it fails WP:verifiabilty whatever our usual practice of keeping articles about high schools. If independent refs are found I would reconsider. Edison (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:https://rpspn.educationstack.com seems to be a secondary source.FORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 10:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Forceradical:--rpspn stands for the name of the school.And educationstack.com is domain name.How does it appar to be a sec. source esp. given the contents of the website?It is the school website!Winged Blades^Godric 10:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get worked up- I may have confused it with another reputable website with a similar name.SorryFORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric and Forceradical: it is not school's website. rpspn is subdomain. Not sure if it can be edited by the school or not though. From the looks of it, i would say its a paid review. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran::--I have my doubt.But whatever the heck that is, it obviuoly isn't a WP:RS!Winged Blades^Godric 10:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some tangential discussion
HeyWinged Blades of Godric You seem to be extremely worked up about a small issue.Calm down!!Truncated message per oversight policyFORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 11:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment:@Winged Blades of Godric and Forceradical: All of us are here in goodfaith, to contribute to wikipedia. We shouldnt fight among ourself. Yes, WB Godric seems a little worked up today. Maybe you should take a wiki-break for a few hours. Getting freshened up with wikibreaks is sort necessary for everybody. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)@Forceradical:Chill down!No body is worked up!And in case you don't know, redirect-wars are resolved in AFDs.Also, pings don't work, unless signed.Winged Blades^Godric 11:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some tangential discussion

HeyWinged Blades of Godric You seem to be extremely worked up about a small issue.Calm down!!Truncated message per oversight policyFORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 11:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Winged Blades of Godric and Forceradical: All of us are here in goodfaith, to contribute to wikipedia. We shouldnt fight among ourself. Yes, WB Godric seems a little worked up today. Maybe you should take a wiki-break for a few hours. Getting freshened up with wikibreaks is sort necessary for everybody. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Forceradical:Chill down!No body is worked up!And in case you don't know, redirect-wars are resolved in AFDs.Also, pings don't work, unless signed.Winged Blades^Godric 11:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Nursing College, Jaipur[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Written by a WP:COI editor.At minimum could be redirected to Jaipur.Zero mention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable references to this school. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is just a proxy for their webpage. we are not here for WP:PROMO Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat PG Girls College, Jaipur[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Written by a WP:COI editor.At minimum could be redirected to Jaipur.Zero mention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, clear COI, fails notability criteria on all levels. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable references to this school. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vito Moubry[edit]

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

Absolutely no claim or indication of notability. Slashme (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not usually a good sign when the first google hits on a subject's name are Wikipedia, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and the subject's own website. I see no evidence that anyone has published something substantial about the subject. He may been have written for notable publications, but that does not establish notability. Mduvekot (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 29 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 Budaun. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vodamayuta[edit]

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

No Citation, Self written Wikibaji (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect. According to what is written, Vodamayuta is a former name for a city, Budaun, (source:Ancient India book) with an existing article. Thus would have qualified for speedy deletion under WP:A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". With little history for the city at the article (which might allow a fork/split), a redirect is most appropriate. Spshu (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect [was "Merge"]. It doesn't duplicate an existing topic, because the Vaduan article's history section doesn't mention it. It could be merged though, leaving a redirect behind. I don't know its motive, but the suggestion to delete the topic before redirecting it strikes me as mean-spirited, as if to punish the original contributor for actually contributing something worthwhile. Their contribution should be kept at least in the edit history of the redirect. --do ncr am 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Before and after my recent edit to Budaun (not Vaduan) does in fact mention Vodamayuta: "According to tradition, Budaun was founded about 905 AD, and an inscription, probably of the 12th century, gives a list of twelve Rathor kings reigning at Budaun (called Vodamayuta)." This is directly from the EB1911 Encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i stand corrected. Redirect. --do ncr am 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Badayun, or rather Budaun. There is no need for the present stub, other than as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If the article is developed, it can be forked later, but for now this seems like a reasonable search term for the material at Budaun. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 30 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Cupp 2011[edit]

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

Only one reference, sources don't establish notability Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to have plenty media coverage[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. I don't know exactly which Indian websites count as reliable sources: The Indian Express, Oneindia (owners of Filmibeat), and Daily News and Analysis seem to be at least some of the time, and bollywood.com seems widely cited on here. The article needs a reception section though - there are plenty of negative reviews to cite. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable feature film. Reviewed by major publications. I have added the reception section to the article. Definitely meets WP:NFILM. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NFP: [16], [17], [18], [19]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard A. E. North. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flexcit[edit]

