< 19 October	21 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Vandever[edit]

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

Purely WP:PROMO and not notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources count as truly reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trimmed the article of the Blogspot and Eventbrite 'references', and it is now clear that htis is non-notable artist based on the refs. The promotional writng and the hyped style don't help.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very much to go on here. Certainly an artist, and certainly has gained some attention for his work. However, there's insufficient evidence of anything that would support passing WP:NARTIST. I poked around in news sources, and came up with a blog and some passing references, 4 in total [1]. Certainly nothing to support a pass under WP:GNG either. Creator of the article @ArtOfKannon: appears to be a single purpose account which began creating a sandbox version of this article 2 minutes after they created their account. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 27 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Anthony[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local elected politician with no other evident claims to notability. Marquardtika (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (I had previously applied for speedy A7 but was declined). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Las Vegas is a large and prominent enough city that a city councillor would be accepted as notable if the article were substanced and sourced well enough to satisfy WP:NPOL #2 — but serving on a city council is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles a person to keep an article that's based solely on two primary sources and one glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Again, we cannot conflate article quality and notability. If a Las Vegas city councillor would normally be accepted as notable, then he's notable. The article might be weak, but it has a few sources. With the proviso of the above "normally accepted as notable" status, this article is in need of improvement and expansion, but not deletion. Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, city councillors would not be "normally" accepted as notable — they're accepted as notable if, and only if, they are sourced well enough to satisfy WP:NPOL #2. Not "might someday become sourced enough", but "already are sourced enough in the here and now". Las Vegas is not a city where the councillors get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing; it's a city where they're accepted as notable if they're sourced well enough to pass NPOL #2, and not if they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOLITICIAN. If he's done something beyond the city councillor level, then I'd be fine with the article returning. But as stated above, municipal level politicians are not notable according to Wikipedia's standards just for being politicians at that level. South Nashua (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 23 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. Withdrawn by nominator (after removing 75% of article content). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Behavior Game[edit]

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

Article is promotional in nature. WP:TNT also applies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I do agree that it's a complete mess and needs a total rewrite. The source material, however, establishes notability. Wouldn't object if someone took an axe to maybe 2/3 of the content. Partial TNT, anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article can be fixed , this just Another case of confusing article quality with notability. Samat lib (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reasons for deletion other than a failure to meet notability guidelines. That said, I'll try to create a version of the article tomorrow that doesn't have the problems mentioned in my nomination statement (removing at least 80% of the existing content), if that fixes my concerns I'll withdraw this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a massive reduction. Part of the problem is that the topic in research journals is somewhat different from this corporate entity. I suspect the article was written with the intent to promote the latter, with the former included primarily to make the promotional material appear notable. There are still enough problems I'm not going to withdraw this at this time; if someone else improves it further I might. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 23 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) 18:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle (Deadmau5 album)[edit]

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

Borderline fancruft. This notability of this EP doesn't bode well against our guidelines for music and the current sources are user-generated content or just outright unreliable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:59, 27 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singing bowl[edit]

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

This is probably a notable topic. The problem is that 99.9% of what is written in here right now oscillates between unsourced and wrong.

As I mentioned two years ago at Talk:Singing_bowl#Possible_hoax_.28November_2015.29, it is extremely dubious that such bowls existed in Tibetan/Himalayan temples before Western tourists wanted to buy them. All sources attesting to their presence in that area are holistic healing and similar nonreliable sources.

It seems probable that such bowls do exist in Japan, and possibly Korea/India, and are notable here. But the current state of the article is based purely on Tibetan stuff of dubious reliability. So that is a case of WP:V trumping WP:N, or to put it less charitably WP:TNT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't a single citation, reliable or otherwise, in the article. That alone justifies deletion. The topic does seem, however, to be of potential interest. I thus encourage someone (it won't be me) to re-work the article into something more encyclopedic. That process should start with the addition of reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is obviously notable – can't we just remove all the dubious unsourced stuff and cut it back to a stub? There are plenty of articles on the subject on other language Wikipedias – these may assist then in developing the stub into something valid and properly referenced. --Deskford (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, I will change to keep. But I have no knowledge of any Asian language, and what little sources I found (in English) is not encouraging, so... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title may not help. According to this page the term 'singing bowl' is modern, and I suspect may be a Western invention. I've never come across its use in connection with Buddhist practice in Japan, where similar bowls are generally known in English as 'rin gongs', or as 'bells'. Unfortunately there seems to have been little written in English, at least as far as I can tell from Google searches. I think that reliable sources are going to require someone to search the non-English literature. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any accretion of woo to this article (and WP isn't fussy elsewhere!) is zero reason, per WP policy, to delete an article on a viable topic.

