< 4 November 6 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deberah Bringelson[edit]

Deberah Bringelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. Many of the many references are complete nonsense; the first one only appears to support the claim that Orlando is in Florida and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The claim of being elected to political office is not discussed in the body. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the original draft was copied directly to mainspace without any review on 13 October. I moved it back to Draft on the same day since the notability was very suspect and I formed the view that it would be speedily deleted in its current state. However it was later moved back into mainspace without review on 19 October by the author.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:53, 8 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iyoki Station[edit]

Iyoki Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V Rhadow (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V means that readers can verify the information, not that editors can verify the information.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The Bushranger, my Gooogle search, taking well over three seconds, did not turn up any reliable independent secondary sources in English. You have asserted there are plenty. Please add two ... as others have not done for the last nine years. Rhadow (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, that is not what I said and that is not how WP:V works. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources. Rhadow (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...that is not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass WP:V, and a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass WP:V. WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited WP:GNG or WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes it exists, makes it a case of speedy keep #3 applying. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is not a reliable source.  Sources that are not in the article provide no verifiability, so finding them does not make the article verifiable.  WP:V#Notability is different in that it requires a third-party source be found for the topic of the article, but that source does not have to be cited.  WP:N does not require any sources.  Why you think the picture verifies anything is a mystery.  The picture has some Japanese characters at an angle, so maybe you read Japanese?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Verifiability is a core content policy, and as per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."  This deletion guideline further states, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions."  Unlike NPOV, which might have a grey area, this particular case is a bright line, as it unambiguously breaches verifiability policy.  Note that the deletion guideline further states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the big picture, notability is a minor guideline blown out of proportion at AfD.  See also WP:RAILOUTCOMES.
    Core content policies are different.  We can hope that a closer will make a policy-based close, but I suspect that before that happens a closer will source the article instead of closing, rendering our delete arguments moot.  At that point, I can change my !vote to keep, and if that happens I think you should consider withdrawing your nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:07, 12 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 redirect to Brookfield, Connecticut#Education. User:Kudpung's reply to User:AirportExpert pretty much sums it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huckleberry Hill School[edit]

Huckleberry Hill School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable elementary school. I tried redirecting this to Brookfield, Connecticut#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (when it was at Huckleberry Hill School (Brookfield) before the article's creator did a copy/paste move) but was reverted by the creator, and I don't feel like getting into an edit war about the matter. It's to be hoped that a consensus for deletion or redirection here will convince him or her. Deor (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Deor (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another aspect I would like to point out, is that school notability is different than notability for let's say, a business. Schools are notable based on alumni (which are rarely listed on middle and elementary schools), academic and test score rankings, and significance within a community. I encourage everyone who will vote or has already voted to keep this in mind while reading this article, and then make a realistic decision as to whether or not this school is any more or less notable than the other schools currently listed on the Connecticut school stub category page.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
Schools are not notable based on alumni - notability is not inherited. Academic and test score rankings certainly do not add to notability - Wikipedia is neither a 'Best schools' site nor a popularity contest for any other topic. And AirportExpert, could you please remember to sign your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates, there has been an (unofficial) working procedure on Wikipedia with regard to schools: articles about verifiable secondary schools and colleges are usually kept, whereas articles about elementary and middle schools are redirected to their locales or school districts. If there are any of the latter in the stub category, it's probably because no one has noticed the articles yet. Deor (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This fate of this article is being determined on its own merits which has nothing to do with other articles. As noted above, other schools in this category probably have not been noticed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 6 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doruk Erkan[edit]

Doruk Erkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no external references Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 5 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. nom withdraw (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Epstein[edit]

Arnold Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP without external references Rathfelder (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 5 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Einesman[edit]

Fred Einesman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP lacking references Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:KalamazooGuy has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 9 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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 21:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Eckel[edit]

Robert H. Eckel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no external references Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:53, 5 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 delete. As noted, evidence that the organization exists is not enough to justify an article. I'll not salt yet but if it is recreated without some independent reliable sources it's a prime candidate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Lambda[edit]

Delta Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no independent sources, and article keeps getting over-written by a version with no sources. Appears to fail all appropriate notability guidelines, and just an attempt to promote. KylieTastic (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal testimony has zero value here even from accounts with long positive historical use, so a new account coming to give this would have less relevance, if that was possible. But to counter the argument it's a new proto-organisation with a webite (blogspot) that appears to be only created today. Wikipedia is not for promotion of aspirations. KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– KylieTastic Can you tell me why the old page stayed up so long without any other credibility? The page was mostly untouched, only now is it receiving such scrutiny. I understand the organization has been dormant for some time but only when new life is being breathed into it is it questioned for deletion. This is upsetting. JJII (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– KylieTastic Thank you for explaining that. I hope you can see my efforts through as this is a real organization and I'm trying to comply with the rules. I'm starting to feel defeated though since everyone is trying to disprove the existence of this organization. Lack of concrete sources is getting to me though, they will be available soon. I just wish we could have worked through the rough patches before putting the page up for deletion. JJII (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ: it appears that you do not understand the criteria needed. (Which I explained at here.) In the first place, you are still getting your terms mixed up. E.g.: "notable" does not apply to the sources, or even information; it applies to the topic. Second, notability – do read WP:Notability – means that the topic has gained a certain amount of "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". There are several aspects of "significant"; you might note that "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" are explicitly excluded.
Finally: that you do not have reliable sources to show any significant attention by the world at large is a demonstration of non-notability. The issue is not in having "notable information" made available; the issue is that whatever attention Delta Lambda has gotten in "the world at large" is so minimal even you can't find it. That, despite that, you are "determined to keep this page up", and your lack of any other editing, indicates that you are "not here" for the encyclopedia, but only for this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
±J. Johnson (JJ) I appreciate your ambition towards this topic. This is a new organization based on old style ideals. I'm trying to prove that via the Wikipedia page, but the connections are vague because they are connections I have reestablished. The "connections" are vague, and therefore difficult to prove. And I've lacked other editing because I don't have the tools to keep posting updates to the page until I have sources readily available. If I could pull sources that are of influence to the club, I could use those, but still the connections between those sources and my new organization would be unclear. I am looking forward to updating the page for the sake of the encyclopedia, and it's upsetting you would think otherwise. I have been on these talk pages for the last week discussing validity and notability with KylieTastic and Naraht. And as far as my terms, I may have overlapped the meanings of legitimacy and notability but I think my point shines through. I suppose I would have to assume that any new organization, even when tied to an old one is difficult to broadcast on Wikipedia, and that's understandable. I just thought if I could connect it to old style ideals it would prove its legitimacy and therefore, it's notability. I suppose that isn't the case based on these inquiries.JJII (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "point" (whatever it is) does NOT "shine through". What does shine through is that you do not understand the basic concepts here, and that trying to explain them seems futile. It doesn't take a crystal ball to anticipate how this is going to turn out, including frustration on your part because you don't understand why. I'm afraid there is not much any of us can do about that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. Johnson (JJ) Your negativity and deviation from the matter are not needed here sir. Thank you! SpicyTiger (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A comment which (like your previous comment) does nothing to save this article from deletion. What you seem to have not yet learned in your two-day old WP career is that competence is required. Nor is incivility a useful substitute. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J. Johnson (JJ) your attempt at being a deep intellectual is failing, as you seem to be unable to formulate a simple sentence with grammatical structure. I suggest going back to university and taking a basic english and or sentence structure class, as it could do you well in a career on Wikipedia. Cheers SpicyTiger (talk) 23:22, 8 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 keep. The consensus here is to keep the article, but to seriously consider renaming the page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake[edit]

