< 30 September	2 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clearly no consensus to delete Limey (UK '70s band), but there's a broad consensus to not keep the album articles, so I shall redirect those to the band article. Before doing that, I will move the article to the more standard Limey (band). A Train^talk 06:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Eagle (Limey album)[edit]

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

Limey (Limey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Limey (UK '70s band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NALBUM. Discogs is not a reliable source and a WP:BEFORE search did not bring up anything that could help this pass the notability guidelines for albums. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing coverage for this release to suggest that it meets WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 02:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the band, nor either of their albums meet the standards of notability.Pinging the two previous contributors in light of the additional nominations - TheGracefulSlick, Gongshow - Cabayi (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Limey (UK '70s band). Two albums through RCA. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also look at the pedigree of members Engel and Kewley. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: could you please explain what you mean by their "pedigree"? Engel's most notable group was the New Seekers, but that was after he was in Limey, and well after the New Seekers' period of chart success (he was in the band from 1978 to 1982). As far as I know, he has never appeared on a chart hit with any group during his career. Kewley is slightly more notable, having been in the Q-Tips with Paul Young, and then co-writing songs with Young and playing keyboards on his first three solo albums. But I'm not sure that's enough for him to pass WP:MUSICBIO, and again, that was after he was in Limey. Richard3120 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: that was a comment that it should be looked at, I hadn't had a full look. To expand on your comments. Before or after Limey is irrelevant. Kewley was notable enough to get his own entry in The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music, Colin Larkin, Guinness Pub., 1995 (reproduced here). Engel was also in (amongst others) Mandrake Paddel Steamer, also given an entry in The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music, [1] "responsible for recording one of the most cherished singles of the psychedelic era". For information this has more on Engel (but is a primary, non independent source). Regardless they still satisfy WP:MUSIC with two albums through a BIG label. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that looks like it'll be enough to save the group's article, still need some work to justify the album articles (see below). Richard3120 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. !vote is for the band only. Unless reviews are found there is no point on keeping the album articles. Everything found so far worth covering can be in the bands article. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nom, I support deleting the other articles added to this discussion. May as well kill three birds with one stone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no sources whatsoever found for the band or albums. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - meets A7 of the CSD criteria. There are no sources available to establish notability. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Now has source that establishes notability through WP:MUSIC#5. Coverage will exist in UK music publications of the seventies, a dead tree look is needed to find them, not a cursory google glimpse. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look in the British Library next week in copies of NME, Melody Maker and Sounds - it's a little tricky establishing when the two albums were released, but I think they were in the last quarter of 1975 and first couple of months of 1977. I don't believe it's 100% certain they would have been reviewed, but there's a good chance. Richard3120 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Silver Eagle" single looks like 11 Mar 1977. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be more coverage in The Tapestry of Delights - The Comprehensive Guide to British Music of the Beat, R&B, Psychedelic and Progressive Eras 1963-1976, Vernon Joynson ISBN 1 899855 04 1. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band article, passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 Atlantic306 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: And these sources will magically add themselves to the article overnight, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band, redirect the albums, and hang multiple AfD combinations. Nothing against the nom, but I see more confusion then gain in them. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 to be fair, I wasn't the one who added the others articles to this AfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tre-8[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. One charted song. No secondary sources (except obituaries) to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete having an album reach "#84 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums" isn't sufficient for presumed notability. The only independent reference in the article is his obituary, and I don't see any others. I don't see how this meets notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. fails gng. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Tool[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promotional Tool attracted no comments. Dysklyver 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of meeting GNG or NMUSIC. Based on the Google search results for Promotional Tool, I don't think a redirect to Doug Benson is appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Then Rename to Promotional Tool (album), and Redirect to Doug Benson. In fact I'll go do that now. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 episode list should be merged into the article until such time as someone comes up with a proper set of summaries. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Story of the Alps: My Annette episodes[edit]

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

Not a notable anime series, fails WP:GNG as unsourceable. Article is sourced entirely to a unreliable source - a website similar to Imdb. a brief WP:BEFORE has not revealed ~~enough~~ any reliable sources to rescue it with. Dysklyver 22:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, are you intending to nominate only the list of episodes, or do you intend on nominating the series itself as well? It reads like you intend to delete the article on the series, but you've nominated the episode list. Primefac (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not figured out how to include multiple articles in the AfD yet, but yes I am trying to do both. Dysklyver 22:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I added the series here, as I see you've put up the AFD notice on the page. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Unsourceable"? Did you search in Japanese? I easily found an entry in Daijisen (a major reference work in Japan published by Shogakukan) on the series[2], which not only describes it as an entry in the famous World Masterpiece Theater but also notes it won an award from the Agency for Cultural Affairs of the Japanese government. Since it was broadcast in 1983, there are not going to be too many articles about it on the net, but it is covered in books like this and this and in other work on Nihon Animation. The show was broadcast nationally in prime time on the Fuji TV network. Michitaro (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Michitaro (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An admin might want to add Story of the Alps: My Annette to this now multiple AfD discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since it won an award from a government agency that would make it pass WP:GNG. This one is going to be hard to improve upon as most sources I feel are going to be from books written on the subject. The article over at ja:wiki might have some good sources but we need someone who can read and understand Japanese like Michitaro so the article can be better improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the Japanese book sources identified above as this subject is pre-internet and the book sources are reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no need for sources to be currently available online, or to be in English, to meet GNG. I have no opinion whether the episode list should be merged into the article or left on its own, but it is inherently useful to readers. Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Story of the Alps: My Annette. If no descriptions are being planned for the episode list, then it can fit back to the main article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AngusWOOF, there were descriptions, but they were deleted as being rather horrible summaries. I'm not saying that it should be kept blank, but it's a recent change that possibly hasn't had time to receive a proper update. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no reason to have a separate list of episodes here. I suspect there are references for the show itself, but don't see any on other-language Wikipedia articles and can't read Japanese well enough to find them myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article, merge episode list to the main article - While the anime is old, it's notable for having won at least one award, as mentioned above. The episode list probably doesn't need to be separate, though.
Nom Comment I would generally go with merging the episode list with the main article and keeping it, adding some references whilst doing so would be useful. Dysklyver 15:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Haseldine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor diplomat who had some temporary notoriety. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking point of view issues. The whole lead section is basically attacking him for an article he wrote and was sacked for. Delete per WP:BLP1E. Dysklyver 22:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a WP:FRINGEBLP, his primary claim of notability appears to be promoting theories that South Africa was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E and WP:FRINGEBLP apply. And there is evidence to suggest WP:SPA editing in the article history. Edwardx (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — there's quite a lot of mention of this man in material about the Lockerbie bombing, but he's not the main focus of any coverage and there's not enough detail about him in secondary sources to build a biographical article. Ralbegen (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Kathryn Kolata[edit]

