The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have not said it isn't notable -- I think that it is; what I have said is that it's promotional. But if CT wants to userify it, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When an article about a notable topic contains promotional language, the best solution is to rewrite the article so that it complies with the neutral point of view, not to delete the article. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it meets our WP:GNG inclusion criteria and it isn't unambiguously promotional, although I think it includes some unnecessary details that could be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since notability isn't questioned, and perceived issues can be addressed by editing, I don't know why this needed to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very first news hit I got was this Forbes Piece "Chip and Dan Heath first came to national prominence with their blockbuster title, Made to Stick, which made the New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists and had a 24-month run on the BusinessWeek list as well." Does anyone have an actual policy based rationale for deletion? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not inherently promotional, or so in a manner that requires deletion of the entire page. Also keep per the rationales of Cullen, Anachronist and Michig above. North America100000:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. I note the book was published in January 2007, the article done in April 07, before most of the current refs are dated. But it's all 10 years ago now, & the book was apparently a big seller, so I see no problem. I don't even see that there was much promotional language in the version before the nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
not notable. most of the sources are from flickr, one is a map (indicating that ti exists, but not much more), and another from the company website. -- Aunva6talk - contribs23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought of merging them to their parent article Yanson Group of Bus Companies, but it is already described there in better terms than this stub. So this is just redundant duplication with its unreasonable Flickr and "About us" (self) sources –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject is only significant for having caused a fatal accident while still a minor. All coverage of him in the media revolves around that one event (WP:BLP1E). Otherwise, he is not a public figure in any way (WP:NPF). There is no coverage of him past 2012, suggesting that there is little ongoing interest in this incident or this individual. There is no coverage outside of Estonia, suggesting the topic lacks the "significant attention by the world at large" required by WP:N.
Car accidents are, unfortunately, routine - even fatal ones. News reporting on them is routine. It falls afoul of WP:BLPCRIME for us to maintain this article on a relatively routine incident involving a non-public person, especially one who was a minor at the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable author, no biographical sources available to show a WP:GNG pass. Article reeks of promo/COI. I'm unable to find enough reviews of the books in this series to substantiate any claim at passing WP:NAUTHOR - none on GNews or Google, and only two on Highbeam - which, for a series containing 9 books, isn't much. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the comment that "Michael Hansen" is a surprisingly common name. Something on a different chap with this name led me to start sourcing the article. Interviews with Hansen have appeared in the (local) Fort Collins Coloradoan after publication of several of his books. His books are published in paperback by a small house that appears to be a real publisher. At least one was reviewed in a book review the name of which escapes me at the moment bu t that reviews novels form small presses. That's the best I can do, and it's not enough. Always happy to reconsider if someone finds WP:RSs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Discussion of whether and where to merge is best continued on the talk pages of the relevant articles. – Joe (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Risk management - there's something a bit odd about the implied hierarchy of topics between the three articles in play here. Risk management (RM) currently defines itself as risk identification, Risk assessment (RAss), risk prioritization and then action and monitoring. The Risk analysis article says after a bit of hedging that it includes RAss, risk characterization, RM, and so on. The RAss article is better defined and claims only that it estimates quantitative or qualitative risk. I conclude that Risk analysis and Risk management are very hard to distinguish and should be merged. This implies, by the way, that the claim in Risk analysis that it includes RM is incorrect. Both articles are inadequately cited; perhaps the merge will leave a slightly improved and more consistent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, (and I may be wrong) the real problem with the WP's "suite" of Risk articles is that they are Frankensteins of Risk terminologies from multiple practices -- I am unconvinced that merging will improve this mish-mashing. I would rather see a lot of practice-oriented splitting; but that would be a huge amount of collaborative, multi-practice work. I have wondered if what is really needed is Wikipedia:WikiProject Risk? IveGoneAway (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and found one, and do a bit of editing this week and rescue these articles, if you can. I think there is some meat in there, but I can't see that having so much overlap between this pair of articles is anything other than a WP:FORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That I might just do (found the project). As far as "saving" the article goes, my practice is AS9100, admittedly relatively narrow, but no overlap with the practices in the present article. The first sentence indicates the real problem; "Risk analysis can be defined in many different ways, and much of the definition depends on how risk analysis relates to other concepts.", suggesting a disambi for a number of Risk analysis (practice) articles, and I can concieve of practices that have Risk Assessment, but not Risk Management, much less a Risk Management System, but that is a topic for the Project. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because Risk assessment is a tightly-defined concept and clearly a 'subroutine' for the other two, which have all-encompassing definitions that are barely distinguishable. See for yourself. As for other articles, recall that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: there are bad articles and WP:FORKs all over, but that's not our concern here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I am not following you; you seem to say here that Risk analysis (quantification of risk under R=L*C, as presently written, ignoring the problematic lead) has Risk assessment as a subroutine. However, the present Risk analysissections seem a subset of the present Risk assessment (not that that either content is necessarily standard definition for all practices). Moreover, ISO 31000 similarly defines 2.21 Risk analysis as a "subroutine" of 2.14 Risk assessment, the opposite of your argument, if I understand you correctly. ISO 3000 also defines Risk assessment to include risk estimation (which could be Quantitative or Qualitative). I acknowledge that ISO 3000 is not necessarily the definition of risk-related terms for all practices, but it is a standard for some practices. ISO 26262 has Risk "assessment" as the risk estimation (modified formula) and doesn't subdivide to "analysis". Under FAA Order 8040.4 (yes, dated 1998) "analysis" is followed by "assessment". Just merging or deleting Risk analysis will not address how different practices have different definitions, which IMO, is how we ended up with the two Assessment/Analysis articles. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It was removed because it had been prodded and deleted before. You can't go through prod twice. Has to go through Afd if it has been through the prod process before. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks. I saw the note and looked through the page history but didn't see any prod before. Just didn't realize it had been deleted and re-created already. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. This is a translated article and the original version doesn't even cite references other than the few external links which are also here in the English version. Searched News, Books, and Google Search and unable to find anything to establish WP:GNG or WP:BIO. CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Lack of references on Czech version leads me to believe references indicating sufficient notability do not exist in that language either, though I do not speak it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - I think an article on this subject, though with a neutral name - e.g. "Israeli overflights in Lebanese Airspace 2007-2017", could be developed - however the current article is a mess - both in terms of NPOV and in terms of the information (focusing on show of force overflights with sonic booms - but not on more significant overflights).Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. None of the incidents are notable enough to warrant a standalone article about Israeli violation of Lebanese airspace. Appropriate for the Israeli–Lebanese conflict article. Merge not needed as information already there. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Might not quite fit the category of speedy G10, attack page, because it seems to attack a variety of different entities. But it's clearly advocacy for the subjects POV against the New Zealand court system. Contains numerous allegations at least some of which apparently are BLP violations. I'm asking for deletion as NOT NEWS and NOT ADVOCACY, and if any admin agrees with me about it, a speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No to delete. Seimer is one of but a handful of networked activists getting political imprisonment for fighting endemic corruption in New Zealand. A significant public figure therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.131.46 (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - nom has not looked into this carefully enough. This is one of the most significant / longest established record repositories in India, of importance equal to or greater than a county record office in the UK or a state record office in the US. The sources already given appear adequate, although doubtless they could be approved improved. This article was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it first appeared... Eustachiusz (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Records Office, the article subject is mentioned in a number of books, including The Cambridge History of the British Empire.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be (or rather information/volumes held within) widely referenced, including in books 100(+) years old - e.g. [2][3]. The Tamil Nadu Archives garners quite a few hits as well.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can't locate any reliable sources with regards to this. At the time I PROD'd, I asked on IRC if any editors familiar with Indian topics could check for sources, and the editor I spoke to (can't recall the name a week later and don't have access to logs currently) didn't locate any either. ♠PMC♠ (talk)15:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are a substantial number of articles on small castes, they should probably be merged into a single more general article. However, if no sources can be found on the topic at all, delete. bd2412T20:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with that approach is there are rarely any reliable sources about those smaller castes/clans, so merging them doesn't solve the verifiability problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: All these pages are about same product "Samsung J series" models, and were created by same user with slightly different titles. Also many of the sources don't meet WP:RS, and even Manual of Style is not followed. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I didn't find anything to show that either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT is met. She has never competed at an Olympics, the only coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and statistics, and her highest overall World Cup ranking for a full season is 68. Papaursa (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Pushes the boundary of WP:NBIO - a businessperson involved in some merger transactions, but is it really encyclopedic? The community should have a voice on this. The mergers history seems about as notable as the 1990s bagels sales – not very. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to plenty of sources123, M&A Boutiques like Bednar's (ranked #3 among top boutiques of 20174) are doing real damage to Wall Street, gaining WP:SIGCOV along the way. Not to incite WP:OSE, but as cofounder of his firm5, even if you ignored his many other significant contributions to the field (see refs on page), Bednar is clearly notable, and ~90% of top boutique founders have entries. This isn't far fetched, and it doesn't warrant the WP:JNN reasoning provided above.--Chamber chamber (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Didn't not meet any of WP:FILM points and lacks sources. This article is the first, and with its mirror only result of search. Of the 3 sources in the article two mentioned the film but not in any detail to assert notability the other is showing error –Ammarpad (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Opusmodus is a widely used software in academia like the Mozarteum Uni, Utah Uni and others. Opusmodus main goal is to introduce coding systems to education and not creating ad's on media. Wikipedia should put more emphasis on what articles are about and there the quality contribute positively to our culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigmm (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete fundamentally for lack of significant coverage to establish notability. Also for covert attempt of promotion against Wikipedia policies. The SPA author has never edited any mainspace page except this article since account creation in 2015. This is enough indicator of what he is here for. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Spammy article based on “sources” that are directories and press releases, nothing substantive, reliable and independent. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the article describes and is referenced to standard listing sources which do no more than confirm it to be a trading company. The remainder is about the products that they manufacture and market, sourced to a research paper which predates the company and to routine announcements. Neither these nor my own searches indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The majority of the sources the article cites are press releases from sites like PRNewswire, and per AllyD the citing of a research paper that predates the company is sketchy at best. If we removed all of the content about the drugs the article subject sells, nothing of substance would be left.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Search for reliable sources only turns up nothing but a couple of announcements on its initial serialization and second volume from natalie.mu, but nothing that reach the level of significant coverage to pass WP:NOTE. Also fails WP:NBOOK alternative criticizer. All other sources on the Japanese Wikipedia are primary. —Farix (t | c) 05:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search found no licensors in other languages. Searching for the katakana mainly resulted in retail links or other non-reliable sources. Unfortunately it seems to be too soon to have an article on this manga as it lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability. Opencooper (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weekly Young Magazine - It seems to have a following on 4chan and other websites, but as it stands, significant reliable coverage in either Japanese, English, or other languages is lacking at this time. Does not appear to have been licensed yet. No prejudice against recreation if more sources about the manga come out and/or if it gets an anime adaptation. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew15:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Holding a named chair, with "distinguished" in the title, counts for WP:PROF#C5. (Meeting any one of the WP:PROF criteria is sufficient.) The books he's written or co-authored have been reviewed [4][5][6][7] (not always positively [8], but for present purposes, that doesn't matter). This supports a pass per WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A majority of average professors in the field of law have peer reviewed articles, contribute to journals, or, books containing information from their field of interest. Lawyers tend to be prolific in writing and publication because their academic foundation is on opinion, interpretation and application of the law. That alone, does not meet WP:AUTHOR in this context. I don't see what value there is in keeping this article beyond the mere fact it meets criterion #5 as the previous version of this article had multiple issues. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Oppose. This is a valid entry. Coffin Home (義莊) was common in the South China. This kind of establishment is also found in Japan. Please read ja:義荘 in Japanese, zh:義莊 in Chinese, and zh-yue:義莊 in Cantonese. They gives non-English sources for this topic. Source 1, a book 遠藤隆俊「義荘」(『歴史学事典 13 所有と生産』(弘文堂、2006年) ISBN 978-4-335-21042-6. Source 2, an article [10] 張軍. 範氏義莊作為慈善機構何以運轉800餘年. 和訊網. 2013-08-06. Source 3, an article [11] 清代民間慈善事業. 江蘇省財政廳. 2014-09-29. Source 4, a book 唐力行. 商人與中國近世社會. 臺灣商務印書館. 1997: 199. ISBN 9570513993. This topic is ancient and might not attract many researchers to write English articles. But if you search 義莊 on Google, it gives several hundred thousand results. — HenryLi (Talk) 10:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article was a bit shabby but this is an important type of establishment in East Asian cultures. There are enough reliable sources on it, some of which are cited by the zh and ja versions of this article. I have made a first stab at brushing up the article with a few references. Deryck C.18:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the references are just to interview and news of the journalist not about him. The author has so far created many of such articles of non notable journalists and reference bomb the lead section in order to avoid suspicion. Just like this Shahad Alshemari too. I think ANI is the best place to deal with this. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear friend Ali Jawad is Journalist From Iraq and i added 13 References in (Arabic).Why do you want to delete the article?--IamIRAQI (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UserIamIRAQI are the references in Arabic the work of the journalist or articles about him? I'm going to abstain on voting until we know what the references are about.Egaoblai (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentEgaoblai (talk) (The references) are Articles about him and there are many references not added (in Arabic) ..Also Shahad Alshemari
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No eviodence of any notability. Sources seem to be re-playing press releases and nothing reliable is listed here. Reads like and advertisement even with most of the content removed as overly promotional. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 20:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a run-of-the-mill food festival of recent vintage and the coverage in reliable sources consists of routine event listings obviously generated by press releases. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I originally created it back in 2012 to "fill out" the people making The Legend of Korra. And it turns out that that is a terrible reason to create something. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1]16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It's not a copyright violation, the alleged source is using text from the Wikipedia article ("This author page uses material from the Wikipedia article "Joshua Spanogle", which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0"). Hut 8.521:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A new open access journal first published in 2015 [12]. Covered by only one independent source [13] which might an NPR expert blogger [14]. Psychology Today piece interviews the editor-in-chief and is therefore not an independent source [15] and coverage of this subject is passing mention. Notability is not inherited. Other sources appear to be primary such as the journal website and Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association - the publishing platform for this journal [16].