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

The subject matter concerned does not warrant a specific article, there is nothing that discerns this from the article from other areas where the UK's possible future membership of the EU is considered; including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area#Possible_Withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_UK_relationship_with_the_EU. Neither does this article warrant merging as these issues are already considered in more detail at these pages. The creation of this article is an attempt to tie the idea of joining the EEA to a specific person, Richard North. The fact that he advocates joining the EEA upon leaving the EU until a further deal can be reached is already referenced in a concise manner on his biography page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._E._North#European_Union EU explained (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The term "Flexcit" does not seem to be widely used, other than by the author. Additionally, there is not sufficient content to justify separate articles for specific proposals for the UK's deal for a future relationship with the EU post-withdrawal. If there is any salvageable content it should be merged to Brexit or Continuing UK relationship with the EU. If these articles grow then it could always be WP:SPLIT in the future. TDL (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems pretty clear to me, not sure why this has been relisted. Delete per WP:NEO Euexperttime (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge this neologism that fails WP:NEO to Richard A. E. North. ( Not seeing sufficient use of term ot justify a redirect to Continuing UK relationship with the EU.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's about the proposed plan and not the word, and the references show that it is one of the few external suggestions that is used in UK Government planning for leaving the EU, a process which is hardly one that needs less coverage. JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single passing reference in a WP:RS to the plan being "perused" is not sufficient to demonstrate that the plan meets the WP:GNG of "significant coverage". I can find only a few other mentions. WP:BLOGS aren't reliable, and can't be used to establish notability. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to be promoting blogs. TDL (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M.Gregory's proposal to redirect this to Richard A. E. North
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard A. E. North; not independently notable. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. Would be preferable to a 'merge' outcome is the article is largely unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this nattering non-notable neologism. --Lockley (talk) 01:00, 30 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Ayaz[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references and I can find none in English other than editorial credits ^[1]. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is Ayaz Gul, not Gul Ayaz. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if those refer to the same person or not. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needles//Pins[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no strong claim to passage of any notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC, and not enough reliable source coverage to properly carry it. While they've released two albums with a third on the way, if you're going for "notable because their albums exist" NMUSIC requires the albums to have been on major labels or important indie labels -- so the upcoming third album on Mint Records would count as the first of the two required to pass that criterion, while the two previous albums on Mammoth Cave wouldn't count toward passing that criterion at all. And while this does cite coverage from Exclaim! and NPR's All Songs Considered, both of those sources are too short and blurbish to pull off "notable because media coverage" all by themselves -- they'd be perfectly fine within a mix of more solid sources, but neither of them is substantive enough to be the pillar of a GNG claim in an article whose only other sources are a primary source and Beatroute. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they have a stronger claim of notability and more sourcing that can be provided, but this as written is not yet enough. Bearcat (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I felt like with the addition of Jesse Gander and a release on Mint Records, that they've earned a page on Wikipedia. My reasonings:

They've had articles in the Georgia Straight, Exclaim!, and Beatroute magazines/newspapers. All three are notable publications in Canada. I feel like they should meet the criteria for "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]."

-Georgia Straight article: http://www.straight.com/music/needles/pins-relates-romantic-catastrophes

-Exclaim article: http://exclaim.ca/music/article/needlespins_talk_debut_album

-BeatRoute article: http://beatroute.ca/2014/02/03/needlespins-2/

They should also meet the criteria for "5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." because of the following:

-Pretty Much Everything So Far was released on Hosehead records. Hosehead records has at least two notable artists (Banner Pilot and The White Wires).

-Their latest album is being released on Mint records. Mint Records has at least two notable artists (The Smugglers, Neko Case, Andrew W.K., and more)

Finally, for "6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses".

Jesse Gander recently joined the band. He has been apart of d.b.s and Operation Makeout. Both bands who have had released on notable Independent Record Labels (Mint Records). He's also a Record Producer that has worked on Japandroids records and Pack AD records. I feel like he should have his on Wiki page too as he has released some award winning records and has been apart of some popular Indie bands.

Also, I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Do I respond by editing your post or through the TALK page?

Thank you,

Alex

Regarding criterion #1, Exclaim! is the only one of those three sources that actually counts as notability-assisting coverage. Alt-weeklies, such as The Georgia Straight or Now, can be used for supplementary sourcing of facts after WP:GNG has already been met, but cannot be bringers of GNG in and of themselves as they have no significant readerships beyond the purely local — and Beatroute isn't accepted as a strong or notability-assisting source either for the same reasons. And one notability-assisting source isn't enough to seal the deal by itself.