Also TNT is not policy, as we're forever reminded of when we encounter an article that really needs it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that topic viable (i.e. notable)?

Yes, I know, I wrote in the nom that the topic is probably notable. But the operative word is probably. I think more likely than not than the topic is notable, because File:Rin_gong_at_Kiyomizu-dera,_Kyoto.JPG is probably not a staged photo-op and other circumstancial evidence (blogs etc.) I found. I believe it is more likely than not that WP:NONENG sources exist, satisfy and even exceed the notability. But all that is pure belief in the absence of having a source at hand (and yes, I did WP:BEFORE but again, English gives no RS. I just looked in French, it does not seem any better.)

Moreover, even assuming notability is met, if the current content of the article is unsalvageable, it would still be valid grounds for deletion. Not because WP:TNT is policy, but because WP:V is - we don't leave around hoax articles waiting for someone to fix them, we delete them and allow recreation of a correct version. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It is (oddly) totally unsourced, I am not having a lot of luck finding any RS. but did find this [2].Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "totally unsourced", except briefly when a passing IP chose to delete them. It is uncited, which is different. It would obviously benefit from inlined citations, which would in turn benefit from more specific page numbers. That would improve the verifiability of content within the article.

However, as it effects demonstrating notability, the sources already included as general references (which is permitted, if discouraged) are already enough to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure they do, a couple appear to be primary sources. Without inline citations the others may not be quite as clear cut, for example does an article about a device that mimics them establish notability for what it mimics?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Simply because I've seen them around, including at martial arts schools I've attended. The article should be rewritten if kept. —Paleo Neonate – 18:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of hits on google books, but they seem to be "in-universe". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My hands exist (I am typing with them), we do not have an article here on Wikipedia about my hands. Notability is not just about existence, but people outside of "the circle" have noticed and acknowledged it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are tibetan singing pots the same thing? [3]

-He did this thing with my Tibetan singing pot and artisan honey...

-It's a game I play called, "Do I make you horny, honey?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly usable sources: [4], [5] (meh), [6] [7]. Mostly not "in-universe" anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more: [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phys.org source leads to [9] which cites [10] for the historic content. From the section I could consult, the first reports of singing bowls in Tibet came in the 1960s. The author explains that by Buddhist monks using them for ritual purposes and keeping them secret until the Chinese occupation forced monks into exile and some of them getting sold. While the source looks somewhat POV (as you would expect from a "handbook of instruction and use"), it is probably kinda-sorta reliable at least for those reports, so could be used (not for Wikipedia voice, but for "reports say"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I realize this was already in the further refs section, but the title gave me no incentive to read an obviously in-universe source. Seeing it quoted in a physics publication gave me that incentive. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religionfacts mentions Meher McArthur, Reading Buddhist Art: An Illustrated Guide to Buddhist Signs and Symbols, sadly not searchable on G-books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book about entrainment is interesting although if I remember other than for music/rhythm etrainment itself, those who have tried to reproduce brainwave synchronization/frequency-following response hypotheses like Monroe's experiments failed, except when using wired headphones, suggesting that electromagnetics may have a more important effect than the audio, if any. There's probably no problem to report those aspects as beliefs with attribution, however... —Paleo Neonate – 04:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I have seen these at many places in the Bay Area on Haight Street (Love of Ganesha) and in Alameda (e.g. [11], [12]). Another example of where one can buy them: [13]. If there is not WP:RS in the article, then find some and add it. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is definitely something that can be fixed. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another case of confusing article quality with notability. Take an axe to the cruft, but keep the core, improve from there. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NOTCLEANUP. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 00:40, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chesty Morgan (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC no secondary sources Domdeparis (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does just need one or two more references, but as it is, it does not have enough to warrant it's article. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Was a very well known band in Sweden, in particular during the 1990s (which may explain that there is not as much news coverage online as there would have been about a present day band). Has been covered in articles by Sweden's largest newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet [14] and Dagens Nyheter [15]. In connection with a car accident in 2001 which killed the band's leader at the time, Erika Janson, Sweden's largest evening paper referred to Chesty Morgan as a "cult band" [16]. /FredrikT (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information: The band has released 8 records between 1996 and 2005 according to the media database of the Swedish National Library: [17]. /FredrikT (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A quick Google search found several newspaper articles. I suspect a more thorough search would yield plenty to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - article status is quite weak but that is not a reason for deletion. A simple google search came up with plenty of hits. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Fredrik T. Not huge, but nog enought för än article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 08:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Elias Peersen[edit]