List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of places in other countries which happen to have a namesake in Canada, without regard to whether either place was named for the other or not. Richmond, British Columbia was not, for instance, named after Richmond, New South Wales or vice versa -- they merely happen, through different processes of relevance to Canada and Australia, to both be named for the same historical person. And neither are Kinmundy, Alberta and Kinmundy, Illinois relevant to each other just because they were both named after the same third place in Scotland, nor do Warsaw, Ontario and Warsaw, New York have a defining connection to each other just because they were both named after the one in Poland. Certainly some places in this list had the Canadian settlement directly named after them, which might be legitimate to note in a very different list than this one, but we don't need a list of every single place name in any world country that merely happens to also exist in Canada for completely independent reasons. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The objections to the entries on the list are all mistaken. Most of the entries on the list are supported by the reference cited in the "notes" column. There are some do not have a citation; those are supported by the Wiki page for the Canadian city. Now many of the citations just take you to the Googlebooks page for the book and it's up to the user to type the name of the city in the search field to find the actual cite. This was done in an effort to keep the total number of citations for this page to a resonable number. If every cite took you to the exact page, there would be several hundred citations for this list. If someone thinks that's desirable, I can do that. But it's not a reason to delete the page. OK, let's take the specific objections in order:
  • Richmond, BC -- cite is British Columbia Place Names. Direct link: Richmond Googlebooks won't let me copy the page, but it says that someone's daughter named it after her favorite place in Australia and this pre-dates someone else's claim that it's named after a place in England.
  • Kinmundy, Alberta -- cite is Community Place Names of Alberta. Direct link: Kinmundy Again it won't let me copy and paste, but it does in fact say it was named for Kinmundy, Illinois, the hometown of the first postmaster. Kinmundy, IL was named for the Scottish place, but that's irrelevant to this list.
  • Warsaw, Ontario -- cite is Place names of Ontario. While Googlebooks has this book, all it has is snippetview. Unfortunately doing a search does not turn up the entry for Warsaw (the search function on Googlebooks is flakey at times and this is one of them.) I did not use Googlebooks, but rather checked the book out from the library. If I put it in the list, then the book actually says it was named for the place in New York and not the city in Poland. You'll have to take my word for it or check the book out of the library yourself.
  • Hull, Quebec -- The cite given says "Hull Township got its name from the city of Hull in Yorkshire, Eng. ". Ok. so where is Hull, Yorkshire? Go to the page for Hull, Yorkshire and you'll find it redirects to Kingston upon Hull and the first thing it says after the pronunciation is "usually abbreviated to Hull".
  • Cites to GNIS -- GNIS is a resource for USA places; this page uses the Canadian equivalent. However, it only uses them to establish that the place in Canada actually exists, not that it's named for another city. That's because not all places in Canada have their own Wikipage. All those with cites to this database also have an additional cite in the "notes" column that establishes that it was named for the non-Canadian city.
  • Places named after non-cities, i.e. castles. If you read the lede, it says that " the namesakes are places (cities, towns, villages) in Canada that are named for a city, town, village, or institution such as a castle or country house in some other country." (emphasis added) OK, that part is not in the page's title, but there's only so much you can put in a title before it gets too unwieldy. Perhaps the title needs to be modified. If you think so, please make a suggestion as to what it should be. But it's not a reason to throw out the whole page.
  • Places named for battles such as Waterloo: These are indirect namings. The city in Ontario was named for the battle but the battle was named for the town it was fought at. I see no reason to object to these. (And if we do remove them, at some future time someone else will come along and add them. You can pretty much bet on that.)
I felt this was a useful addition to Wikipedia. If I didn't, I wouldn't have expended all the time and effort to compile it.
Dtilque (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Just to note:
Waterloo, Belgium is of course a city, and the Battle of Waterloo is named after the city.
Grimsthorpe is a village in England after which Grimsthorpe Castle is named.
I think the page is useful. Even if a few of entries need to be amended or deleted later, or need better citations, the great majority of them seem to be valid, so there seems to be no reason to delete the whole page. Green Wyvern (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Keep This list is actually interesting; and there is no point in deleting articles which may need to be recreated some time in the future. Impressively intensive. And very well-sourced. Claverhouse (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Claverhouse. Some of us find the page interesting and useful, so what purpose is served in deleting it?Jamesdowallen (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the Royal We ? encyclopedic is a very subjective term, however there is nothing in this article that could not have been included in print encyclopedias of the distant past. Claverhouse (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been suggested to me elsewhere that I change it to something very much like that, where the emphasis is on Canadian cities rather than cities in other countries. That would reduce some confusion about the list. It would require some work, since the tables would have to be reordered to put the Canadian cities first. It would also open the list up to more than one Canadian town per foreign city, but this would not result it a great expansion of the list. Unlike, for example the US, where there are a dozen or more places named after many large European cities and even several each named for certain more obscure places. I'm amenable to doing this, but I'm not going to make any changes to the list until this deletion issue is resolved. Dtilque (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention for the title change to require a re-jigging of the list, just that the title should clarify that these are cities named after other cities, rather than simply cities sharing the same name. Perhaps something more along the lines of List of non-Canadian cities which have Canadian cities named after them--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 11 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. WP:SK1, nominator has withdrawn, all outstanding !votes are Keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy E. Dunlap[edit]