Very low article citation rate on Google Scholar [17]. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, WP:SPIP, WP:N. Not listed in any selective databases or indexing services - fails NJOURNALS. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia article created and somewhat edited by the editor-in-chief of this journal (see edit history and COI tag). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an apparently predatory journal on a fringe topic. Does not meet the relevant notabililty guideline and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
290 is actually high for the second year of a journal. Calculated as citations per target article, the same way Web of Science calculates it for Behavioral and Brain Sciences, this would yield a journal impact factor of 290/17 = 17 (however they are mostly within-journal citations, because of the open peer commentary feature, so not really comparable with other journals).
True, just as I created the entry for Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 2005. I edit WP non-anonymously, just as I peer review and edit journals non-anonymously. (I think people should be answerable with their names and reputations for what they publish. I know this opinion is not shared at WP, but it's a point of view...) If there is a conflict of interest or a biassed point of view, I think that should be in the open too. (I did large parts of the entries for Open Access too. If I am promoting something, it is openness.) I think that whether I am biassing or distorting or promoting should be judged on the basis of the content, not by my identity. I think my WP entries -- perhaps with the exception of my entries on the decline of democracy under the Orban regime in Hungary -- are all very low key and minimal. --User:Harnad (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Not selling anything? You are selling your reputation, you are promoting your position in the academic community. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
duffbeerforme: I can only repeat that I edit WP non-anonymously because I think people should be answerable with their names and reputations for what they post. (I know this opinion is not shared at WP, but it's a point of view...) But I think that whether I am biassing or distorting or promoting should be judged on the basis of the content of the entry itself, as it is with anonymous editors, not on the basis of my identity, because I choose to reveal it: Is Animal Sentience (journal) not notable enough for a WP entry? Vote delete. Is the entry inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate? Vote delete. But I don't think an academic journal entry should be deleted as self-promoting merely because the editor of the journal posted it. --User:Harnad (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by nominator). This is a tough nut to crack. The sources presented in this AfD do demonstrate there is some paragraph size independent coverage of articles in this journal. The coverage seems to indicate that this journal carries some authority on animal sentience and its articles are part of the animal sentience debate. However, I am turned off by Mr. Hanard's promotionalism of this journal and his self-promotion (for which one indication is using his biography article title [18] as his discussion signature before recently changing to four tides like the rest of us). This taints the view that this topic might be worthy of a stand alone article.
He has also tried to include mention of the other journal for which he was editor in chief (and that journal's founder) in the first line of this article [19], [20] - which was WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. He may have inside knowledge there is a connection between this journal and the other one, but no RS seems to support this. In any case, this topic may be just barely crossing the threshold for notability based on some coverage in reliable sources.