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

Nothing singificant given by this article and remains unsourced. Pretty much useless to a user of WP. Theprussian (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously notable. Needs expansion rather than deletion. See for example [18]. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – If he was a parliamentary minister then he would be very notable, as MPs are automatically. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 21:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The answer to "remains unsourced" is to add sources. (It took me about half a minute to find one.) The answer to "Nothing singificant [sic] given by this article" is to add content. Being a member of a national parliament is a pretty solid indication of notability, and the fact that he was minister of defence in a national government (albeit briefly) consolidates that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator needs to remember WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO with an entry in Norsk biografisk leksikon, also there has been an article in norwegian wikipedia since 2009/10 with no issues that can provide further info about Peersen. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability given a) elected politician and b) serving as minister of defense, even if only briefly. The article needs work, not deletion _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Important not to confuse article quality with notability. Montanabw^(talk) 06:06, 22 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 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Gomes[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, in that he is only a senior executive of a non-notable company. Dan arndt (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator says Gomes does not meet notability for businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, but why was this article created . so funny Samat lib (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple RS present: [19] [20] [21] [22]. Cossde (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source as most of its content is largely user-generated (see WP:IMDBREF). Dan arndt (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone going to address the remaining three sources? Pinging Dan arndt, Randomeditor1000, Samat lib, and JPL.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ref [1] is all about Hela Clothing, (a non-notable company) and Dominic McVey, with side mentions about Gomes, as well as a number of other non-notable individuals. Ref [2] is IMDB. Ref [3] is about Hela Clothing. Ref [4] is about a self published autobiography by Gomes, by no details about whether the book was notable or even if copies of it actually sold or not. Even the author of the article questions it’s legitimacy. Dan arndt (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I concur with Dan arndt's evaluation of the references. IMDB is user submitted information, the others are not notable. I do not think this article passes muster as is. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:44, 23 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roel Vertegaal[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:COI, WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:AB, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT policy
Likely fails to meet WP:PROF, but this is secondary in light of other concerns.
From the edit history, it appears that this article was written by the subject himself from various IP addresses, with the goal of self-promotion: Almost all of the content of the article comes from 130.15.1.241, which has only ever edited the Roel Vertegaal article (and is A Queen's University IP). Other contributors include 67.193.129.113, which has edited the Roel Vertegaal and Human Media Lab (Vertegaal’s lab) articles, and 67.193.192.237, which has edited only the Roel Vertegaal, Flexible Display, and Organic User Interfaces articles (located in the same city as Queen’s University).

The subject of this article fails the WP:GNG and WP:PROF policies: It establishes Vertegaal’s notability as an academic by appealing almost entirely to primary sources authored by Vertegaal himself. Of the 20 references given, only 3 refer to sources that are not written by the subject himself. 16 of the other references fail WP:NOR, being primary sources (largely conference papers) authored or co-authored by Vertegaal himself. According to WP:PROF “. . .it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant. . .”

The Roel Vertegaal#Startups section of the biography consists entirely of material promoting Vertegaal’s own business interests and does not adhere to wikipedia’s guidelines regarding NPOV or self-promotion. It supports Vertegaal's standing in the business community with a link to [Xuuk Inc], which is an “Account Suspended” page.

This article is peppered with claims that are either exaggerated, non-notable, or unsourced. Here are a few examples.

A reference in the introduction to “pioneering work,” backed up only by primary sources (academic conference papers), which have the subject himself as an author.
The sentence: “He is also known for inventing ubiquitous eye input, such as Samsung's Smart Pause technologies, and BitDrones, one of the first programmable matter user interfaces” is completely unsourced.
The sentence: “Vertegaal developed one of the first inline PC webcams, FrameServer, deployed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak” is not sourced, but does feature a link to a listserv post in which Vertegaal himself describes an internet webcam interface he developed—far from “inventing one of the first inline PC webcams.”
The biography also includes numerous examples of unsourced personal information, including the grammar school Vertegaal attended, what brand of synthesizer Vertegaal used as a child, an undergraduate scholarship, and the brand of sports car that he drives. None of these are supported, except for the sports car, which is supported by a reference to Vertegaal’s own twitter account.