Nancy E. Dunlap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP lacking external references Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that the rules for living persons require some references which are not connected to the person themselves. WP:BLPPRIMARY for example. I'm not suggesting that this person is not notable, and indeed I have no reason to think any of the statements made about them are contested. But the rules about BLPs are there for very good reasons and they should be applied to respectable doctors and academics as much as to anyone else. A surprising number of the articles about physicians are extremely poor. I am only nominating the worst ones. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may be conflating primary sources with independent sources, which seems to be a common misunderstanding. Primary sources—things like public records and documents—are what WP:BLPPRIMARY covers. But as far as I'm aware there's no guideline that says BLPs must contain sources that are not connected to the subject (independent sources). The independence of sources is usually discussed with regard to notability, but they only have to exist, not be cited in the article. Just applying our common sense, there's no reason to think that a university website is an unreliable source for the details of an academic's career, simply because it is not an independent source. Therefore its perfectly acceptable (and routine) for short academic biographies to be sourced exclusively to institutional websites. As long as there are independent sources out there that could be used to expand the article in future (which is what WP:PROF helps us judge), I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion. – Joe (talk) 23:19, 6 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylee Matuszak[edit]

Kaylee Matuszak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is only mentioned in passing in local sources thus, lacking significant coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has her music on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, and CDBaby, among other retailers. Yes, mentioned only in local sources, but I don't see why she wouldn't be notable, as she is actively selling her music, streaming it, and performing it. User:Oneilno (talk) 3:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Dawood Yaseen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammed Dawood Yaseen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with the last AfD, this footballer still has not received significant coverage or played in a fully professional league, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per below sources, meets WP:GNG. Article needs improving to reflect that, though. GiantSnowman 20:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. FIFA - would argue that FIFA are sufficiently far removed from the player not to be PRIMARY (although this is in the article as form the AFC, it seems quite clear it was an interview with FIFA)
  2. FourFourTwo - in depth article on the player
  3. The Hindu - article of medium length on the player specifically prior to the U17 world cup
  4. xtratime.in - article of medium length on the player specifically prior to the U17 world cup
  5. Indian Express - article of medium length on the player specifically during the U17 world cup
  6. sportstarlive.com - article of medium length on the player specifically during the U17 world cup
  7. ghanasoccernet.com - dedicated summary of the player's career to date
  8. Guardian - pen pic
Would be interested in the opinions of the editors above who have said he does not meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:11, 6 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capital J[edit]

Capital J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No credible notability, lacks references from reliable sources. The one reference from the Toronto Star does not address the subject of this article. PKT(alk) 18:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indhuja[edit]

Indhuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City's Cash[edit]

City's Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and seems to focus more on Occupy London than the account, one of tree accounts used by the City of London. I found a grand total of *two* RS's mentiong the fund, which seems underwhelming. Kleuske (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the issue of how information became available is to do with Occupy London, but the fact that there is this account of £2.3bn, and is one of just three funds available to the City of London makes it very notable. Leutha (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I bet most financial centres have funds available the public knows little to nothing about. Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 6 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 merge to MTY Food Group#Groupe Valentine Inc.. What content to be merged into the existing section can be determined outside of AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine (restaurant)[edit]

Valentine (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable small chain; references seem to only discuss it in context of being acquired by another firm, but redirect was reverted. Inappropriate content: absurdly trivial menu in both infobox and text, and trivial news event--possibly because there was no other possible content at all. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, MY
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
where is? It would help to add it to the article. (that is, substantial coverage, not routine reviews or notices about a store opening.) DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
French press added, DGG, okay? Rhadow (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a 150 word brief promotional notice, the second a 50 word paragraph introduced a video advertisement they made of themselves. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG -- No, it's not Pulitzer material, but it shouldn't inspire such undeserved scorn. It is independent. Infopresse is the analog of Adweek. Valentine paid to make the TV ads. That's legitimate; whether it is routine is another question. The other piece about 10,000 steps for a poutine is independent and ironic. Did you get bad service in a Valentine? Rhadow (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can not find any of the cited articles in the web or on wayback machine, but from the tiles it seems they deal with the chain only in context of its purchase by MTY. The two refs I can find are from the company itself, one direct, one on wayback. There are also two article in the Globe Mail about MTY acquisitions of food chains--both of which mentions this particular acquisition only as one of a list in a paragraph "MTY brands include: Mr. Sub, Country Style, Thai Express, Yogen Fruz, TCBY, Cultures, Tiki-Ming, Jugo Juice, Vanelli's, Tandori, KimChi, TacoTime, Sukiyaki, Koya, Sushi Shop, Vieux Duluth, Chick 'n Chick, Franx Supreme, La Crémière, Valentine, Croissant Plus, O'burger, Panini, Tutti-Frutti, Vie&Nam, Villa Madina, Koryo" [4] ; [5] claims of importance would seem to be based on ILIKEIT. I will certainly look at any other similar chains you mention--I've helped delete a number where the references don't amount to sayign more than it exists or once existed. And how is a section reading "==Products== French fries, hot dogs, hamburgers, poutine , club sandwich, hamburger steak, hot chicken sandwich ,smoked meat, chicken burger, chicken strips and breakfast items. " encyclopedic content? .(Some other trival or promotional contentthat I tried to delete has been restored also. At this point, it might qualify for G11. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very probably a few dozen at least in the US also; experience has been that they ted to very difficult to remove from WP, because they depend on pr and reputation: they tend to make sure they get a good deal of trivial press, and when they brought here, tend to encounter iLIKEIT.
I wouldn't object at all to an approach that considered several at a time, but of course they each have to be considered individually, because probably in a group of 10, 1 or 2 will have something substantial for notability. The same goes for many other classes of promotionalism.
More practically,we need to remove promotional material more systematically from the articles we do have--I might not have really bothered with this article were it not for the promotional contents--I haver found it almost impossible to remove trivial menu contents from restaurant articles. I do not understand the indifference to this: I could understand an approach to promotion that just removed promotional content though an approach which removes the article also is a more effective way of keep such content out of WP, but I do not understand an approach that keeps such articles with content intact. Those trying to do that may not be writing promotionalism themselves, but they are encouraging it. Either they do not know what promotionalism is, or they actually think it belongs in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 6 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation XYZ (book)[edit]