Regarding criterion #5, neither Hosehead nor Mammoth Cave is notable enough to count toward passage of that criterion. A record label does not get a free notability pass just for having notable artists on it — it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about it to get over WP:CORPDEPTH. Mint Records is sufficiently notable to count toward #5, but that covers off one album where the criterion requires two.

As for criterion #6, the fact that a member of the band was previously in another band does not automatically satisfy that criterion either. He would have to be independently notable in his own right — but band members are not automatically entitled to standalone articles just for being band members either. He would have to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage, separately from the context of the band, to either qualify for his own independent BLP or have his membership in this band confer notability on the band under #6 — and even if he did, that criterion also requires two independently notable members and not just one.

Overall, criterion #1 is the one part of NMUSIC that every band always has to meet regardless of whether or not they clear any of #2 through #12. A band can clear none of the other criteria and still get an article if there's enough genuinely solid coverage about them to clear #1, and a band can claim to clear all of the other criteria but not get an article if those claims aren't supported by any reliable source coverage that properly verifies the claims as true. (Bands often try to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform by claiming more notability per NMUSIC than they actually have in reality, so the claim has to be properly sourced and cannot count as an inclusion freebie just because it's been claimed.) So the one absolutely essential criterion that has to be met here is stronger sourcing than is present so far. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. It's hard to tell what's notable and what's just a supplementary source (especially regarding the Georgia Straight. I thought they'd be better than Exclaim!). I'll keep an eye out for better sources and maybe in the future (perhaps with the release of another record on Mint), they will have earned a Wiki page. Thanks. AlexMichal (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (PST)

Fwiw, I don't agree with @Bearcat: about major weeklies like The Georgia Straight or Now not contributing to WP:GNG -- is that stated somewhere? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that they're subject to the same problems as community weeklies like Toronto's Gleaners and Montreal's The Suburban: they often cover topics of purely hyperlocal interest — an unsigned local band who are playing their first-ever show at Lee's Palace on Saturday, a restaurateur who just opened a kale chip food truck in the Plateau, the president of the "Save the Trees in Stanley Park" committee, etc. — who haven't necessarily achieved anything that would make them a topic of encyclopedic interest. So if there's a strong and solid range of media coverage available, then papers like Now or The Georgia Straight are allowed to be in the mix, but if you're going for "passes GNG because media coverage exists", The Georgia Straight can't be a load-bearing pillar of that claim as very nearly the best source that's actually on offer.

Just for a concrete example of what I mean: if a playwright wins the GG for English drama for her fourth play, and thus graduates to a more solid range of broad coverage, then as long as the article is actually citing some of that broader range of coverage you are allowed to use The Georgia Straight as supplementary sourcing for the names of the three plays she wrote when she was just an emerging local playwright on the Vancouver scene. But what you can't do is use that early Georgia Straight coverage as core support for a WP:TOOSOON article about her while she's just an emerging local playwright who hasn't won a national award yet — it can't carry "notable just because media coverage exists" if it's all (or almost all) of the coverage that actually exists. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response. I just don't agree, in all cases. I know The Suburban well and there's a world of difference between it and, say, a major weekly like Now. Or Village Voice for that matter. And of course, the editorial staff on almost all Canadian daily broadsheets are no less locally focused. Anyway, I don't intend to !vote in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Bearcat: has amply covered the issues with the sources but the bottom line is WP:TOOSOON. Not enough significant WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a fan page; non notable per wiki standards. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take Heart (The Sam Willows album)[edit]

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

Non-notable, one source. Note: Creator has removed PROD and notability tags Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep Article has one self-source. Searching found [20] which is an interview with some independent commentary. Sources found by Michig are enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Gab4gab (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to establish notability, including [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], --Michig (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, there are references, need to be put into the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added some of the above references to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Azad Kashmir[edit]

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

Do we need in in this quality without sources. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear context to article. Appears to be a content fork of Government of Azad Kashmir. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the content is already on Government of Azad Kashmir. Dosent deserve/require a standalone article. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayriss[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD - was deprodded in 2007. I can't find any indication this family is notable as a whole. Sources are all user-generated and I can't locate any others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the family isn't notable; article is (semi-)original research. I don't see any notable people named Ayriss that could be a merge/redirect target, so delete. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN snippet of family history of a NN family, without any RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary and nor should it be. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since no-one asked for it to be draft-ified to further work on it, I won#t move it there. However, I'm willing to undelete and move to Draft if someone requests it at my talk page. Regards So Why 13:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Norrie[edit]

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

Mostly a procedural nomination on my part. This was deleted May 22 after an expired PROD, then recreated by a different user the next day. I A7'd it earlier today, but the creator has pointed out that I missed the credible claim of significance at the very bottom of the page, of being ranked 6th in Britain by the Association of Tennis Professionals. Which, in fairness, I did miss.