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

No relevance for Wikipedia. Seems like a current student with very limited professional experience who has founded a student club with some of her friends. Fails WP:BIO, partly written as WP:PROMO and lacks WP:CS in areas of personal information. --DonJusto123 (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: original AfD was malformed. I have re-submitted it. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam/student prank. waaaaay WP:TOOSOON, (I did run a couple of good faith searches. No notability.) Article creator has been blocked, but we might want to block New Haven for creating this public annoyance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article Fails WP:BIO Samat lib (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Made up by creator"? In any case, fails WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 20:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether this is a prank or not, it fails the relevant guidelines. Dysklyver 23:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Boys Choir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability has been discussed (see talk) without conclusion. Promised references have not appeared. I was personally not able to find any significant coverage of this choir. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although there is no deadline on WP, it is significant that this has been tagged for notability for more than 9 years and been through an AfD, and it still hasn't got the sourcing to establish notability. It has Hebew and French versions, also without RS though. Boleyn (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found with the Google search. I am not sure about the Hebrew sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite one editor in the last AfD claiming there are sources in Hebrew meeting GNG, these have not appeared, and I can't find them. Dysklyver 23:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 9 years is plenty of WP:CHANCEs; and I doubt that the org meets GNG as suggested at the last AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murmansk Philharmonic Orchestra[edit]

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

Article contains no secondary sources, nor can I see any criterion from WP:NMUSIC met for this orchestra. Presumably, if any sources exist they will likely be in Russian, but I have tried to search for sources in English and Russian, and come up with nothing. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I presume that Russian-language sources exist. Most cities of this prominence in the English-speaking world have pages for their orchestras (three chosen at random include Tulsa, Leeds, Spokane), and the primary sources are sufficient for verifiability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of Russian sources reveals some basic stuff, I suspect there is more offline / as books, but I can't prove it one way or the other because neither Gbooks or my university do Russian books. The orchestra itself is quite new, established in 1975, however the have been decorated with the (very high honor) Order for Merit for the Fatherland 2nd class, and have played internationally with the Norwegian National Opera. They are a relevant official state-funded regional orchestra with their own 600 seat music hall, a good selection of notable members and participation in major events, often with other groups, not just in Russia but in Europe as well. Dysklyver 23:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Thompson[edit]

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

Contested prod fails WP:SIGCOV ,WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO.Selling his stock does not make one notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It was my prod where I said "Selling stock options does not notability make. Not seeing how this meets WP:NAUTHOR either." Nothing has changed my mind so far. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails encyclopedic notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poq[edit]

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

Promotional article with almost no indication of significance,. That it's used by a small number of retailers just means "it exists" The awards are minor (and 2 of the 5 aren't even awards). The references are either PR or just notice-- or , like the Forbes, just mentions in a few words as one of many startups in an area. . DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The venture funding isn't enough for presumed notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as detailed company information like this is only suitable for their own company website, not a formal encyclopedia. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantasia Sharpton[edit]

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

A woman known for ... well something you won't read about in broadsheet newspapers. The sources are typical WP:BLPSOURCES violating tabloid fodder, and a search for alternatives reveals the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per basic human decency, or WP:G10 for the wikilawyers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. It's not really G10, just low-quality writing about a non-notable person. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that this pretty exactly meets the headline of WP:G10, "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". What other purpose does this page, sourced to tabloids, serve? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the awful sources and borderline attack page issue. (regardless of whether Usher actually has herpes). there is some usable coverage in [3] but one piece is not enough to make an article. Dysklyver 23:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems a classic case of WP: BLP1E, added to which, the article is written in very bad English. Vorbee (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with caveat. That is, a merger discussion can still be held at the talk page. Just not outright deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Veitch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability except for JC's Girls, which already contains the necessary biographical information about her. I do not see any evidence that she was of any particular notability in her previous career. Possible redirect. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she's been widely written about (and a documentary written about her) in multiple reliable sources, which is the essence of WP:GNG [4][5][6][7]. I'm not sure what motivates this repeat AfD. Sionk (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met. The first AfD was 10+ years ago and had pretty lame arguments. A repeat AfD is reasonable, but it does appear that notability appears established. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. redirect Samat lib (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no plausible reason for AfD to mandate a reverse merge of the sources from JC's Girls. This is an editorial decision. Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least perhaps we can at least remove some of the duplication. The article on her df\does not need to do more than mention the organization, and vice-versa. Doingmorethan that is saying everything twice,and is a promotional technique, no matter whether or not there is notability . DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can also start an editing policy forum to take on such discussions. We can call it AfEP (Articles for Editing Policy). The forum here is AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quality is terrible, but distinct from notability. Adequate coverage, however badly written. Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still don't know what to make of JC's Girls (I did an early GA review in the manner of Louis Theroux), but the sources found by Sionk show this person meets WP:GNG. The AfD wasn't correctly filed : "No notability except for JC's Girls, which already contains the necessary biographical information about her" is an argument for redirecting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JC's Girls the coverage of her is in the contex of that organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at worst merge or reverse merge with JC's girls. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PatesTapes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sourced to twitter, facebook and a currently non-existant site (can't judge). Kleuske (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the site does exist, it's now hosted on SoundCloud (I won't link to it), but it's basically hosting one guy's mixes of music from his vinyl collection, and... er, that's it. Absolutely no indication of why this passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Richard3120 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable website. (or, apparently, now a non-notable page on Soundcloud). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jehangir Saifullah Khan[edit]

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

Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Delete it or redirect it to Saif Group. Greenbörg (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet basic WP:GNG. no notable career. --Saqib (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grockit[edit]

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

This company no longer exists. It was purchased and then retired (see https://twitter.com/Grockit/status/780564872966840320), and there is no longer a website or any reference to it still existing. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Boss[edit]

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

Was a member of a seemingly notable musical group, per WP:NOTINHERITED, that doesn't translate to him having a seperate article. He needs to make a name for himself first by passing WP:MUSICBIO before he can be deemed notable. I will provide a more comprehensive reference analysis soon. So there is basically nothing reliably independent on the subject from Google. Sorry, there is even nothing at all. So I went to the article and it is filled with 90% unreliable sources, forum sites, such as Nairaland, Gistmania, etc are used. Soundclound is even cited lol. The only two sources that meets WP:RS doesn't even cover the artiste, this and this are just announcement about something else, doesn't meet notability criteria in any way. Darreg (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional material of a non-notable musician. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability is found on cyber-space nor on hard cover-print to substantiate nor justify this article being placed on main-space. It should be noted furthermore that a case of WP:WALL may be in place with the article titled Young Paperboyz which also has been nominated for deletion by a different editor.Celestina007 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Samat lib (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 doubt this discussion would have ended in deletion anyway, but the article was created by a block-evading editor, and was substantially the same as the previously deleted one, so we don't need to wait. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milly Kay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not convinced this meets WP:MUSICBIO. Should even qualify for speedy delete, the only keep vote from a previous nom was from a blocked sock. Article creator follows the same pattern as the one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaydex (creates on draft then move to mainspace), likely another sock. That is even besides the strong non-notability of the artiste. Again, another 2010s unremarkable NG artiste aiming to use WP to promote his career. Darreg (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4. Article creator is a sock anyway. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 18:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Doll-Steinberg[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References do not appear reliable and don't back up an assertion of notability anyway. A Train^talk 11:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 18:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Chee Pei Kun[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, relies on blog posts, forum posts, dead links. Probably a self-promotional article given the level of detail (education path, address) on such a minor figure. starship.paint ~ KO 14:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also, for self-promotional, see links to Facebook and Instagram from this page. starship.paint ~ KO 14:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note: people searching the Web for sources on "Jason Chee" the model, please note that there is a fellow Singaporean of the same name Jason Chee (para-athlete). starship.paint ~ KO 14:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: notified major contributor ParkSL86 on talk page starship.paint ~ KO 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using WP:ANYBIO as our standard, this article fails. Even if we take the whole thing at face value, none of the awards or contests won by the subject appear to be notable enough for their own articles. A Train^talk 11:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of TOME: Terrain of Magical Expertise characters[edit]