Operation XYZ (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book lacks significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability and the page's current references are weak. Meatsgains (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:17, 5 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Richter[edit]

Joey Richter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor whose main claim to notability appears to be semi-pro or non-pro University production. I am not very familiar with US sources, but those that are independent don't appear to qualify, or are dead. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RBMedia[edit]

RBMedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RBMedia is an umbrella company that formed in 2017 through the acquisition of other independent companies. Some of those companies were notable and others not. The companies are now imprints or brands of RBMedia, it's all one company. So there has to be an umbrella article about the company that owns brands like Recorded Books and Tantor Media - but also an article to discuss brands that are not (yet) notable like Audiobooks.com and HighBridge. Thus an article on RBMedia serves this purpose. It's theoretically possible to merge Recorded Books and Tantor Media into RBMedia but I wouldn't recommend it at this time. These companies are of historical interest as discussed in the history section of audiobooks they were pioneering companies in the audiobook industry. -- GreenC 19:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 5 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond MVC[edit]

Diamond MVC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable software that I can find exactly zero coverage of in reliable sourcing. Article currently reads as a spam directory entry as well, making it fail both points of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 5 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 keep. The delete arguments (specifically JPL and Celestina007) are perfunctory and there is no real rebuttal to the assertions that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. A Traintalk 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce Ware[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert Bruce Ware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines for a person My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about his own page, this is basically a self-published or simply an unreliable source. As disclaimer tells, "The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SIUE.". If something can be supported by other sources which qualify as RS, that something can be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a scientist? Oh no, he is most certainly a scientist, he published in scientific journals, and his work therefore included in "Web of Science" database. My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our article describes him as a philosopher, and one might imagine that at this point he is also more of a historian. Neither of those things is generally classified among the sciences. Which of the journals that he publishes in do you think is a science journal? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF#C1 tells "widely cited". There are certain standards what is called "widely cited" in the scientific community. There are various resources and indexes, such as Science Citation Index and h-index. These resources and indexes usually do not make distinction between citations of books, reviews and original scientific articles (all count the same). They also do not make distinction if the citing paper was in Nature, JACS, or any other journal included in citation database. Based on these widely accepted indexes, that author has very low citation. This is all. If you want to check indexes other than Science Citation Index (and h-index it provides), that's fine. Please do, with supporting links. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also has a very low vote count in the last US presidential election, not enough to pass WP:NPOL. Why do you think this is relevant? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see your point. However, there is also WP:AUTHOR, which is routinely passed with three book reviews of at least one book in reliable, secondary sources such as an academic journal or general circulation newspaper. It is often used instead of WP:PROFESSOR with with academics in the humanities and social sciences. I am not saying that his books are reliable, or good or anything else about them - I do not know his work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know about the "three book reviews of at least one book" rule. Was it written in guidelines? If not, that must be written in WP:AUTHOR. If I knew, I would never nominated this page for deletion. However, honestly, I think that "three book reviews of at least one book" is a very low cutoff. One can only guess how many pages about hardly notable researchers in humanities have been created and kept. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's an informal rule of thumb used by editors who regularly do WP:AUTHORS which, as you may or may not know, is an area where Wikipedia is swamped on a daily basis by self-published, wannabe writers self-promoting self-published novels and by non-notable writers of non-notable books of self-promotion in all fields . We need some kind of guideline, and this is the rule of thumb we use. You're right that it's a pretty low bar. I have wondered about that, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I had no idea. Was it a discussion or an RfC somewhere to establish such rule and use it per WP:Consensus? My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not. It's just a sort of consensus interpretation of WP:AUTHOR 4.c. I know it sounds strange, but that guideline reads "The person's work (or works) either... (c) has won significant critical attention" and this is a sort of way to operationalize that. And, in our defense, to deal with the daily avalanche of truly non-notable authors who create pages for themselves. Three independent full-length reviews in major daily papers, or academic journals. An unwritten rule. (I hope that you have seen Tom Cruise cross examine Noah Wylie in A Few Good Men, here:[9].)E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum; to clarify. It is, as I stated, a sort of rule of thumb. Other arguments can certainly trump it, and no one states outright: Keep as per three review rule - or anything like that. It's just, I have been doing AUTHOR and minor academic AfDs pretty regularly for for 2-3 years, and, well, I can't remember an article being deleted when an author had a book that had gotten three solid reviews in well-known journals or newspapers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is bad. One must start a formal RfC or discussion and include such rule in official guideline if RfC succeeds. Then I would not waste my time here. But I'd like to hear what a closing administrator thinks about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC
The formal rule or guideline exists, and has already been pointed out to you. It is WP:AUTHOR. All such rules are interpreted as meaning something by the editors who apply them. EMG is merely describing to you EMG's interpretation of WP:AUTHOR, which is apparently consistent with how many other editors have been interpreting it. What is bad about that? We are not robots, nor should we be; the guidelines and policies guide our interpretations, but they are not and cannot be purely mechanical. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It tells: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.. Should someone simply with a couple of books mentioned in several reviews be regarded as "widely cited" or an "important figure"? I thought the obvious answer was "no". Actually, I am even surprised that reviews like that serve as a proof of notability. These guys/journals probably just review all recent books. This is not a scientific review of all literature in the field, where such citation would definitely count. This is like a peer review after the publication. Such book reviews frequently are not even included in "Web of Science" database. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's only criterion #1 out of the four criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Arguably, it is supported by the claim in a source you pointed to yourself on the article talk page that Ware is "arguably America's leading authority on Dagestan". But the part of WP:AUTHOR that is more relevant to EMG's argument is 3, "the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and 4(c), "The person's work (or works)...has won significant critical attention". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was not "the primary subject" of publications here or elsewhere. Yes, his work was cited, among many others. This is all. Having a few reviews of books does not mean "significant critical attention". Like I said, he has h-index of 3, and his works were cited ~30 times according to "Web of Science" (probably more because it does not cover everything). So yes, he was cited. However, this is very low citation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to misread WP:AUTHOR. It's not that long. Try harder. It doesn't require that Ware himself be the primary subject, but that his works be. His works (three books) are indeed the primary subject of multiple publications (the book reviews). And why on earth are you returning to this off-topic argument about citation counts? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read it. It tells:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
You are quoting only second phrase. It tells "In addition...". But I do not see any signs that the "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Low citation index is the proof that whatever he published was not "well-known" or "significant". My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the North Caucasus - By Robert Bruce Ware and Enver F. Kisriev. Zabyelina, Yuliya. Political Studies Review, Jan 01, 2012; Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 154. The article reviews the book "Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the... more
  • Caucasian problems and old Russian questions. Andrew Wachtel. Political Quarterly, Jan 01, 2014; Vol. 85, No. 1, p. 90-109. Reviews The Fire Below. How the Caucasus Shaped Russia, edited by Robert Bruce Ware. Bloomsbury. 360pp.
Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a typical "opinion piece" that does not explain anything. One can only guess that Evangelista criticizes B. Ware for misrepresenting genocide during Second Chechen War as a legitimate anti-terrorist operation. However, this is not really in the quoted source. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article on Justin McCarthy (American historian), a genocide denier with footnotes, so bad history does not get your page deleted. However, I promise to return later and take a deep dive into the sources. One question would be whether the journals cited are reliable and independent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone was a genocide denier is completely irrelevant. Only notability of the person is relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I PRODed this page again. Now this is your responsibility to follow up. I simply do not have time, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pravda.ru is actually "a link to avoid" (no one will listen to this heavy Russian accent). 2nd one is a good RS, although the content is terrifying (the subject justifies murder of moderate Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov as an "achievement"). But here is bottom line. Just look at the page. It is now well sourced and objective, thanks to David Eppstein! Should it be kept? Yes, if someone thinks that pages about all authors with multiple reviews of their books should be kept. But is it anywhere in AfD guidelines? No, this is only in the "common outcomes" that should not be used as a guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 10 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 July Movement[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1 July Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally PRODed by me, it was converted, out of process by an inexperienced user using my signature, to a AfD which had to be procedurally closed as keep. Concern was: Small organisation recently created with the goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at WP:ORG. Let's do it properly this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014, I see that you are a major oontributor to the article. According t this statement: The final name of the movement will be announced on December 2, 2017 at a national meeting. To this end, a questionnaire was sent to the activists on 22 October to choose the name and define the functioning of the future party., the organisation is not a political party. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is a political movement but not a party or a simple political organization. The congress will took place in Deecember. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:37, 5 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Baba (franchise)[edit]