However, on the face of it, it appears that the subject fails WP:NTENNIS, so I'm taking this to AfD for a full discussion. As usual, I'm happy to withdraw early if it's found that he does pass WP:GNG or WP:TENNIS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure whether he passes WP:GNG or WP:TENNIS, but in the event it does not, can I suggest it moves to Draft:Cameron Norrie, as the situation is likely to change shortly and it would be a waste to lose the page through deletion. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG, which is pretty much the same reason I prodded it a week ago. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing notable from this player. If the creator wants to have this userfied in his sandbox, by all means do so. It is quite possible that he will qualify in the near future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an ideal candidate to move to draft/user space; it's WP:TOOSOON now but he will likely meet WP:NTENNIS by the end of the year. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Patois Wikipedia[edit]

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

Unclear importance, no sources found or in article. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 07:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the existence of this particular project, I can't find any sources either. Interesting to know that it exists, but no notability as yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as a side-note, if this is the orthography-to-be for the language, suddenly Reggae will become almost entirely incomprehensible! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpiraTeam[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Nicacedric (WP:SPA, creator) with the following rationale "Thank you for your feedback or concern regarding notability. I respectfully but strongly disagree - please look at the 8th reference to see one of the strongest links proving that the information is verifiable and written by a third-party leader". I am not impressed by reference 8, a website with a title like http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com seems almost to be saying 'we review whatever you pay us for'. TechTarget "sells marketing programs and data analytics services for targeted sales and marketing efforts". Marketing, aka spam, is what this entry is. Per WP:CORPSPAM, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a product brochure, with no indications of notability or significance. Simply put, it's spam, & such content belongs on company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just used the Google search above to see if I could find independent sources. I found the following: https://www.pcmag.com/business/directory/online-collaboration/709-inflectra-spirateam https://reviews.financesonline.com/p/spirateam/ https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=EvilDauphin.SpiraTeamExplorer https://www.business-software.com/product/inflectra-spirateam/ http://comparecamp.com/spirateam-review-features-pricing-overview-project-management-software/ http://www.softwaretestingmagazine.com/news/spirateam-5-2-enhances-test-management-functionality/ http://www.scrumexpert.com/news/spirateam-5-2-enables-effective-program-management/ but every one of them suffers the same problem: no byline. In other words, they appear to be paid placements. Conclusion, the product fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created and edited predominantly by two accounts whose edits relate to the Inflectra company and its product here. (One account acknowledges on their User Talk page to working for the company.) As others have noted, the current article is effectively a product feature list more appropriate to the company website, but that could be fixed by normal editing. The product listings and reviews presented are enough for basic verification. There is also its appearance in Gartner Magic Quadrants, but I think we have seen in previous AfDs that this is insufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability in itself. Overall, while the reviews could go some way towards the inclusion criteria at WP:NSOFT I don't think there is enough to demonstrate particular notability for this product. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:42, 30 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. So Why 20:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheds[edit]

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

Play does not appear notable. No significant coverage in independent sources. Performed (self-produced?) in fringe festivals, so not a fully professional production. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs proper reviews to establish notability. Lacking this, delete. Plays or other media are not notable by default. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a bit out there but not enough in either quality or volume to meet GNG, ie NEXIST, in particular it seems to be repetative so nothing to make for a more in depth article. At the time or writing the article it looks like a TOOSOON, and nothing since. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article has since been updated with further information, references and sources. jcunningham.melb (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly the play had a little bit of coverage, but I suggest the additions unfortunately don't make the play sufficiently notable for WP. Suzy Go See is a blog; Stage Whispers reviews everything including amateur theatre. There don't appear to be any reviews or other coverage from credible publications like The Australian, The Guardian, Adelaide Advertiser, The Age, Herald Sun, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Boneymau (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This article should not be deleted as it has been updated with correct and further information, references, sources and an image. tradiejimmy (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — tradiejimmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Comment a sockpuppetry investigation has been opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/jcunningham.melb. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I've blocked Tradiejimmy (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock puppet of Jcunningham.melb (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 25 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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prayash Gupta[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO. All sources are WP:Primary, with no evidence from the references here of their work having been published in notable dailies; awards listed are vanity awards, one of which is referenced only by an empty entry on the subject's blog; no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article creator. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of coverage of the subject, awards, or otherwise meeting WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a guy with a pen. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-debate. Citations are added of all topics covered in the article with the secondary sources.(Prayatna) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRAYATNA GUPTA (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 30 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holoverse[edit]