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

Pure WP:FANCRUFT with insufficient references. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment This is also a copy-paste of TOME's Wikia articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the main TOME: Terrain of Magical Expertise article is also tagged with a copyvio that requires cleanup AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the other articles TOME: Terrain of Magical Expertise and Chris Niosi to Draft so they can be developed there to attempt to meet notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My people of Wikipedia. I understand that many of the info is copied from TOME's article. My plan is to try to clean up as much data as I can to include factual original writings. But I'm pleading with you to allow me time to do so. This project may not be straight to the top, but TOME is legitimately crowdfunded, featured many involvement of anime voice over actors and is currently getting a video game adaption based on it, and people need to know the characters as well as the people who portrayed them. A lot of personal writing has also been implanted on the characters such as Rockoon, whom Mack eventually wrote for the character and Rocky was given a whole new meaning of character that was the influence of Mack's personal ideas. I agree that this is very lackluster but I'm trying my hard to make all edits as efficient. All I ask is for you guys to help me comply with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutButterMarshmallowTime (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reducing the character list to just the main ones and then you can put it into the main article. Not every character needs to be mentioned, especially the guest ones. Please also read MOS:TVCAST and WP:NOTWIKIA. They don't need to be that detailed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I over-did it with the one time characters. But characters that made more than one appearance, especially those that are signifigant to the story, should have some mention; like Dijiri (Dave Smith)'s character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutButterMarshmallowTime (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guest characters over a short story arc (2-3 episodes in a row) should not be listed either. They have to be recurring regulars or main/starring characters. Also please work on the TOME article itself in the Draft. It needs a lot of copyvio cleanup. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:UNDUE, the fact that most of the references are to DeviantArt, etc. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a few related changes by the page author which I feel are clearly promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like we have some unrefuted claims of notability. Personal attacks and the like would be a topic for WP:HAPPYPLACE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mason (cricketer)[edit]

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

Only one "source" that's just an entry in a database for a BLP. Does not seem to meet WP:ATHLETE requirements for cricketers at all. (Apologies if this is a mistagged AfD - I wasn't sure if it should be "Games or sports" or "Biographical".) Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay, so this WP:ONESOURCE thing is becoming an issue all of a sudden. All you need to do is request that another source be added and that will do fine. If I do that now, does that negate the need for this AfD? Bobo . 17:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a second link has been added, rendering the justification for sending this article to AfD meaningless. Bobo . 17:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is a tricky one. Every Gnews search I do comes up with stuff about other people. Despite (from my understanding) failing WP:NCRIC, it seems to be status quo to have articles about these players (see this list), and he played in two List A matches, which is more than some other people on that list. Does anyone here stand in this field of expertise? J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you read NCRIC such that you believe this individual doesn't meet NCRIC? One appearance in a major cricket match. This individual meets that criterion. Bobo . 18:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read criterion 1 wrong. Still neutral though, as a balance between the result of this RfC and the fact that it would be unfair to delete just this one while leaving all the others intact. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG as shown by sources found. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More time - more time needs to be provided to search for reliable, in-depth sources about this chap. It appears he played for Cleator CC and probably continues to play for Cumberland by the sounds of articles such as this and this. I would query whether that is necessarily in-depth, but my thinking is that there is likely to be more coverage in the regional press which has a chance of establishing notability (certainly for players in my part of the world I would consider this likely). It is reasonable to allow more time to be provided to search for sources where a sportsman meets the sports notability guidelines - in order to show that they meet the GNG. It is a shame that the article creator did not consider searching for news sources and has instead relied upon merely statistical sources which show that the chap existed and little else. Given that it took me less than five minutes to find those above it seems odd that an article creator couldn't be bothered to do so. Perhaps that would have avoided this going to AfD entirely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from meeting WP:NCRIC by playing two List A matches, there's coverage in various local press [8], [9], [10], including this which mentions he was the Under-21 player of the year. Tons more like this by searching for his name in quotes and add the words Cumberland + cricket with that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's no good having the sources in an External Links section. They MUST be inline citations. This is where we go wrong and why so many of these AfDs appear, per the Sri Lankan one earlier. I'm not fixing this one. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, Jack. To what level do we add inline citations? Just match details? Bobo . 22:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a difficult one to answer, Bobo. I would say we need something at the end of the opening sentence because it's here that we are confirming the player's status at top-level. If it's feasible to include a citation after a match summary then, yes, go for that too (I did that for Dinaparna as we have the full scorecard). Nothing to forgive, btw. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See I would have thought that the only reference needed would be the fact that this individual is a top level player. Which is what we already do by providing the external link. If we would rather this external link be a reference, so we kill two birds with one stone, that is fine. Bobo . 12:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm, no. Per WP:EL and WP:CITE, information in the narrative must be verified by an inline citation while links within the EL section are actually "additional reading" only. The EL is not a citation. It's exactly like citing inline a page in Wisden for a specific piece of information and then putting the same year's Playfair annual, which doesn't say anything about the player, into EL as further reading about the season. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. All it is, is just another easily fixable problem which is better sorted by cleanup tags than sending things willy-nilly to AfD just to adhere to WP:POINT. Bobo . 15:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I absolutely agree. I tag things all the time and I hold the world record for application of ((refimprove)). The problem is disruptive individuals (many of them) who cannot think in terms of "improvement needed here" and just do a knee-jerk towards AfD by default. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly speaking. You're blaming Frankenstein's monster. Not Frankenstein himself. The fact that these people don't even consider fixing the problems themselves proves that they have no interest in attempting to improve the encyclopedia. But I see what you mean. Bobo . 19:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC. Now reffed. Though more could be done. Johnlp (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fourth time (I think) that an article I created has gone to AfD recently where the prose content of the article has not changed in the eight years since I created the article. Not a criticism, John, just a frustration. I added as much prose content then as I could, and nobody has added to it since. Once again this is proof that it's not us as WP:CRIC members who are at fault for this, but those who randomly turn up eight years later and declare WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Couldn't these people have done so eight years ago?! Would have avoided this mess and the others...