Ali Baba (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We generally don't have articles for vanity franchises. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not stands but brick and mortar shops. Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Including in prominent locations in Canberra at various times. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
# http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/best-ingredients-the-recipe-for-success-20120916-260pe.html
# https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/the-taste-of-things-to-come--more-super-foods-step-up-to-the-plate-20130107-2cctt
# http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/student-paid-just-330-an-hour-20110904-1jsdk.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London & Country Mortgages[edit]

London & Country Mortgages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion from a shill connected to a prolific sockmaster OfficialPankajPatidar. Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:32, 5 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 keep. Keep, not speedy, but snowy. POV is no reason for deletion (nor is any POV proven), and as multiple editors point out, there are multiple reliable sources discussing the topic. If there are concerns about individual sources those can be addressed on the article talk page; same with POV concerns. I am closing per WP:SNOW since the unanimous opinions of a great number of seasoned editors points toward "keep", and there is no sense in wasting time. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an attack article which does not have a NPOV. Looking at the sources, they are either blogs, no RS or do not support the text cited. There’s also the issue of notability, which does not appear to have been established. Looking at the recent editors and edit patterns, can it be said they they have a NPOV? Overall, this article does not belong in WP due to source issues, NPOV issues and notability issues. Tonyinman (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Ottawa Citizen is RS , however the article text which relies on a page from the Ottawa Citizen for the citation is not backed up by the content of the Ottowa Citizen page referenced. Tonyinman (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you started a deletion nomination, we are here to discuss whether we should have an article about the topic at all. If you want to suggest improvements to the article, please state your specific complaints on the talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is a non sequiter. I don't believe this interaction is constructive so I'm not responding further.Tonyinman (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have given an example in the AFD. I cannot see any text in the article which is neutral, ie all the text in the article is non-neutral. Perhaps you could detail which text you believe is neutral and compliant with NPOV?? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please humor us. Be more specific. Pick one specific sentence or a small paragraph as an example of something violating WP:NPOV and explain why you feel it violates WP:NPOV. Nsk92 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my edits have been civil. I trust yours will be too. In response to your request, the following text in the lede is cited using a personal blog (not RS) and the term was coined by the same person who wrote the blog, therefore not NPOV."The World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology or WASET is a predatory publisher[1]"
WP:NPOV doesn't say that the article has to be neutral. Our articles on Creationism and Evolution are not neutral, they make it clear that Creationism is pseudoscience and evolution real science. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice in your edit summary you've said "editor clearly doesn't understand our policies." Perhaps you could explain 'your' policies, and do you consider your edit summary an appropriate statement? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, by our I meant Wikipedia's. Yes, you've brought an article to AfD without doing the work that you should have done first and you failed to show good faith concerning its editors. But I'm not going to get into an argument here, if you want to discuss NPOV for this article to it at the article's talk page. The article is going to be kept and it would show good will if you withdrew the nomination. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal comments will be ignored, thanks. I conducted a WP:Before and could not find RS sources to support the claims made in the article. Per Attack Pages, I still have concerns about this article.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My edit history suggest otherwise. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.
the way we look at notability at WP, this is not a real distinction: reliable sources establish notability by writing about something. they may have a pre-existing importance in some manner, butthey only acquire notability for the purpose of wikipedia article if they are considered sufficient important to be written about . DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: WASET isn't a predatory journal, it's a publisher of predatory journals and has been accused of scamming by at least one university. And of course then there's the "conferences". Doug Weller talk 11:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But those sources, while clearly RS, don#t actually support the claims made in the lede of the article.
Here we are discussing deletion of the article. Concerns with content of the lede (or other parts of the article) should be taken up on the article talk page. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 7 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 delete. The WP:SNOW, it is falling in blizzard proportions. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional military ranks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional military ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Something like this is of zero encyclopedic value, it's completely impossible to maintain and distinguishing what would be a notable inclusion is near undoable. It's been unsourced since five years back now and I doubt it will improve. ★Trekker (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 6 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. Per WP:SKCRIT criteria #2 a0 and b), as an "obviously frivolous or vexatious nomination" and seemingly "made solely to provide a forum for disruption"- in this case, to make a WP:POINT. Suggest immediate swift and temporary sanction for nominator for deliberately wasting our time. See also an increasingly bizarre conversation here: apparently the purpose of this AfD is to challenge a previous closure... (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 July Movement[edit]

1 July Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

" Small organisation recently created witht he goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at WP:ORG. --Kudpung (talk) (UTC)"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you brought this to AfD if you believe it should be kept? --Michig (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: because of this. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For FI, it is a political party which considers itsef as a movement. It is possible that the movement won't change it name. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:38, 5 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 delete.  Sandstein  13:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aravinnd Iyer[edit]

Aravinnd Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimal coverage in reliable sources. Almost everything in this article except filmography is unverifiable in secondary sources. —Guanaco 11:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 5 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 delete.  Sandstein  13:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia (record company)[edit]

Inertia (record company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:16, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this in February, but apparently it was declined for a prior prod 10 years go. The article hasn't improved since and has major issues with WP:NOTABILITY as a minor fictional element with no real world significance. I don't think there is much here that would be even merge'able anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Original statement and timestamp:- The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IM3847 (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC), has had to be re-closed owing to a formatting break with original closure. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S/s Helsingfors[edit]

S/s Helsingfors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not meet Notability guideliness as per WP:NN IM3847 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 12:14, 5 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dulam Satyanarayana[edit]

Dulam Satyanarayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG .Subject is currently working on his debut feature fiction project and and has only done documentry film and a promotion film upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON not notable currently.A case of apparent paid editing as well. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 5 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 delete. This is an extremely unlikely search term so there is no value in preserving as a redirect. A Traintalk 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Company B, 2-124 Infantry[edit]

Company B, 2-124 Infantry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company-level sub-unit that is not independently notable as most sources are primary and secondary sources appear to be too closely associated with the subject. Doesn't meet WP:MILUNIT as below battalion level. Merge relevant details then redirect to 124th Infantry Regiment (United States). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 5 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 delete. No prejudice against re-creation if the subject does become the US attorney. Happy to userfy upon request, please just ask on my talk page. A Traintalk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Berman[edit]

Geoffrey Berman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails GNG. Berman appears to only have received coverage due to the fact he was and/or is being considered for appointment as a U.S. federal prosecutor. May be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today — that would turn us into a repository of campaign brochures, because we'd have to keep an article about every non-winning candidate in every election on exactly the same grounds. We do not judge includability by what might become true in the future — we judge it by what's true today, and then permit recreation in the future if circumstances change. It's almost painfully easy for an administrator to simply restore the original article if that happens — it takes one click on one button, not any sort of complicated process — so the amount of work involved in recreating the article if and when those circumstances change is not enough of a burden to justify suspending normal practice. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. Dump it if you want. I find your argument about how painfully easy [it is] for an administrator to simply restore the original article not very compelling. Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up.
That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.
It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bearcat -- Let's say I want an article about A. Amaranath. I type it in, get a red link, and an invitation to create an article. Yes, there will be an invitation to contact the administrator who closed it the last time, but I suspect it's rare that an editor who has an opportunity to put her name on a new article will want to honor the original author or wait for the administrator. Or am I misunderstanding human nature? Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 5 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Act III Communications[edit]

Act III Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 5 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 delete as expired, endorsed WP:PROD. ansh666 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Kim Booster[edit]

Joel Kim Booster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor/comedian/writer lacking in-depth, non-trivial secondary support. Esquire article is a brief paragraph and the other references are WP:PRIMARY. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 5 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 delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Balaban[edit]

Nelson Balaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is for a Non notable designer. The article was created by a SPA, and written in a promotional tone. Of the four citations, none meet WP:RS and most of them are broken links at present. Theredproject (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:47, 5 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 delete. ansh666 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aapno Gramin Rajasthan[edit]

Aapno Gramin Rajasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A newspaper in India with a circulation of 5,000 across seven states is little more than a vanity publication at present. I've raised the issue at WT:INB in case non-English sources might improve the thing but it seems to fail WP:NORG. Sitush (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:48, 5 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 delete.  Sandstein  13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bandari (AVC)[edit]