I nominate this article for deletion. If it is determined that the subject of the article does meet WP:PROF notability guidelines, it will nonetheless need to be entirely rewritten without the self-promoting material (which, as it stands, is the entire article). AnonymousConcerned (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would anyone care to contribute to the debate regarding the other issues? The question of whether the subject passes WP:PROF is debatable, but also a secondary concern in light of other problems. AnonymousConcerned (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotuion. We need to scrupuously uphold our rules against such to maintain the intergrity of the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment self promotion on its own is not a reason for deleiton. It is a reason for editing.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep even though lots of mainstream sources are available, the article almost exclusively uses arcane journal publicaitons to support ego-building claims. A strong edit is required (TNT perhaps) to reduce the promotional copy. I tried but it was too depressing.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify; I'd say everything starting with "Early life" could go, leaving only the lead. Seems to pass WP:PROF but the article is too promotional, and some drastic measures are needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed like a good idea so I took care of it. All material starting with early life deleted. Three refs kept, and four new more run-of-the-mill refs added.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just had a look at the Google Scholar Profile[23] and I see at least 4 papers in SIGCHI with 200 citations or more. Considering that CHI is literally the most important conference in human computer interaction, I think this should be kept. The h-index of 35 (though google scholar slightly inflates it) is also a good indicator of academic notability.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:47, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janera Solomon[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as executive director of an individual theatre. As always, every executive director of every organization does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing -- she would need to be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG. But the sources here are all primary sources — her "staff" profile on the website of an organization she's directly affiliated with, a blog entry on the website of another community development organization, and a piece of media coverage she wrote about herself — which means that exactly none of them are notability-assisting sources at all. She needs to be the subject of media coverage written by somebody other than herself to pass GNG; a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because staff profiles and her own diary of her day technically verify that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete executive directors of theatres are almost never notable, clearly we would need multiple cases of reliable source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with OP that executive directors aren't notable by virtue of being executive directors. There are a few mentions of her on the web, but not solid enough coverage to support keeping the article —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing sources that support notability; seems like a person doing her job well, but not a notable career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 23 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 Carleton Knights football. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1883 Carleton Knights football team[edit]

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

not notable, no sources found beyond mention that the first season occurred in 1883 - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge interesting data, but it could be placed in another article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging into Carleton Knights football team. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Per Paulmcdonald, the interesting information can be merged; my suggestion is that it be merged into the "History" section of Carleton Knights football. Carleton is a Division III program; it would be rare for the coverage at this level to be sufficient to warrant stand-alone articles for each season. Cbl62 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dire Wolf Digital[edit]

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

Just a WP:MILL company with nothing indicating notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to be more reflective of 5 pillars, including:

deleted descriptions that were not "neutrally voiced"
Added a history section with 5 citations for more notability/information on the organization, versus just a list format of game offerings.
Updated image per Zackmann08 request

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschneider1 (talk • contribs)

Delete - The vast majority of coverage on the studio was when they opened, but it fails WP:SUSTAINED. Most of the other articles mentioning them are predominantly about Elder Scrolls Legends, not the studio itself. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Ongoing coverage of the studio's work and its relation to that work constitutes sustained coverage. For example this provides both non-trivial coverage of the studio and of the game it is producing. The coverage of the game does not detract from the coverage of the studio. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a WP:PRIMARY rather than a secondary source. Those can be used in an article but are not evidence of notability on their own._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The interview itself is primary but the information surrounding it is secondary. Besides, for the purpose of WP:SUSTAINED common sense dictates that interviews would be evidence that the subject has attracted attention over a significant period of time. This, combined with the other earlier significant third party coverage satisfies the notability criteria. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not how it works. The reference is entirely based on an interview with Dire Wolf Digital and therefore fails since it is a PRIMARY source. It contains no independent analysis or opinion on the company. The reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are not intellectually independent or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism only and significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any sources, in the article or elsewhere, that would confer notability. It's all the same usual marketing churn and stuff not strictly about the company itself. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 28 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Energy Mining Industry Limited[edit]

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

Non-notable private company, unsourced, possible a relic of paid editing in 2009 Matthew_hk t c 19:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 20:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 20:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 26 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) 18:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Behrouzi[edit]