I would say that if an article has survived eight years without being criticized by way of an AfD, then it's probably fine as it is... (with reference to its presence on WP, not necessarily its prose content). Bobo . 11:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Meant no criticism of you (or anyone else in this). Just saying that I've now put in the very basic refs and that the earlier contributions above indicate there are at least local newspaper references that could flesh this out further. Johnlp (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misphrased, I didn't take it that way at all. My criticism certainly wasn't directed towards you - more that I was tickled at the fact that the article has been in the same state for the last eight years and suddenly someone has rocked up and decided they don't like it. The fact that their opinion goes against basic guidelines is frankly disruptive. Bobo . 10:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - worth noting that this discussion is being accompanied by significant veiled personal attacks - not all directed towards me, but towards unnamed uninvolved parties - by a certain user on WT:CRIC, which are completely independent of either this article or this AfD debate. I refuse to be provoked by his behaviour, as I have been before out of my own frustration. I have learned from my mistakes. Telling me to "go jump in a lake" is frankly beyond the pale. Spike 'em claims that I am instructing him "which articles to edit" and that I am taking this "far too personally", both of which are outright lies.

Once again these complaints go beyond the sole concern pointed out on this AfD, which has no relation to either WP:GNG or WP:CRIN but WP:ONESOURCE, are therefore irrelevant to this conversation, and unprovoked by myself or @BlackJack:. Bobo . 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets SNG, so we presume sources exist. For me, one of two things should happen for SNG to carry - non-English subject (really non-Latin language subject) or historical subject (to me, five years; but others have said ten years or pre-Internet (about 1997)). Here we have the second. Websites don't keep content up forever. Searching for older subjects can be challenging through the Internet. Had someone raised this back in 2009, we maybe could have found the sources. Now, they are going to be very hard to find in view of the prime of 2002-3. So the presumption carries weight and we should keep. RonSigPi (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to History of the World Wide Web. There is clearly no desire to delete this article despite its truly terrible title -- presumably because it's a broadly plausible search term. There is already a mention of Tim Berners-Lee's work creating the CERN site in History of the World Wide Web, the redirect target proposed by the nominator and others, so I will redirect the article there. The history will still be available if an editor wishes to incorporate it at the target article. A Train^talk 22:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First website ever made[edit]

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

Short article that should be deleted/merged with History of the World Wide Web. (Note: the "merge discussion" the page is tagged with doesn't seem to exist.) Notable topic, but there isn't much to say about it, and it fits quite well into an already existant article. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to History of the World Wide Web per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep – Significant coverage found here, here, and here (and I know #2 is the Daily Mail, but wouldn't it count for notability purposes?). There is probably more out there as well ~~and if some editor can find more then I'll be ready to remove the 'weak'~~. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The Hindu has a paragraph about it (see here, admittedly it's not much but still worth it). J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the one that really seals the deal for me is The Telegraph, with an enormous amount of coverage of it and Tim Berners-Lee. That's enough for me to remove the 'weak'. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 02:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also heaps of science, tech, and history news website entries out there. Not sure if they are WP:RS though: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], https:/ /www.newsbytesapp.com/timeline/Science/10090/55547/internaut-day-for-the-love-of-internet (the website is blacklisted so I can't link), [16], [17]. There's some more as well but I won't bother listing them. Also, there's a CNN article. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 02:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More coverage: CNN, CBC International Business Times, Echonetdaily, Wired, ExtremeTech Entrepreneur, Andhra Wishesh, Salon... Clearly this article meets GNG; even with The Daily Telegraph and The Huffington Post alone it would probably be notable. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ~~This article really seems to lack basic Wiki-Notability. Although it is interesting, it would be better to merge it than the keep a permastub.~~ Given the reasonable amount of sources, it would better to move it to info.cern.ch keeping this title as a redirect.Dysklyver ~~20:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)~~ 09:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no argument for deletion has been advanced. If the merge discussion hasn't been started then simply start that discussion rather than an unnecessary deletion discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As per Metropolitan90, I'm not opposed to a merge if there is content to merge, but this is not a feasible stand-alone topic or a good article title. I don't support keeping this as a stand-alone article, and no amount of references to newspapers or blogs will change my mind. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Nerd1a4i, Metropolitan90, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, and Power~enwiki: Could you guys please address the sources that I have found? J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 02:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched from "redirect" to "merge" above, but I still don't think this title should have an article of its own. If people think this should be an article of its own, it should be re-titled something like info.cern.ch, the name of the web site, rather than by a description. (info.cern.ch is, in fact, a redirect to History of the World Wide Web.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to History of the World Wide Web per above. If the article is kept, it needs to be moved to a more encyclopedic title — there's no First car ever made article, and for good reason. I guess it's a reasonably plausible search term, though, so the redirect is worth having. A Train^talk 11:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, because this discussion seems to have morphed into the merge/redirect discussion that should have taken place at Talk:History of the World Wide Web, or the merge/redirect should have been WP:BOLDly performed. My "speedy keep" opinion expressed above was not on the basis that I think this should be kept as a seperate article, which I don't because this is an encyclopedia rather than the Guinness Book of Records, but simply that there was no need to go through the drama of an AfD discussion to achieve the obvious outcome. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Jones[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet musician notability requirements. The article is a BLP with only one source that doesn't even support any of the admittedly few grasps at notability the article makes. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has had a string of hits on the Billboard R&B charts (including a no. 1), and has scraped into the lower reaches of the Billboard Hot 100 [18], Billboard 200 Albums [19] and the UK Singles Chart [20]. He has an AllMusic biography [21] and articles in Billboard [22], [23]. He's even written a song that featured on a Grammy-nominated album ("Never Let Go", from Walking By Faith by the Canton Spirituals), although admittedly, this is a more tenuous connection to notability. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Music artists AfD's are filled with so many obvious candidates for deletion. THIS is the exact opposite. Plenty of qualifying billboard chart appearances alone make this a keep. Not sure why this was even nominated. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage identified above (e.g., [24][25][26]) shows that the singer meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 02:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets both GNG and WP:MUSIC and so is easily notable. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per above; the article could use some cleanup and improved referencing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does meet GNG and NMUSIC.182.65.88.95 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Wilson[edit]