Bandari (AVC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Not finding any significant coverage for this band. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. North America1000 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 5 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 redirect to Rooster Teeth#Gen:Lock. Moved out of user's draft space without permission; it's been copied back (and since there's really only one author no extra attribution is needed), so this can be converted to redirect. ansh666 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gen:Lock[edit]

Gen:Lock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon. This show may very well be notable in the future, but right now, all that exists the most basic of teasers -- there isn't even a release date yet. There are no reviews, only one or two "first look" articles -- I think this article needs to be deleted until the show has actually launched and has some significant coverage in reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 5 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 delete. MER-C 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Affiliate Pro[edit]

Post Affiliate Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily promotional article lacks sufficient RS. Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 5 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 keep. Procedural keep, as per Power~enwiki (non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Challenges Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Global Challenges Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a second AfD due to the first finding no consensus. Article on this organization is sourced almost entirely to its own website. The only substantial RS about it relates to a single contest it organized and, therefore, does not meet GNG for sustained and ongoing coverage. Edit - two additional RS discovered in the original AfD were fleeting and incidental mentions of the organization that do not establish anything about it other than it exists and, therefore, fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for keep was "sources shows that the foundation exists" [33]. The mere existence of a thing does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Many things exist, not all receive WP entries. For instance, my cat exists, however, she does not merit a WP entry even if I were able to prove her existence.
AfD is not a vote or ballot; per WP:AFDEQ "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Therefore, "it exists" should not be given the same consideration as a policy-based argument for delete. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 5 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Sattar Bhuiyan[edit]

M. A. Sattar Bhuiyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim is that he was notable as a third-level administrative division party leader, as an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament, as a commissioner for Dhaka's 48th ward, and as acting mayor of the city. It's true that for major cities, there is a tendency to keep city councillors, and mayors have usually survived AfD, according to explanatory supplement WP:POLOUTCOMES. However he was at most acting mayor (typically in Bangladesh, a mayor appoints an acting mayor when they will be out of town). His time in government fails verifiability, so we don't know if he did anything or how long he was acting mayor (or of course if any of it is true).

90% of the article is unverified. The cited sources are: (1) a newspaper article that mentions him as the father of Ahsan Habib Bhuiyan, and (2) Wikipedia article Gojmohal Tannery High School (which circularly cites this Wikipedia article). Searches, including by Bengali-script name, of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and Questia found: an elections results listing that confirms he lost a bid for the Noakhali-2 seat in 1996,[34] and a passing mention of his being one of several people injured when protesters clashed with police.[35] (Raw results also include a different MA Sattar Bhuiyan, Chairman of the Bangladesh Finished Leather and Leather Goods Exporters Association (BFLLEA), who was still alive in 2013.) Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:53, 5 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 deleted. Speedy deleted G7 by Callanecc after page blanked by creating user. (non-admin closure) agtx 15:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Borwankar[edit]

Ankur Borwankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. Promotional autobiography that lacks independent third-party sources and fails WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO. Sro23 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Miles (treasurer)[edit]

Frank Miles (treasurer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county treasurer. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass -- it would be enough if he could be sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass NPOL #2, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie. All we have for sourcing here, however, is a single local source about him taking an even less inherently notable job after losing reelection as county treasurer. This is not what it takes to make a person at this level of office notable. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Of the new sources you added, one is an 18-word blurb in the "where are they now?" column of his own alma mater's alumni magazine (i.e. not a substantive source for the purposes of passing WP:GNG), one is the primary source website of his own former employer (i.e. not an independent source for the purposes of passing GNG), and one is the standard and routine "candidate profile", involving the subject talking about himself in the first person, that every candidate in any election always gets. So there are only two sources that actually count for anything toward GNG, which still isn't enough coverage because every person at this level of significance could always show that much local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 5 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 redirect to Independent Party of Delaware. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Graham (US politician)[edit]

David Graham (US politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated claim of notability is running for political office and losing. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL -- a person has to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered notable as a politician, but this makes no other claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason. And for referencing, this is based entirely on primary and routine sources except for one brief biographical blurb in an omnibus compilation of biographical blurbs for all of the candidates in the election he lost (none of whom but the winner have articles either) -- so there's no evidence of enough substantive reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 5 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. After I'd initially closed the discussion recommending a merge, it's come to my attention that the proposed merge target isn't quite suitable for the content. Therefore, I've amended it to no consensus, since as I said in the previous rationale, it seems to be fairly evenly split between people who think WP:GNG being met is enough to keep and those who think it fails WP:LASTING and should be deleted. ansh666 06:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Patan riots[edit]