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

Can't find any real coverage for him in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*keep~~ sources prove us its notable also this article has created about for 8 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisstudyinghard (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Lifeisstudyinghard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. </ Editor indef blocked for socking as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amirshahat.[reply]

delete. Article is overstuffed with paltry and self-sorucing. I ran a gNews search and found minor coverage on a startup he, well, started in 2013, UrthBox, which does get some news coverage [24]. However, no SIGCOV of Behrouzi. Looks like it's WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG not notable at this point upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:21, 27 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Levine Leichtman Capital Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as written. No independent WP:RS. PROD contested by author. shoy (reactions) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the initial tag (12 October 2017), have added 3 RS (news organizations' articles that were non PR and non Opinion). Article created per The Private Equity WikiProject Task Force and seems to fit the criteria therein for Notability, in addition to WP:NCORP as I read it. Pegnawl (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the third-party sources is the article is that they are all coverage of routine business activities (taken from press releases, for instance). See WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 19:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to company announcements and routine business, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH and are mostly routine announcements. Private equity funds are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Carter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR his filmography is made up of bit parts as "hooker" "female impersonator" "transvestite" etc Domdeparis (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails way below the level of notability for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently noticeable appeareances in movies where at least one of his roles was integral to the plot. The fact that he there played drag queens and hookers should not be used against him. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my nomination I believe. It is not the fact that his roles were drag queens or hookers but the fact that he didn't have named roles and clearly just bit parts because he is credited as "drag queen" or "hooker" hence my speech marks in the nomination. Which film was his role integral to the plot? That might help to prove notability Domdeparis (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are YouTube links from some of those films. I saw once that he was a murder victim around which the drama centered. I cannot name the picture at this moment and I do not have time to research it. Sorry! Much more could have been done on Carter, as rare and remarkable as it was that a man played a woman (not a transvestite) in a noticeable movie part. Haven't these things been mentioned in the article(s?) linked to in the refs? Coulldn't you have missed something in this case also, in the heat of all these nominations you rushed to do? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The job of cleaning up after COI editors that have gone undeclared for a number of years can be a long task and I am aware that some of the discussions will end up with keep decisions but this is whole point. If there had been disclosure at the beginning then this would not be necessary. Everything that is done before disclosure needs to be checked out...what a waste of time, if only the COI editors had been honest from the start...a lesson for us all I think. Domdeparis (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are Compostela right, Domdeparis. Adville (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not in itself relevant to deletion, no matter what you and your new tag-along Swedish pal think. Thousands of COI articles are kept because they are well sourced anyway. This article was only created because there were independent sources about this man which looked reliable. There was nothing sufficient in any information the creator had on his own. Nobody I know has ever created an article on Wikipedia without believing, according to the old-fashioned (?) principle of good faith, that there were sufficient reliable sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR by a wide margin. GNG isn't satisfied either; the best I could find is a passing mention in the book Jack Nichols, Gay Pioneer. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Clear delete if nothing new comes up. I have also been in famous Swedish movies and the only written about me was "drugdealer", "ex-drug adict" in the after text. (That was my roles;-) ). That doesn't give me notability. Adville (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how anything you personally have done is relevant. Please keep your comments relevant! There's way too much irrelevant stuff all over. Makes it very hard to do any work of this kind. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I mean! If you are not more mentioned than that then you are not relevant on Wikipedia (but for your family of course) Adville (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient RS, questionable circumstances of creation, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and the film appearances are trivial in nature. Kierzek (talk) 18:20, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kári Árnason (disambiguation)[edit]

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

PROD was removed, but WP:TWODABS still applies as one of the links was just a redirect to the primary topic. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 17:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This disambiguation is linked at Index of Iceland-related articles and Árnason. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced those links. The subject page now has no incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unnecessary WP:2DABS page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:TWODABS applies. ClubOranje^T 09:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid disambiguation page. The article Kári Árnason (no DOB) should be moved and this page should be kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Kári Árnason (no DOB) was recently moved to the current title as the result of a WP:RM. See Talk:Kári Árnason#Requested move 18 September 2017. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 12:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone 09:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per suggestion. Also the one born in 1944 needs a link back to the other Icelandic to help navigation. Govvy (talk) 11:08, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Again[edit]

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

Unnotable band. Sources are facebook, youtube, wikipedia and a bare mention in an article from the alternative press, which is to say an article about someone creating a non-notable record player which then signed this band. Everything in the article is trivial, including being featured in the unsigned bands section of alternative press, and the fact that they would cover a blink-182 song in concert. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of the problem with finding sources is that the band name is a common term and articles—such as, "Everything New Is Old Again", from the Huffington Post—are returned along with the primary sources associated with the band. When I searched I couldn't find any RSes. AllMusic has a DB entry: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/old-again-mn0003312494 and nothing at Billboard. No claim to notability in article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and the sources are a problem; a PR piece for a local band. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 25 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 Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JSC News[edit]