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

She wrote one book and was "civil servant" - as in, she worked at an insurance commission. Only three references, one of which is just an index entry, another which is a dictionary of british women (so not much about specifically her), and the third of which is the book she wrote. Does not seem to meet notability requirements. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reference described in the nomination as "just an index entry" is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "Elaine Harrison, ‘Wilson, Mona (1872–1954)’, first published 2004; online edn, Jan 2008, 1878 words". Inclusion in the ODNB is the specific condition at WP:ANYBIO #3 ("The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication."). AllyD (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – People who have entries in other reference works are considered to be notable and meet WP:ANYBIO. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets basic basic Wiki-Notability requirements. Dysklyver 20:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:SNOW keep. Already referenced to nontrivial coverage in two reliable references, one of them the ODNB, and according to this source with an obituary in the Times. Clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ODNB closes it. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. DNB entry = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ODNB, Times, etc. Article could use some work, but she's notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slater Investments Limited[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources given are not about the company itself, but its offerings. My search could find no sources indicating how this company itself meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BVS Performance Solutions[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 15:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Leonard[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an actor and (purported) filmmaker. This stakes his notability as an actor on a shortlived television series that doesn't have an article (although it does at least verify as having existed), and the filmmaker claims are vagued out as "working with his family's production company" while not actually specifying what his role with the company is (and therefore not necessarily making him an actual filmmaker...he could be a production accountant for all I can actually verify anywhere). And the closest there is to actual referencing for any of it is the external links: IMDb and his own self-published primary source content about his own endeavours, none of which count as notability-contributing sources at all. So I'd be willing to withdraw this if somebody with better archival access to US media than I've got can actually dig out real reliable source coverage about him and his shortlived TV show from 2003 -- but I can confirm that he hasn't stayed the subject of any recent reliable source media coverage that shows up in a Google News search: I get hits for other unrelated people named Brendan Leonard, but none for anybody I can properly verify as being this one unless we count one "where are they now" blurb on TMZ. (Not, just to clarify, that Wikipedia requires coverage of him to stay current per se — but we do require coverage of him to be shown, and can't keep a BLP just because somebody presumes that older coverage probably exists somewhere if nobody's looked for any.) Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker and actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find signs of WP:N. Fails WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jahmirris C. Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Most sources are primary, unreliable and/or trivial. — Za wl 15:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. The interview in the Decatur Daily (his local newspaper) is the only RS I can find. In addition, the photo used in the article appears to be copyright and taken from the same Decatur Daily interview, and probably fails Wikipedia's image fair use policy and should also be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable business executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sole keep argument is a bare assertion; the delete argument has more to offer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Brewer[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 15:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable musician.User:Soundsabound432 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2017 (EST)
Delete no claim of notability, the references with non-trivial coverage appear to all be jazz-specific. The fact that he "placed third in the 2009 Thelonious Monk International Jazz Competition" isn't sufficient (or even relevant) for notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitra Korri[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skater. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for figureskaters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Additionally, created by single-article SPA. Only a few links lead here. The 3 references are web-ephemera, one of which is already broken. Agricola44 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Lumbini[edit]

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

The only independent, reliable sources that give meaningful coverage to the station that I can find are this and this, both of which give little coverage to the station itself and focus on the rejuvenation of Nepalese radio in general. The latter does detail some information about the station but not in anywhere near as much depth as is needed for a Wikipedia article. DrStrauss talk 14:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on broadcast radio stations in the Anglophone West are invariably kept, even without sources such as those linked by the nominator which pretty obviously constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Why treat a radio station in Nepal any differently? Is this an encyclopedia about only English speakers? Or maybe about only ~~white~~ Western people? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time you've played the race card recently (first time). Both of them were on AfDs I nominated. 86.17.222.157, are you accusing me of racism? Because if so, I point you to WP:NPA. Furthermore, your argument is essentially other stuff exists which isn't a very good rationale. DrStrauss talk 22:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of "race". Whatever meaning that construct has, it doesn't mean "non-Anglophone". DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: the user has struck white from their sentence. "White" is often used to describe Caucasian people, therein lies the racial element. DrStrauss talk 15:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terrestrial radio broadcast stations that can be verified to exist are generally notable. [27] is a master's thesis on the station. power~enwiki (π, ν)
Keep We normally do keep broadcast stations, despite the recognition that it is difficult to find material that satisfies the requirements of the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Haesche[edit]

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

Search for sources reveals no indication of significance per WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO. DrStrauss talk 14:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books shows several other sources, and WorldCat shows a long list of published works, and at least one article about him. Therefore, it should be possible to write a proper article. . WP:BEFORE? . DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the author didn't find any sources at the time of creation does not mean sources don't exist. See Music Sack for example: http://www.musicsack.com/PersonFMTDetail.cfm?PersonPK=100034367 . I would think other sources could be found in websites that have digitized newspapers. -- kosboot (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – he's covered in several encyclopedias. Note: his name is Edwin in all sources, not Edward. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Michael and DGG, needs work though and I can understand why it was nominated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Commander[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGAME and WP:GNG. Received ratings from game sites but no significant commentary.

Also nominating the game's extension:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Toy Commander Many notable gaming publications have reviewed this game: GameSpot, IGN, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer, etc. GameRankings lists 22 reviews: [28]. --Mika1h (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Toy Racer to Toy Commander, short article with no references. Only few possible sources to use even if it were expanded. Easily fits inside Toy Commander article. --Mika1h (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mobygames definitely lists enough significant contemporaneous reviews. Not necessarily all in English but surely enough to ensure notability for the game. Toy Racer may not pass GNG but it surely can be merged into Toy Commander without deletion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GameRankings shows 22 dedicated reviews alone. While not every single one is an RS, as noted above, more than enough are. This...was already present in the article, so this is really the worst type of failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No notability issue. Daiquping (talk)
Keep - Meets the requirements for notability. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73, passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toy Commander. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Cliché[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Toy Commander. I'm not sure why an article for this was created when no real sources for the company itself exists. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, however, the direct should be to this article (No Cliche) and not Toy Commander. No Cliche is the company that developed both Toy Commander and Toy Racer and has historical context beyond those two games. If you look at Epics, the article starts with the company itself before proceeding onto the games developed by the company. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Toy Commander. Non-notable company known for Toy Commander, the only notable game they developed, so it's the obvious merge target. --Mika1h (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is Toy Commander more notable than Toy Racer? You're being subjective again. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I'm not, GameRankings lists 23 reviews for Toy Commander, zero for Toy Racer. [29] [30] --Mika1h (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should have mentioned that earlier. In that case, I also agree with Toy Commander being the redirected article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 neologism/phenomenon question needs to be hashed out on the talkpage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fresh Meat[edit]

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

The article feels like a WP:COATRACK for a Chinese neologism (xiaoxianrou) with multiple translations. The more general topic is of young male celebrities in China; a rename may be appropriate if there's no existing page on that topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources[31][32][33][34][35] about the phrase "Little Fresh Meat" but the article should be re-written to be mostly about the phrase, not the general topic of young male celebrities. — Za wl 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as to keeping or deleting, but must point out, because this is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, an article should be about its general topic rather than the phrase used to name it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The English language sources that Zawl has found show that the topic is notable. There is a strong presumption that many more source exist in Chinese. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is almost certainly going to be kept, but some clarity as to whether it should be about the phenomenon or the neologism would be appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dream A Dream (NGO)[edit]

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

Non-notable charitable organization. A Google search revealed no independent in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. From the 4 external links the first is not a reliable source, the second is only a passing mention and the last 2 are perma-dead links (Guidestar India seems to be a charity listing, not a reliable independent source). Aside from this basic problem, the entire article is full of non-neutral unencyclopedic language and excessive self-sourced details from COI editors. GermanJoe (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:V. Appears on lists and mirrors, but no profiles in independent reliable sources. Written by a SPA who appears to have a close relation with subject. Rhadow (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doesn't even pass the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES test. ansh 666 05:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasah Montessori Center for Learning Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable school with nothing more than routine coverage (directory-style listings, etc.). Edgeweyes (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: previously, all schools were presumed to be notable, I don't know whether this was an explicit policy or guideline but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was often cited. I believe this has now been overridden by an RfC which took place when I was on a wikibreak but I'm not sure. Could a clued-up user tell me whether this is the case please? DrStrauss talk 14:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been the case that all schools have been considered notable. For the last 8 years or so, essentially all secondary schools with a demonstrable real physical existence have in practice been determined at AfD to be notable (a recent AfD said both that there was no consensus to merely refer to CommonOutcomes but also no consensus to change the practice of considering them notable). For the same 8 years, no primary or intermediate school of tutoring academy has been considered notable at AfD unless there were clear specific factors of notability, and very few such schools have been found to eet them.