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

There is nothing else to say about this venue except that it has been opened, and its press releases have been picked up by few newspapers and such, who republished them in a slightly changed format. A business opening is not sufficient for an entity to be encyclopedic (WP:NOTNEWS). Also fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will be sure to look into this and source some more articles that support the content. Leave it with me. Thanks. Simon.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep gnews reveals quite a bit of coverage. Including unexpectedly foreign press too. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me quite sufficient NEXIST to support GNG. Not just opening, but first of its type, with new ground in commercialising applied technology. Aoziwe (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to be a bit of coverage, and noted for it being the first holographic based entertainment centre. Also coverage on tech angles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added a piece by The Financial Review for good measure also. I think I best just reiterate also here guys that the government helped fund the site, and officially opened the site. This is a first in the world in technology and is important for the future of 3D entertainment and human digital immersion. It proves that holograms are in fact possible which is a true technological milestone, a significant addition to any encyclopedia. Regards, Simon. SBanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.113.33 (talk) 06:15, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of hemophilia organizations[edit]

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

One single general reference for a massive list of organizations with external links (WP:ELNO). Unsuitable per WP:LISTCOMPANY and WP:V. Waggie (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it might be a useful resource, it's not encyclopedic content (WP:NOTDIR). If some of these organisations are notable, then it would make sense to have a page giving information/wikilinks, but a very quick survey suggests most are not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - just a spam farm, my god. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lake Mohawk, New Jersey. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Mohawk Yacht Club[edit]

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

Other than trivial mentions, can't find any significant coverage of this facility (similar to the current reference #1). In current sourcing, source #2 doesn't even appear to mention the yacht club, merely the fleet of boats which call the lake home. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Lake Mohawk, New Jersey There is encyclopedic content here that can and should be merged into the article for Lake Mohawk, New Jersey, which covers both the lake itself and the surrounding community. Alansohn (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Alansohn. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason to delete this entry of leading active sports club on the region. Club members include a world champion (Charles Gabor) and a junior national champion (Kenneth Heitman). There are tons of articles on the WP about other sports clubs (ice hockey, soccer, baseball, etc.) with much less relevance. Anything against sailing ?--Banderas (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 05:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited, so having notable members is not enough. The club doesn't seem to have done anything to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Club athletes (sailors) not only win championships for themselves, but also for the club. The Commodore Hub E. Isaacks Trophy, for example, is awarded to the fleet of the winning skipper, not to the skipper (in this case, Lake Mohawk Yacht Club' Snipe fleet). History is inherited, and this club has relevant history.--Banderas (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, but notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Do not know if I would use the word "inherited" but I think a leading active sports club is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - please note that none of the keep !votes has any basis in policy, but are more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alansohn's suggestion. Google search for ("lake mohawk yacht club") only yields 47 results, none of which appears to offer independent in-depth coverage: either the club's own website, directory entries, or passing mentions of events taking place at the club. The only source cited in the article that might satisfy notability requirements is the 1946 Jib Sheet article. However it's not clear how wide a circulation this Jib Sheet had (the name appears to have been used for a number of different sailing clubs' newsletters); the small number of advertisements, most of them for firms in New York state, suggests that it was not widely distributed, so can't be used to support a claim of general notability. Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone article, but probably merits a paragraph or two within the Lake Mohawk article. Ammodramus (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lake Mohawk, New Jersey. I find the reasoning of User:Ammodramus and User:Alansohn compelling in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I also agree with a merge decision, as per my original comments back in April prior to bringing this to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Joshi (healer)[edit]