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

Could not find any Encyclopediac content in this article. It's written more of a advertising or "for your info" style. Wondering how come such a page existed in Wikipedia for this much time. -223.186.97.118 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC). (AfD nomination completed on behalf of IP per request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Delete No third-party citations and purely promotional. Brian-armstrong (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, per the discussion already extant on the page, trimming appropriately (which may end up making it much more like a redirect) per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church per Jclemens.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church; there's nothing to merge as the article lists no 3rd party sources. JSC News is the name of org's web site (www.jscnews.org), so a straight redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 24 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. Keep per awards received/nominated for. Issues with article are surmountable with a little work. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic: The Complete Story[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Titanic: The Complete Story (2nd nomination)

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

Not notable. Search shows evidence of existance, but no independent coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This article was previously considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic: The Legend Lives On. It was renamed in the intervening years. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Movie Guide speaks about this film in some detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per receiving a 1994 News & Documentary Emmy Award and a 1995 Cable Ace award nomination. Sorry, but poor research and needing work is a poor reason to delete what can be improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the awards. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 27 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lý Thuần An[edit]

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

Non-notable government official in the Song dynasty. Looks like a genealogy entry. No information (including a birth or death date) on him other than his names and that he was a government official. His genealogy does not qualify as information on him as an individual. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no claim to notability. I couldn't find mention of the subject in either of the two online sources (based upon Google translate). While there might be other foreign-language material about the subject, without a means to verify I am not ok with presuming notability. Subject otherwise fails GNG and ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim to notability is this Chinese individual supposedly fathered Lý Thái Tổ (Lý Công Uẩn) who founded the Vietnamese Lý dynasty. If true, this has some nationalist implications, like how Barack Obama Sr. is notable especially in Kenya nowadays. However, according to the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư (an "official" Vietnamese history book written in Chinese) Lý Thái Tổ's father was a god who impregnated his mortal mother. This Lý Thuần An/Li Chun'an individual's name was only mentioned in a genealogical book recently discovered in Quanzhou (which is in coastal southeastern China and not at all close to Vietnam which borders southwestern China). In the book, Lý Công Uẩn was said to be in fact from Quanzhou and went to Vietnam for trade (which of course meant that the official Vietnamese claim of him being born in a Buddhist pagoda in Vietnamese territory was a lie). Is it believable? It's hard to say. For one, genealogical books in China aren't very historical accurate, at least compared to "official history" books. However, East Asian "official history" books aren't very trustworthy when it comes to origins of founding emperors either — being the son of a god was clearly nonsense, and it's possible Lý Công Uẩn was ethnic Chinese and claimed to be ethnic Vietnamese, just like how Shi Jingtang (I use the example since his son Shi Chonggui is mentioned in the article) claimed to be Chinese when he was almost certainly a Shatuo. Secondly, Quanzhou in the 10th century (as well as the centuries after that) was a semi-major port for foreign traders, and the likelihood of people immigrating from that place is probably higher than the rest of China except for border regions. That said, what should we do here? There are two solutions: A) merge to Lý Thái