It is my understanding that Montessori schools are usually primary or primary-intermediate, though secondary Montessori schools do exist. There is no information in this article to give the nature of this school--and there are no references to show real existence. Their web site [36] and [37] says they have high school classes, but the only evidence of this is a photo on the site of what appear to be high school students. However, I can find no sources whatsoever for the school besides their own website and social media pages, and inclusion on several list of schools. The question here is, what are our standards for real existence. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough evidence to justify treating it as a functioning high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Magog the Ogre. Reason: G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Eno Osagie[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion name = Winning Jah )[reply]

however  notability criteria still not meet , Notability still not found  --Samat lib (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

however this article requires Speedy deletion tags . but i cant found the tag here . please can someone help fast as soon as possible . Samat lib (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nigeria reggae music chart, does NOT exist in Nigeria , Samat lib (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

               the website page  can be consider as a promotional page by the person
               related to this article here is the sources.
              ^[1] the soundcloud page here has JUST 2 FOLLOWERS 
               Kingsley_Eno_Osagie known as Winning jah is the  2 followers

Comment - the sources provided on the article are not WIKIPEDIA reliable sources .

                most of the sources are from crappy website for self promotion reason.

Comment - the article says his album “Nouveau Business” sold over 1 million units at Alaba International Market ?

               please we need sources for verification about that paragraph. ( reliable  sources needed )

Comment - this article has no changes from the past article of him that was Deleted .

                 The article  Fails.WP:BIO also Fails WP:GNG  Samat lib (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://soundcloud.com/officialnigeriareggaechart

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eino Leino Prize[edit]

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

Non-notable prize award, named after a Finnish author. Lack of coverage, no indication of notability and has only passing mentions. Many author bio notability claims are based only on this prize. — Za wl 11:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Keep: This needs expertise from one or more Finns, however: it's a national literary prize awarded by the Eino Leino society in association with the ?semi-governmental? Finnish Book Foundation ; award is covered in Helsingin Sanomat ([38]), Turun Sanomat ([39]), and elsewhere; and the prize covers some areas that aren't covered by the Finlandia Prize (poetry, lyrics, translation, body of work...). Getting ahead of the implications that the nominator might be thinking of subsequently nominating a bunch of awardees: sourcing may be subpar, but a spot check suggests that -- ignoring the award of the Eino Leino prize -- most if not all of the authors meet WP:CREATIVE/WP:ANYBIO if WP:BEFORE is applied.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are plenty of articles covering it being awarded, but almost none focusing on the prize itself. From a quick look at it I found one article, from 1994. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When you get a congratulatory call from the President for winning this award as legendary writer Olavi Paavolainen did from President Urho Kekkonen [40], then it's notable.--Oakshade (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aygün Kazımova discography favoring the more specific target. ansh 666 05:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aygün (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, could not find any third party sources XFhumu^Talk 11:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aygün Kazımova. — Za wl 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aygün Kazımova discography Part of a series which don't meet WP:NALBUM/WP:NSONG or WP:GNG - unless someone can verify otherwise from non-English sources I've missed. Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator has now just been blocked for promotional only/undisclosed paid editing, on articles about this artist, so will no longer be able to join the conversation. Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Lucia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player who fails NHOCKEY. Assertions in the previous AfD (by the article creator, someone subsequently community banned from new article creation) that he meets the GNG are just plain false; the sources listed are almost all blogsites, routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from notability by WP:ROUTINE, or not independent of the subject. Ravenswing 10:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 06:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delirio (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 09:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawl: Before AFDing in future I suggest you always check article histories. This article sadly was hijacked in 2011. It's a 1944 Argentine film, that was how it was created and has sources in books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but as of now, the article is about the band. The hijacking wasn't appropriate but the article was still an unreferenced one-sentence stub. — Za wl 10:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on; I am separating these very disparate edit histories. bd2412 T 10:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For now, I have split the edit histories, moved the band to Delirio (band), moved the film to Delirio (film), and moved the disambiguation page to Delirio. bd2412 T 10:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[41] [42] Can't find much more than that at present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found one other mention, but it is weak. This is something that existed at some point, but I doubt it rose to the level of notability. bd2412 T 11:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BAND. I'm really struggling to find any coverage of this band after playing the local "Monterey Live" festival in 2009 - after this date their Facebook page has just four further posts (the last in 2012) and their Twitter feed just one. Article is the sole Wikipedia edit by "Edgarescobedo1978", which just happens to be the name and birth year of the band's lead singer. It doesn't help that the band name is so unoriginal (I've found bands named Delirio in Mexico, Argentina and Uruguay), but even if they're still active, they never appeared to have attained any notability outside of their local scene, and it's not clear whether they ever completed their debut album - recording began in 2009, but it was still ongoing by 2012 when their social media posts stopped. They're certainly nowhere near as well known as Maná or Los Enanitos Verdes, two extremely well known and successful Latin rock bands mentioned in the article text. Richard3120 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS @MassiveYR: you've made an error in the deletion sorting - it should be California, not North Carolina. Richard3120 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Thanks, must have misclicked. MassiveYR ♠ 12:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Richard, only found those two Monterey sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable California band.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My thanks to bd2412 T for some good work on a tangled situation.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yiolanda Koppel[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 09:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable reviews for this person. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Additional factors: BLP with no sources. Written by SPA whose 2nd edit was to create this article. Difficult to find anything that is not FaceBook/YouTube/Twitter ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Salami[edit]

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

This person is not notable. His page on Persian Wikipedia was deleted, and here is the discussion page: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/علی سلامی. He uses "Ismail" & "Ali" interchangeably as his first name and . . . one can guess he creates these pages on various language wikipedias.Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)^{Copied from Talk:Ali Salami}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArthaKranti[edit]