2017 Patan riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Patan riots Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable random incident that lacks notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident was reported for less than 7 days[36] and most of the news website basically plagiarised other. It was just like 100s of other same incidents that occur[37][38] every year. We don't need article for each trivial information. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But never again after April. Your source is an unreliable personal website which is saying nothing different than the news sources that covered event for a couple of days. Language card cannot be played here since all Indian articles use English language sources. Looks like you are only 2 of the editors of this article. If this article is any important then why you have to speculate and make claims without substance about this article which is inherently non notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, how long it has to be discussed? Riots usually get coverage for few months only. For instance 2015 Nadia riots or 2016 Kaliachak riots etc. AltNews.in has been widely cited for busting right-wing propaganda. We can discuss its acceptance as RS/N. --Jionakeli (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let me point you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Still an unreliable opinion website. Riots don't go discussed only for few months, they can be discussed for decades. Compare 1984 anti-Sikh riots with this subject that was discussed only for number of days, you would think that this article should be rather speedy deleted. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the article in AltNews.in above makes the case for deletion shows why it fails WP:LASTING and lacks significant coverage its claims media bias against Vadavali and further states that only one channel made one video relating to Vadavali and that the media ignored the incident and one brief mention in the Guardian is clearly not enough to pass WP:LASTING and 3 brief mentions in 8 months is clearly not significant coverage since the incident and one brief mention in a article in 8 months cannot be called international coverage .It further states no curfew was imposed and it was over within hours and the incident is dismissed as a case of minor communal disharmony. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we have got the creator of the article defending the existence of this article by misrepresenting sources and policies. There is no discussion in any of the sources, just two months old articles trying to interlink their many articles in one article. Fails WP:INDEPTH, WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could have phrased that in other way. Ok, Mr. 2 times blocked sock please give diffs of my edits misrepresenting sources and policies. These[41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] are all WP:INDEPTH. Do you think this[48] The Guardian article published after 6 months of this riots was only for interlinking heir many articles in one article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jionakeli (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting my block log won't turn your article notable. Socks are never unblocked unless the block was a mistake and that was my case as well. Now back to topic, which you have been avoiding. None of your sources are making valid description of this non-notable incident that died out under few days. Just copying more links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other is not going to help you either. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant personal bickering. Stop, please.
Stop taking this as personal! Its not about you or me. Its about whether this topic is notable for inclusion or not. That incident was covered widely through out all media in India including The Guardian I gave. There might be more. When you said "links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other" do you have a RS for that? or you are accusing these national media of plagiarism? Jionakeli (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who personalized the dispute by misrepresenting my blog log and then started to wikihound my contribution history. You are only being disruptive. Because none of these articles have found any new facts or findings than those already reported during the first days of the incident, it is basically plagiarism. Relying on passing mentions for proving notability is not going to help you. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were actually misrepresenting here and elsewhere using WP:POLSHOP. If I am being disruptive then use the diffs and report me. I bet you haven't even looked at the sources because these sources are not passing mentions or plagiarism but reported the facts in-depth and associated investigations. Jionakeli (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least use your own rational in place of copying my rationales and pointing them to me even though you make no sense? Yes I have reported you on edit warring board. You can keep repeating yourself but people are not going to agree. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is a collaborative project. Opinions may differ and that is why we discuss things. So, these kind of irrational comments are not going to help this project. I have nothing personal with you. I presented my sources with my reason and it is upto the community to decide the outcome. That's all! Goodbye! --Jionakeli (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no notability to establish when sources and subject violates WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the routine coverage which is clearly WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day of the event which includes breaking news and Reports on events of the day.And further 2 passing mentions out of 3 in 8 Months to articles not even fully dedicated to the incident are a not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact and clearly could not a single book reference. There is a difference between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it which includes the piece the Guardian which is a brief mention beyond the incident day WP:PRIMARYNEWS .Now every morning there is breaking news and Reports on events of the day even if covered in many newspapers papers not all topics are not notable for inclusion here it as it fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and Primarynews ,otherwise every headlin across newspapers can have an article which would be news . Passing mentions are not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact.I think there is a confusion between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece .There is lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short beyond routine news on the day in addition to failing WP:LASTING . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if y'all actually read through things. WP:NOT#NEWS is very specific about what routine coverage is, and riots aren't remotely it. GNG is the primary notability criteria; WP:NEVENT is a subject/specific notability guideline, and an event is notable if it meets NEVENT or the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Guardian has made coverage of many other incidents,[49] while they have provided only a passing mention for this incident and it really doesn't means the coverage. Yet you can find many other riots as well as criminal incidents that are covered by Guardian, BBC, but that alone doesn't justify failure of WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum:Oh and WP:LASTING - "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Galobtter (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also take this opportunity get on my WP:RECENT soapbox. Looking at Template:Violence against Muslims in India, I note that the events included are from: 1946(x2), 1947, 1969, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1992(x2), 2002, 2004, 2006(x2), 2007(x2), 2008(x2), 2013, 2014(x2), 2015, 2016, 2017(x2). This gives the impression that 50's, 60's, and 70's were decades of religious peace and love in India, which I'm sure is far from the truth. It's easy to look at an event that's happening now, find some threshold of google hits, and declare it to be notable. But, taking a step back, that gives us a very warped view of history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that calls for old newspapers from the 1950s to be dug up and more articles from there created. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Good point regarding the template links. I have just looked on the original consensus on the TFD of the template as well as talk page.[51][52] There was consensus to include only Major incidents on the template. Fixed it now. Capitals00 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you are telling that we should make articles about every death incidents of the millions of religious people that have been killed yearly. Anyway, did that "terrorist attack debate" concerned India where such kind of violence is common, or other places like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, where such violence is far more common? Even if it did, which I doubt, we are not going to certainly ruin qualities of other articles where we cite only major incidents, we cannot do anything to make these incidents notable so why we should be including content about the article that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING? It will only turn other articles into a newspaper. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are millions of religious murders by mobs, certainly not covered in the press as this one is. This is going to be a no consensus close. Once that happens, I'm going to add the summary to the Violence against Muslims in India article, with a link back to this one. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you have changed your rationale already. Yes such random attacks get great amount of press coverage, a few recent ones would include[53][54][55][56][57] and many more. They don't deserve an article or mention anywhere unless notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's misrepresentation of WP:NOTNEWS, because it is still a news even if it has been covered by numerous newspapers. You haven't even addressed the issue with WP:LASTING. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING is a guideline while WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. And even as guideline I already addresed it in my previous comment "currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes." further coverage of the litigation and ensuing events will only further prove its WP:LASTING effect. And perhaps it is you who misunderstood WP:NOTNEWS, because ALL Wikipedia article are inherently from news, the scope of coverage is what makes one more notable than other  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them are, and most of them receive frequent coverage when they are notable. Just compare this random incident with any other riot article you will know, like I have mentioned 1984 anti-Sikh riots which is still getting coverage even 2 hours ago[58], but when they are not notable they don't receive any coverage after few days and that is the case here because this new incident has not received coverage for months. You are saying that because this news was covered by few other media sources it becomes notable, but that's not enough. If we go by your interpretation then we can create article about anything that has been covered by 2 sources, that is not what WP:NOTNEWS says. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your bolded text. Your point is that for months now, the event have no new coverage, therefore either it continue receiving coverage every month or deleted.The below statement directly from WP:N already answered you

'Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.'

 — Ammarpad (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only it received any coverage but it was reported in the manner like it is just another incident. And what about WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? That "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Raymond3023 (talk) 05:40, 15 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.
More