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

This healer fails the notability guidelines for biographies, as no sources were found. The notability tag was recently removed without explanation, and I have restored it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A promotional article created by a blocked user and subsequently edited by IPs (including a fake notice on the Talk page proclaiming a Keep conclusion to this AfD). The sources provided are postings/advertorials which come complete with the subject's contact details to arrange a consultation session. My searches are not finding better. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the Hindu and DNA are notable periodicals, the two articles cited (dated 2000 and 2014) appear to be advertorials. Kannadigaworld is not a reliable source.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindu article is clearly not an ad. One may dislike its contents, but this is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It concludes with "He visits Belgaum for two days a month (2491, Income Tax Colony, Mahantesh Nagar, Belgaum. ph.No.454989.)"; provision of such contact information usually occurs only in advertorial items, i.e. items seeking to obtain business for rather than provide disinterested information about a subject. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"usually occurs only in advertorial items"? Really? Who says that? What credibility does your statement have? Are you a reliable source while the Hindu is not? 84.73.134.206 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent advertorials as sources supporting quackery. Fails WP:GNG. Jschnur (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver York[edit]

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

Low-level amateur driver who fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:BIO and WP:NMOTORSPORT. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON at least. Clearly fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, but also a lack of coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:26, 25 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 Herb grinder. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weed grinder[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as the subject of the article is not notable. A WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage of the subject in reliable and independent sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Herb grinder. I'd say merge and redirect, but the article creator has already put all relevant (and some dubious) information in both articles. LadyofShalott 15:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Herb grinder. Same reasons as given by LadyofShalott. The material is completely duplicative but the search term is plausible and a redirect is cheap. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 26 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 soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've boldly redirected the title to Ludus#Discography since it's a valid search term. The article's history remains deleted, but I can restore it if anyone would like. Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riding the Rag[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NALBUM. SL93 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Found[edit]

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

Removed prod. PROD reasoning was: "Fails WP:GNG, no Google News hits, only Google hits are not reliable sources.", which still applies. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM. Non-noteable film without reliable secondary coverage. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aleks Syntek#Discography. Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1999–2009[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage per WP:ALBUM. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look into this compilation album later, but we might also want to look at the rest of the albums by this subject as they are all lacking sources and we could likely include several other works here at the same time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aleks Syntek § Discography. Finding very little source coverage, but a redirect is aligned with WP:ATD-R, as this is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 30 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given lack of input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Your Life (The Adicts album)[edit]

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

Article that simply states the existence of a non-charting compilation album. It fails GNG entirely since a search brings up no significant coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given lack of input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Place Tacloban[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. With 70 stores and an area less than 40,000m3 it has all the hallmarks of a non-notable shopping mall Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two relistings. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Up (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, also no sources can be found. QianCheng_虔诚 08:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:NFILM doesn't apply to television, so nomination is invalid. Nate • (chatter) 04:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources can probably found by searching in Chinese: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaki Kitai[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, no reliable sources about the movie independently can be found. The article is also fails WP:NEUTRAL per the lead section. QianCheng_虔诚 08:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Slim Collin[edit]

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

Non notable producer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AXN (India). (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AXN Pakistan[edit]

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

Non notable TV channel, Nothing shows up in English[27] or Urdu[28], Fails WP:TV and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AXN (India) Obvious hoax is obvious; no Pakistan dropdown on network's schedule menu, along with the usual hoaxer attempts to convince us this network sees the light of day in Iran and Afghanistan, two countries that would easily take umbrage with this network's content. I don't doubt they take the Indian version though (though edited to meet PK's PEMRA content standards). Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - It's not obvious to those outside of Pakistan (IE me!) and at first glance (without clicking anything) the web results indicates it exists, That aside if this is indeed a hoax then there's no point redirecting ?..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally all international networks use India as their hub for the subcontinental countries; this is no exception. Usually Pakistan's networks either originate from India or are limited to Pakistan proper and originate from Karachi per that country's regulators; I've had to keep hoaxers from turning many of these articles into messes like this. AXN India does mention the Pakistani feed, thus a delete-and-redirect would be appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right thanks, Having come across this I believe locals are confusing this channel with AXN India which is what you were hinting at, In that case I have no issues with deleting and redirecting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, relies on dubious (and primary) sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Receives regular coverage from Wrestling Observer Newsletter and other WP:PW/RS sources.[29]LM2000 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.★Trekker (talk) 23:35, 26 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. So Why 13:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Kapoor[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Author of a single book published by vanity press Leadstart Publishing, and of a couple of poems and essays on various online venues. This autobiography makes no specific claims of notability other than having published a book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks necessary independent coverage by reliable sources. Best found are some interviews. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Gab4gab (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find substantive, independent coverage in reliable sources. Username also suggests promotional intent, and the article shows signs of this, though it is not egregious. Vanamonde (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus suggests that the content as it stands doesn't appear to support a proper article or the topic in consideration and this article should be deleted. A better structured article may be created later, possibly one on the law itself. —SpacemanSpiff 01:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle beacon lights in India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