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

Probably non-notable. At most worth a mention and a redirect, but not an article. No real notability, and the contributor has reverted every attempt to redirect. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nominator. What substantive information there is can be comfortably covered at 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect--Per Vanamonde93.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG. Whether the redirect is fully protected or the article deleted and then redirected is a matter of personal taste for want of a better phrase but I'm fine with any process that results in a redirect. DrStrauss talk 14:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nominator Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as par Vanamonde. The think tank's notability seems to rest entirely on its proposal concerning bank notes. If it becomes notable for other reasons, a new article could be written. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viventura[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable. The references are either about the general concept of nature tourism (like Der Spiegel , or just PR DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; this is a small tour-group organizer, the page is inherently promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as generously promotional like a sales profile, which therefore cannot possibly qualify for an article here. Public relations exists for this cause, and we're not the place for it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 07:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rolsky[edit]

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

Article tagged with multiple issues for 5 years. No real RS and no convincing claim to notability. Probably time for the community to have a look. Agricola44 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of clearly reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr Rolsky is well-known in the Perl community, but I was unable to find any in-depth, independent, reliable sources discussing Rolsky himself. The article at present is more of a CV based on primary sources than a wikipedia article. Without RS, this article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, there being no substantial independent sources covering him, only a few passing mentions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Gittings[edit]

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

Gittings was Miss Georgia USA. This alone is not enough to make one notable, and no sources suggest anything else that shows notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Miss [State] USA is not a claim of significance, as has been established by multiple prior AfDs. Nothing stands out about this contestant. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yeah, this one needs to go. Perhaps she will accomplish other things later in her life, but winning alone is insufficient and the rest is TOOSOON. (or WP:CRYSTAL) Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ATD is policy, and state pageant winners of Miss USA and Miss America contests, even if someone claims they are not notable, they always seem to have international coverage, and they always have a merge target, so deletion is never policy based. Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, disruption Nominator redirected the title to Miss Georgia USA, and was reverted. An attempt to delete the article is revenge tactics. The proper next step, as suggested by WP:Deletion policy, is talk page discussion or filing an RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far WP:TOOSOON. Bad-faith by one editor here will not result in a speedy close and I suggest they retract their personal attack -- the only form of "disruption" I see here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scores of beauty pageant winners every year; there is no automatic notability to them and this one does not indicate significance beyond that. Reywas92^Talk 06:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, "Miss [State] USA is not a claim of significance" and all the references are WP:MILL coverage of the pageant. There's no policy against deleting non-notable BLPs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 07:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Kegerreis[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:Author. Also does not meet any criteria for WP:BIO Rogermx (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She wrote a children's book at age 65. I see no evidence that either the author or the book are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of indication, sources in re: notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most of the article seems to be peacock-y, and the article's sources are poor. Does not seem to be notable. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't pass GNG and there are no reviews for her work in the databases I searched, so can't pass CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find substantial independent sources about her. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 07:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ABC (2018 film)[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines, which state that a film that is in principal photography is only notable if it has received notable coverage of the production.

This article has no references and so makes no claim for film notability or general notability.

Article has promotional tone. This could be dealt with, but might leave nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the information in this article appears to be derived from a brief, promotional entertainment article only published in the last 24 hours, from my research. The film's release information seems tentative, and a great amount of relevant details common to articles on Wikipedia about films, even ones in pre-production, are lacking. In addition, the total lack of references and promotional nature clinch it. Scriblerian1 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - I had to remove the entire production section as it was copy/pasted from here or here (or possibly from elsewhere). Article presently fails WP:NFF as there's no indication principal photography has begun, but if the reports are saying that the film is slated to premiere in January of next year, that would be a fast turn-around. I'm more inclined to redirect than delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above, this is WP:TOOSOON at best. Because article is still undeveloped and unsourced, it could be easily recreated later if this proposed film (there's no actual film if nothing's been filmed!) later meets film notability or general notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NFILM at present. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all of the above. Shearonink (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow/Speedy keep. no plausible reason for deletion DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Tunisia[edit]

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

Not worth its own article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based rationale provided by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sources. Score of additional sources are available for the topic. History of the topic in Tunisia is, as in other countries, distinct from global prostitution history.Icewhiz (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's no case to answer. While my ideological beliefs on articles with qualifiers (e.g. something like Egypt in mens' tennis at the 1992 Olympic Games) tend towards merging, WP:NOPAGE, the guideline which best suits the nomination, doesn't apply because of the clear plethora of both available and cited sources. It's a major topic and with a sourced, well-written article, it should be kept. DrStrauss talk 14:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That is not a policy-based rationale. Even if one was provided, I would still vote keep and recommend an expansion of the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Petrifaction (disambiguation). czar 07:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petrified (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation is so small that it can easily be accomplished by a hatnote instead, though I doubt it needs even that. The only other actual article besides the main one is Petrifaction in mythology and fiction._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Links to more than two unrelated articles. Small DAB pages are far less disruptive than long article hatnotes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe:With petrified being a redirect to petrifaction, it doesn't really "link" to the article petrifaction so much as being linked from it. That means the link to petrifaction is unnecessary and most likely merits removal, leaving only one more article, which is related and likely better off in the "See also" section rather than as a hatnote. "Fear" is only a dicdef, and is not admissable per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ultimately it should not need any sort of hatnote on the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, only half convinced, but am now leaning to merge to Petrifaction (disambiguation). For anyone landing on "petrified", let them find the song via the Petrifaction (disambiguation) page. I want to keep the hatnoting minimized. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SmokeyJoe: Is there a reason the song merits a disambiguation or hatnote? It doesn't have its own article. While it might be fine to include if the disambig were otherwise necessary, I don't think its status should hinge on dubious items. I also nominated Petrifaction (disambiguation) for deletion as it only contains one unrelated item as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's only one real match: the song, which could be pointed to by a redirect hatnote in Petrifaction. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrifaction (disambiguation). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Petrifaction (disambiguation) per SmokeyJoe. Between the two pages, there's enough valid entries to fill out a DAB page, and having all article topics which share names with word forms of petrify be shoved into the hatnote would be messy. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Petrifaction (disambiguation), as these two pages differ only on word form. f e minist 14:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Petrifaction (disambiguation), per those above. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Petrifaction (disambiguation) The latter has already been to WP:AfD with consensus to Keep. (BTW: Both pages only average two hits a day). I would remove the link to "extreme fear" as this isn't a synonym for petrification, and "petrified" is only an adjective, more deserving of a dictionary or thesaurus entry. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Promotional concerns can be dealt with through editing. ansh 666 05:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Ng[edit]