I predict in time, this topic will easily be seen as a notable journal. However, promotionalism is not required. If there are other arguments for "delete" or "merge", I am interested in reading them. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with changing my ivote to keep. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the thoughtful reassessment by the nominator. The delete !vote by k.e.Coffman leads off with an outright falsehood ("predatory journal") and duffbeerforme mentions nothing but the promotion angle (which I agree leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but by itself doesn't automatically make a page deletable). — Gpc62 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as WP:AUTHOR; has written multiple books published by university presses and widely held: Worldcat identities. For example, Southern civil religions in conflict: Black and white Baptists and civil rights, 1947-1957 is held by 550 libraries. Sample reviews:
Book reviews: American. Hill, Samuel S. Catholic Historical Review, Oct 01, 1991; Vol. 77, No. 4, p. 722-723. Reviews the book `Southern Civil Religions in Conflict: Black and White Baptists and C... more
Blessed Are the Peacemakers/Birmingham Revolutionaries (Book). Fairclough, Adam. Georgia Historical Quarterly, Mar 01, 2002; Vol. 86, No. 1, p. 153-155. Reviews two books. 'Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Martin Luther King Jr., Eight White R... more
WP:AUTHOR does not explicitly recognize library holdings as a threshhold for notability. Likewise, academic reviews of books, such as those referenced above, are not usually considered when determining wider impact or importance within a field unless those reviews specifically note, discuss, and cite that impact. Citations within other studies or research is a slightly better measure of impact or regard within a field, but is still not a guarantee of notability as an academic or a general author. Broader coverage or proof of substantial impact of these works would be required. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely held author, widely quoted in various press contexts, there's a lot more that could be added to the article. GNG met. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - a single from the album is described as a 'hit'. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/23/world/la-fg-what23-2009dec23 while it is difficult to find information about this album, that is true for many notable musicians from countries outside of the main western countries. I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss these albums as non-notable, when it appears difficult to search the Pakistani music charts. I think finding someone who can confirm the chart placings (or lack thereof) should precede deleting any of this artist's album's articles. Ross-c (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100001:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100001:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100001:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100001:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100001:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100001:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100002:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lack of notability. She was a candidate in elections but didn't pass. Nominated for an award, but didn't get it. No secondary sources cited and most consist of her own work. Emesik (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Artkomiks and Artystki Lublina are secondary sources, for example. The interview (in a major newspaper) also has a short intro about her aside from the interview itself. Is publishing webcomics internationally and has had quite a few publications in Poland. Also, her comics have been mentioned by notable publications around the world like The Post Italiano, The Canary, Tanzania's Daily News, Huffington Post, Bustle, Metro.Ausir (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100002:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100002:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100002:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America100002:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A PROD was reverted without improvement. This article has been a COPVIO from the club's website. The SPA who wrote it found no reliable independent sources since 2008. It appears on social media sites including Yelp, but no independent reliable sources even today. No value to WP to replicate the promotion from the club's site. Rhadow (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a lot of the TROVE content is routine sports events results reporting, there are many thousands of hits, it should be possible to write a more in-depth article. There are hits on annual general meetings, coaching staff and policy, etc. SPA creation - yes - but a single one off edit, and it has had a few editors since. The declined PROD was only yesterday - they might come back? Overall regardless of article ancestry seems to be more than enough WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more than 100,000 Trove hits and the historical interest going back a century and a half make this a keep, in my opinion. Article obviously needs some care and citations. SunChaser (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It's quite rare for a film industry costume designer to achieve notability, and this one might be notable but I doubt it. There's good coverage in The Hindu plus a couple of interviews. It's hard to see how WP:CREATIVE criteria are met. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent coverage, they are considered primary sources, and don't count toward notability. You have a COI about this, you apparently know the guy, based on your contributions about closely related subjects. Do you have anything else? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is user-generated content and cannot be used to determine notability. See WP:RS/IMDB for more information. An instagram profile also doesn't show notability. He has "followers" not necessarily fans. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not count towards the needed multiple reliable source 3rd party indepdent secondary source coverage. The Hindu article might, but it is one not multiple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many reasons. His profession is subset of film/director. I can't remember seeing any article about other film costumiers because they're generally non notable and work under direction of film directors, who themselves majority don't pass WP:DIRECTOR. For him to deserve an article he must, of course, show undoubteful recognition by several independent sources and such sustained coverage for years not just one mention about film he helped in production. And this is virtually absent noe except few interviews of few questions which don't count as solid secondary sources. In short he didn't meet WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG, perhaps in the future –Ammarpad (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similar (Costume designer) article available in wiki. Sameera Saneesh from malayalam films, Ritu Kumar from hindi NK 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument for keeping an article. Each article stands or falls on its own merits irrespective of what else might exist on Wikipedia. In any case, Sameera Saneesh won awards and has multiple independent sources giving her far more coverage than MasharHamsa. Ritu Kumar is a fashion designer, not a costume designer, but also has more coverage than MasharHamsa. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello Boomer, my assessment of sources show that the Ulaga Tamil Sangam is better known as the World Tamil Sangam. It was originally proposed by a legendary political leader in India, M. G. Ramachandran;[22][23][24] and later got its building allocated as a museum complex.[25] Now their center in the city of Madurai, inaugurated by another Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, is even considered one of the top tourist destinations.[26] It has been very well covered by various news and media reports: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Most probably, you might have missed the Ulaga > World translation. I did too initially, but was fortunate to understand it on subsequent analysis. I propose we Keep the article and future editors can add further contents, considering the clarification I've provided. Do you think that works? Warmly, Lourdes14:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.