i don't think that an article just on the use of beacons in india is really notable. maybe redirect to the law that was passed to ban them, but i think that is unlikely as well -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agrees with nominator, not notable topic, too niche. Information should be merged or deleted. 05:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Emergency vehicle lighting, which has sections for such lights by country. bd2412 T 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on TNT grounds. In a country of more than one billion people, federal law that affects both state-owned vehicles and private vehicles is almost guaranteed to be notable (I won't say exceptions can't exist, but such a thing is definitely not a niche topic), but this isn't an article. It's just a list of affected people and their cars. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Wrestling: EVE[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion. Lack of GNG as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 20:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the following articles: Kerrang Magazine [30]. Metro Newspaper [31]. Fighting Spirit Magazine [32]. Hackney Post [33]. Power Slam Magazine [34]. Plus a brief mention in Sisterhood of the Squared Circle: The History and Rise of Women’s Wrestling a book by ECW Press. Coverage from 2012 to present. Nikki♥311 04:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Nikki's findings.LM2000 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 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. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Keating[edit]

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

Can't find WP:SIGCOV of this actress using a Google Search. On the news section, searching her name with quotation marks yields 8 results, none of which seem to be about her. Non-notable. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only two notable main roles: Clare in Game On, and Brenda Corrigan in The Peter Principle. Is that enough to meet WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from Clare in Game On, and Brenda Corrigan in The Peter Principle. Appeared also on TV in some major shows, including Birds of a Feather, Prime Suspect and Drop the Dead Donkey - Had quite a few roles looking at her IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0444151/ Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those other roles are guest or minor roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in RSes found. Fails WP:GNG. Has lots of credits but most of her roles are guest appearances or minor characters. Fails WP:NACTOR. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think these roles are enough for WP:ENT, and I do not see other evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Romanian diaspora. So Why 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand: Stats show there's a notable increase in Romanians living in the Netherlands, and it's certainly notable. Also, we have similar articles for different nationalities in the same country (Portuguese in the Netherlands, Filipinos in the Netherlands, Greeks in the Netherlands) Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- May I be so bold as to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? When there's substantial sourced content to be had, it would be different, but the situation is as it is. May I also remark upon the fact that "Portuguese in the Netherlands" is lacking sources for the most basic of claims? Feel free to add some (sourced) content, though. I may cause me to change my mind. Kleuske (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the most basic of claims, Kleuske, for the Portuguese in the Netherlands article. They point to the Dutch Statistics Department page that shows the population numbers. The Filipino in the Netherlands article is well sourced, from a skim-through of the page. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not mention the article on Filippinos, since it's quite a decent article. If this article were anything close to that, I would not have nominated. The one claim in the Portugese article ("20.000 people claim Portuguese descent") is unsourced and adorned with a ((cn))-tag. But let's discuss this article instead of the ones I did not nominate. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The CN tag was misplaced. The figure was sourced in the infobox. Linked to this page ([35]). Also, I have added more information to the page on Romanians in the Netherlands. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 07:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It isn't. There's a substantial difference between "claiming to be of Portuguese descent" and "being a Portugese national". Statline only references the latter. Kleuske (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was expanded a bit after being nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Romanian diaspora, where the only salient statistic, the number of Romanians in the Netherlands, can be found. (Note that the number differs significantly between these two articles.) As for the right to work, that's routine coverage of something that happened across the EU, and is covered at 2007 enlargement of the European Union, in the "work restrictions" section. I looked around for more material in Romanian, but could find nothing significant. (I did turn up a couple of organizations for Romanians in the Netherlands, but those aren't independent sources). - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Romanian diaspora. Insufficient substance for a standalone article. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 1 nomination for deletion and 1 'keep' = no consensus, and at 19 days this AfD has been open for long enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amity Innovation Incubator[edit]