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

Promotional content regarding person. Barely GNG. The coverage by SCMP in the citation was just about he made a decision for the company to employ Arup to make some design and research, which barely made him pass GNG due to the coverage of the works of Sino Land. Matthew_hk t c 18:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SCMP, the newspaper, according to its website [43], was closely connected with Daryl Ng's father/family's Sino Group for Sino Junior Reporter Programme. All other citation were either routine coverage of his position on public organization, and/or primary source and/or Sino Group, not any of them a notable coverage of Daryl Ng himself. Being son of a billionaire and on a position of a listed company, is not qualified to notability himself. Matthew_hk t c 03:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SCMP citation was removed by the possibly paid editor in this edit, so the current version. None of the non-primary source (and source the not connect with Sino Group in business/sponsorship, such as OUHK and SCMP) was actually about Daryl Ng. Matthew_hk t c 03:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep I do see a lot of coverage (both trivial and not-so-trivial) in Chinese, ranging from his civil/social activities to his support for/ties with Carrie Lam to his real estate development plans. There appears to be even paparazzi reports on who he's with during social gatherings. I think the coverage satisfies WP:GNG even though I agree that his notability derives mainly from his super-rich father and not at all from his individual accomplishments. Timmyshin (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The coverage just a trivial level news coverage, just he bought some property again, or political linking of lunch/dinner meeting with chief executive candidate, without significant coverage that wrote in WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Matthew_hk t c 11:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some in-depth reports e.g. [44], [45]. Timmyshin (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those coverage, was still circulate on the same tone as similar to current wikipedia article, his education, and then because of his interests in environment and his position in the company, listing out the works of the company and then claiming it is under his leadership; the in-depth coverage was on the projects but not on himself. Not sure other wikipedian would agree they were in-depth coverage on the person. Matthew_hk t c 08:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I think being a taipan of Sino plus winning innovation prices would be enough to make him notable, but I'm also open to a WP:TNT deletion due to promotional concerns. Deryck C. 12:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- borders on G11 with the obvious spam intentions. Notability is highly questionable, if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 05:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DreamFunded[edit]

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

This page is just an ad for an organization. Runs afoul of WP:PROMO, WP:COI and WP:TOOMANYREFS. Brian-armstrong (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Brian-armstrong (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brian-armstrong (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it appears to have been edited by the same COI entity and is related to this organization.

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

Delete agree that both articles are entirely promotional. Rockypedia (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to me that Manny Fernandez is quite a notable Latino businessman. He has appeared on many television shows and is referenced in numerous third party publications - Inc, Fox News, CNBC, Forbes, Fortune, Entrepreneur. Just being an investor “Shark” on a major TV show (CNBC) is an indication that he is very successful and notable. If the page is too promotional or has too many references, why can’t it be rewritten and some of the references deleted? Perhaps the two pages could be merged. 97.68.160.118 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- entirely promotional with WP:SPIP sourcing. Promo content includes: "Fernandez has also often appeared as a keynote speaker!" Etc. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion or is here to help subjects book speaking gigs. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both fail the GNG. I again wish to disagree with others, that usually the state of the article has little bearing on deletion. Notability of the subject does. z'L3X1 (distænt write) 02:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. MassiveYR ♠ 14:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fail general notability as well as WP:PROMO and WP:GNG per above. I agree with WP:SPIP sourcing as consideration for delete, if only because heavy reliance on promotional sources suggests lack of notability verifiable in independent sources. I also agree with delete on the affiliated Manny Ramirez page for the same reason. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep - meets notability. Featured in numerous independent, reliable sources: "Forbes, Inc. Magazine, CNBC, Squawk Box, TechCrunch, Fortune, Entrepreneur Magazine, Fast Company, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, ABC and others.” Fernandez has numerous television appearances on major US network TV shows. Is he being subjected to greater scrutiny because he is Latino? 23.82.234.36 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to use one of your examples, the Forbes articles cited are not about either subject. The cited articles just briefly mention Dreamfunded. That is not sufficient to meet notability requirements, as the citation would require substantive coverage about the subject. Brian-armstrong (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These entire articles are about Fernandez and DreamFunded: (among others)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giovannirodriguez/2016/07/17/a-latino-angel-wants-to-help-you-invest-in-tech-startups/#6909a09955e5

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/28/our-american-dream-start-up-guru-manny-fernandez-connects-people-to-money.html

These national TV shows feature him prominently:

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/02/12/providing-reasonable-prices-for-investors-dreamfunded-ceo.html

https://www.cnbc.com/make-me-a-millionaire-inventor/

He is also featured prominently in several Crowdfund Insider articles. This is an important industry publication.

And, what about the awards and recognitions he has received? These look like important awards.

Do we consider someone who has achieved significant notability within an industry? Looks like he is very well known as an expert in crowdfunding and angel investing. 23.82.234.36 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with these articles is that they are almost purely promotional. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a means of advertising. If there are substantial, notable events regarding these subjects, they don't seem to be part of these articles. In fact, if you removed all of the promotional content from these articles you'd be left with just a few sentences. That isn't sufficient to justify having articles about these subjects.

By the way, can you specify what your relation is to these subjects, either personal or financial, if any? Brian-armstrong (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, entirely promotional, fails GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 07:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xuyen Pham[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and the informal Poker project notability criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GNG and WP:BIO are definitely not met, and it doesn't seem like the Gaming Club tournament that she won satisfies the requirements set by WikiProject Poker. Next year, maybe? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 07:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nightset[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anna Frankowska

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

An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. Raised $600K in funding, which strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. Created by an account currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Professor of Art.

Additionally, I'm nominating the article on the CEO of the company. The concerns expressed above, including being created by the same blocked account, apply to this article equally:

Anna Frankowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Might as well raze the walled garden to the ground. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely promotional. And the CEO's page (Anna Frankowska) looks to fail notability too. Brian-armstrong (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added the nomination for the CEO above. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for updating. Just to clarify, I agree with deleting both articles. Brian-armstrong (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Nightfest and Anna Frankowska pages, per WP:PROMO (also fails WP:GNG). I do agree with WP:TOOSOON; if this app/company takes off and becomes notable, the page could easily be recreated later. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I think we can safely SNOW close this as a G3 given that everyone agrees it's an obvious hoax ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rothmanhaus[edit]

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

Found this article while searching through orphans. Most likely a hoax, sources are virtually nonexistent and everything else refers back to Wikipedia. It seems to have escaped attention outside of a few tagging edits. Dellavien (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not finding even sources for basic verification, and an incidental role as the site of a death would not in itself provide notability. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a hoax. Most of the hotels in Naumburg are not near the Saale, and none of the few that are matches the description (not to mention that the "wildly popular" ice hockey player has left no mark on Google whatsoever). —Kusma (t·c) 09:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ordinarily a well established hotel with well-known guests would have a chance of meeting notability criteria. However, I can find zero evidence that it even exists! Sionk (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or joke. It was the first substantial edit by its author, and the only one on a hotel. It appears to be entirely made up, with no sources either present or existing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run of the mill hotel and possible hoax. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I can't find any evidence to suggest it exists and the tone of the article has persuaded me to speedy it per CSD G3. DrStrauss talk 10:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Chongwei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY as never having played in a league or at a level recognized by the guideline as notable. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 00:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contrary to what was said in the previous discussion, not all "national teams" default grant notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created by an editor with a history of dubious ice hockey-related article creations and for players competing on national teams that play far below the top pool at the Worlds/Olympics, the only level for which NHOCKEY accords presumptive notability. – AaronWikia (talk) 01:24, 02 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, has changed since the last AfD to swing the pendulum the other way? @Johnpacklambert, AaronWikia, and Djsasso czar 07:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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