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

The article is factually incorrect and misleading. It claims that it is a Government Organisation but I could not find a single source which states that it is a Government of India undertaking, at best it is a NGO supported by a some kind of government initiative. It is quite clear that this organisation is a branch of Amity University , which is a private university and not a government of India undertaking, the same can be confirmed from here 1 . Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Razer^{Text me} 08:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rahuloof, I have just rechecked the resources and find that it is supported by a fund from Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India but established by Amity University which is private sector University. You are right as this information was misleading. I have changed it and formated according to this resource. --J.Clark (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Togolese people in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands. bd2412 T 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusians in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge - as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russians in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, not even a stub; it is a 1-line dictionary definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands (perhaps even Eastern Europeans in the Netherlands). bd2412 T 02:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, to a common article on the non-Dutch population of the Netherlands Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Chaubey[edit]

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

Non-notable casting director fails to pass our general notability guideline. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only significant coverage about them is a Tellychakkar.com article whose reliability hasn't been established. Fails WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attia Sharara[edit]

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

Found no reliable sources for this person tagged for notability since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those references definitely need sorting out. A quick Googling indicates that the subject seems legit and maybe just notable enough for a page -- but the original editor is blocked and has had multiple articles deleted, redirected, and a lot of mischief. --Lockley (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale McDowell[edit]

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

Local politician for a minor party in Scotland. I can't find coverage in reliable sources that would be sufficiently detailed to warrant an article. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. Pichpich (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — and at the local council level, even winning the election wouldn't have gotten him an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. For someone like this, the only way to get him into Wikipedia would be to show that he would already have qualified for an article on some other grounds independent of being a council election candidate, but nothing here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL Coderzombie (talk) 14:03, 29 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^(T) 00:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ford (blogger)[edit]

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

Article about apparently non-notable subject, relying mainly on the use of self-published sources Avaya1 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Luke Ford has been well known both in the porn world and in American Orthodox Jewish circles. I'm a little puzzled by the stated grounds for this AfD, given that the article already cites substantial coverage about Ford in Wired[36][37], the Los Angeles Daily News[38], and Salon[39]. Quick searches also find a cover story [40][41] and other coverage about him in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles [42], and an unflattering portrayal in The New York Times[43]. There are passages in this article that would benefit from editorial attention, but his notability is evident. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit a pile on, based on User:Arxiloxos. I have looked at the article but not checked the references myself. Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As others have noted, the article cites a wide variety of reliable sources that establish notability and a Google search shows many more. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided, meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets GNG requirements despite deficiencies in article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Richard B. Spencer. There was no support for the retention of the article on the website, however there was no objection to the idea of redirecting to Richard Spencer's biography. Merging from the history of the redirect to Spencer's article or anywhere else is at individual editorial discretion. The article for the website should not be recreated without some form of third-party review to make sure that all concerns in this discussion are addressed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Right[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page for the website "alternativeright.com" should be deleted because the website is not notable enough to warrant its own article. The sources on the page are either leftwing blogs (e.g. DailyKos) or organizations that identify hate groups (e.g. ADL, SPLC). These sources only mention the website in brief blog posts or in off-hand remarks. There is no in-depth report about the website in a major news outlet, such as NY Times, WashPost or the Wall Street Journal. The website is rarely, if ever, brought up in popular or political discourse. There are 17 sources in the article and I count 5 mentions in non-RS sources[44][45][46][47][48], 4 brief mentions of the website in an RS but in the context of Richard Spencer[49][50][51][52], 1 brief mention of the website in an RS but in the context of the alt-right movement as a whole[53], 5 RS which do not explicitly mention the website at all[54][55][56][57][58], 1 off-hand mention of the website[59] in an RS, 1 link to the website itself[60]. The website therefore gets little, if any, coverage in reliable sources beyond off-hand remarks in the context of Spencer or the alt-right movement. If there is any content here worth keeping, it should just be merged with Spencer's Wikipedia article or the Wikipedia article for the alt-right movement. Just as InfoWars.com (a website that gets substantially more coverage in reliable sources) doesn't merit a Wikipedia article, neither does this far less notable website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [61] and [62] are both non-trivial coverage of the website (and not just Spencer) in my opinion, but are of the website's first incarnation from 2010-2014. I see no coverage of the current version. I agree with the nom that most of the references listed do not suggest notability, several (particularly the DKos diary) should be removed from the article if it is kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any well-sourced content into the Richard B. Spencer page. This website is not notable enough to warrant its own article. From WP:WEBSITE: "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance." I don't see how its notable, and "historical significance"? Not even close. Rockypedia (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard B. Spencer. Artw (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non notable website. Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard B. Spencer or Merge with same.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:45, 30 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.