Tổ, which seems more sensible considering how short this article is, and B) Keep and rename to Li Chun'an since Chinese individuals shouldn't use Vietnamese romanizations of Chinese characters. Timmyshin (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lý Thái Tổ. There's little to no verifiable information about this person. --Antigng (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an argument that any human being from over 1000 years ago for whom we have any reliable information about ought to be included on Wikipedia. But back to our formal notability guidelines, I think the combination of the cited Chinese and Vietnamese sources would be sufficient to establish notability. Deryck C. 10:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and do not merge, since we've established so far that he is likely the son of Li Song (politician) and also and likely the father of Lý Thái Tổ. The fact that reliable sources have described both uncertain claims would make it appropriate to have a standalone article about this person, since there's no compelling reason to merge one way rather than the other. Deryck C. 10:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any evidence this is a hoax. If it is real, a known government official from 1000 years ago whose son was an emperor and was posthumously granted the rank of king seems suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved the article to Li Chun'an. Apparently he was the son of Li Song (politician) (if this is to be believed), getting more interesting.... Timmyshin (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lý Thái Tổ. While the person would be, I think, otherwise notable enough for an article if he existed, it is not clear that if he existed that he was actually Lý Công Uẩn's father; at best, it is from a disputable source (genealogy) that was not even a dynastic official(ly invented) account. This possible account can be noted in the son's article (in a sentence or two). --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genealogy book is kind of suspect, allegedly compiled in the Ming dynasty but probably reedited in the late Qing dynasty and only recently re-discovered. However, it does fit the 11th-century claim that Lý Thái Tổ was of Fujianese extraction: [25]: "交趾...其後國人共立閩人李公蘊為主". The book Dream Pool Essays may not be a historical source, but considering the author Shen Kuo served in the Song dynasty imperial government (as did his father and grandfather) and he was only 1-2 generations after Lý Thái Tổ, there is likely some basis to this rumor. About the possibility of him being Li Song (politician)'s son: "His entire family was executed..." at the end of that article is likely inaccurate as well. History of Song [26]: "漢末，崧被誅。至是，其子璨自蘇州常熟縣令赴調". So at least 1 son named Li Can escaped that bloodbath, likely to Southern Tang. But according to Sushui Jiwen [27]: "諫議大夫李宗詠，晉侍中崧之孫也... 崧之遇禍，粲猶在繈褓，其母投之墻外，身隨以出，由是獨免" there are no other survivors besides Li Can. But this Li Can's story is even harder to believe in my opinion. Timmyshin (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While genealogy books are suspect, it does concur with the general agreement that Lý Thái Tổ's father was of Fujian extraction. The amount of sources from both sides seems credible enough on a superficial inspection. I do share Timmyshin's concern with some of the possible inaccurate statement in the article. However, it appears that the article is of decent length, and if person in question was later given the title Hiển Khánh vương by Lý Thái Tổ, as taken from the Vietnamese wiki page, then it seems that the subject is historically significant enough to have an article. The problem with merging is whether or not he was really Lý Thái Tổ's father, which is apparently both agreed upon and disputed by the Vietnamese sources, so thus the page should be kept separate.TTTAssasinator (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lý Thái Tổ honoring his father posthumously as "Hiển Khánh vương" (顯慶王, "King Hiển Khánh") is definitely to be believed, as it's mentioned in official historiography like Khâm định Việt sử Thông giám cương mục and Đại Việt sử lược [28], and I don't know why anyone would lie about that. But I don't think a posthumous title alone is enough to establish notability. Timmyshin (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment someone needs to add this topic to Vietnam-related AFD discussions. Timmyshin (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How believable is that genealogical book? I compared the birth/death dates of Li Song (politician) and Lý Thái Tổ found in that book with dates found in more reliable sources:

Header text	Genealogical book (李莊厝內李氏房譜)	Official history
Li Song (politician)	Born: 19 April 883 (唐中和三年癸卯三月初九)	Unknown, but 883 is believable
Li Song (politician)	Died: 10 November 948 (後漢乾祐元年十月念七)	12 December 948 (乾祐元年戊申十一月甲寅)
Lý Thái Tổ	Born: 18 February 974 (北宋雍熙元年正月十四)	8 March 974 (太平五年二月十七日)
Lý Thái Tổ	Died: 7 November 1028 (天聖六年戊辰十月十八)	31 March 1028 (戊辰順天十九年三月戊戌)

So none of the dates are accurate, even though the years all match up correctly (Actually 雍熙元年正月 is technically incorrect, it should be 太平興國九年正月, though considering the distance from Quanzhou and [[[Central Plains]], making mistakes like that during an era name change is probably not unusual). Timmyshin (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please give further comments on whether this should be Keep - Delete or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dysklyver 15:46, 20 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Searle[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NATH. South Nashua (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Unbelievable nomination. The Independent obit. confirms she held two world athletics records and competed at world-level championships. Received an OBE for services to athletics. Other coverage easily found: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. If that doesn't make her 'notable' the project is in real trouble. --Michig (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. A clear case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, sources listed by Michig above, shows this. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and WP:SNOWBALL keep. Yet another totally unnecessary nomination that fails WP:BEFORE. Searle meets the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. She was a noted British athlete and a promoter of human rights, specifically women's rights. gidonb (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indisputedly notable, a noted administrator as well as athlete. I’ve added in some text using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG clearly notable has held world athletics records.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously it's silly deletion season. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Phillips[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only mentions and WP:ROUTINE sources from local signings and coverage as one would expect for a local athlete per WP:SPORTBASIC. WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NHOCKEY with only a NCAA all-conference team, not an All-American team as required by NHOCKEY#4. Yosemiter (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a very good collegiate goalie, but still fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Coverage is routine sports reporting, so WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 15:45, 25 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 per G4. I've also salted it. Hut 8.5 09:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dae-yeol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A separate article is unnecessary. Fails WP:MUSICBIO XFhumu^Talk 13:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NMG. The article was literally deleted yesterday and then immediately recreated. Abdotorg (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. under WP:G4. MassiveYR ♠
Speedy delete and sprinkle some sodium chloride per WP:G4 as recreation of a previous AfD. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:50, 20 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. Meets WP:BAND criterion 2 as Billboard has listed on of its albums as reaching 20 on the charts and the (single?) "Scandroid" is listed by Billboard as having reached 5th position on the charts. Also meets criteria 5 (had 2 albums released on FiXT Music) and 6 (was created by Klayton and contained Varien at one point). With that said, the number of social media links on the article is concerning, however, it meets the criteria regardless. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scandroid[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about notability and not a !Vote
In regards to both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Wikipedia: Notability clearly states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." This means that even if it doesn't follow the general notability guideline on the page, you can use the subject-specific guideline to create the article. In this case we would be using Wikipedia: Notability (music). There are 12 different possible criteria for musicians and ensembles, Scandroid fits both criteria 5 and criteria 6. Both can be applied to Scandroid; therefore this deletion is unnecessary. The article simply needs to be edited to supply more information. I've already explained twice in the Scandroid Talk page why I believe they fit both criteria. cssc 14:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs) Plus criteria 2, which I have sourced to the best of my knowledge. --152.20.131.171 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] Checking criteria 2 right now, currently I have evidence that Scandroid has topped digital charts over and over on Amazon and iTunes. However I understand wiki guidelines require more. Scandroid was charted on Billboard as #5 in the USA for Top Dance/Electronic album on Dec 3rd 2016. This should warrant that criteria 2 is being met as well as criteria 5, and 6. cssc 14:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs) WP:BADCHARTS. Neither iTunes nor Amazon are charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] And Billboard? ^^^ Topped at #5 on Top/Dance Electronic. Also it's been added recently to the Scandroid article that they topped on Heartseekers Albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] That generated so much press for them though. Where are the feature-length articles about the duo? That's what GNG requires. The other criteria simply states that the subject may be notable if the criteria is met. It never claims that the subject is notable. The longest piece I've found in a RS is https://www.allmusic.com/artist/scandroid-mn0003455671/biography and that claims it's a solo project of Klayton's, so merge and redirect there at best. It also means that there are not two notable subjects in the band. Not even https://www.allmusic.com/album/scandroid-mw0002991393 is a review, just a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] There is no need to get snarky, remember you are suppose to be a neutral party. Is that not one of the rules? The project is currently a solo project yes, because Varien left to focus on Varien back in August of 2014. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that criteria 2 and 5 are still met. The project has topped charts on Billboard, and has produced two albums, three remix albums, two singles, with another album debut coming next week. If you want to get technical, even the notability guidelines state that something doesn't necessarily need to have fame, importance, or popularity. Those things simply add to popular opinion on the topic. cssc 16:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs) Sarcasm not snark. Neutrality is for the content in articles, not needed when discussion the lack of notability of a side-project for a band and whether its notable or not. Take the facts up with the author at AllMusic. GNG is not met and it must be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] You should still be neutral regardless, having a bias against a specific topic means that this deletion could be done out of bad faith. I don't want to believe that though. Anyways, this is going to continue to loop: GNG has two basic rules and this page meets the notability required for music as a subject specific category. The article is being rewritten and reworked in order to supply more information in regards to the topic at hand. That is all that there is. Deleting this article is not necessary as it still follows Wikipedia's MUSICBIO criteria. I understand that you, personally, would prefer more GNG and that will come with time. cssc 16:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Three clauses. One rule. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks for the rewrite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] Although you may not consider this subtantial, here are some stats: According to klayton.info/press/ there exists approximately 13 interviews regarding Scandroid, 38 features (both discussions on artists or features of a specific album/single), and around 16 reviews of numerous albums/singles. These are all approximations, as it is quite possible more exists. And with the release of Monochrome in one week there will be more press coverage. Many of these interviews, features, and reviews are independent of the subject, and are reliable based on their connection to their subsidaries. Yes they have to be weeded through, but you cannot justify deletion simply based off of this. Those music guidelines are put in place to help protect smaller artists from deletion too, that is why GNG does not always apply in regards to musicians and ensembles. Sometimes the only coverage that exists for smaller groups is social media, and local outreach. This is easily not the case here, as there have been individuals writing articles, interviews, and reviews of Scandroid for quite a while now. cssc 17:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) edit: reset for text wrap

Extended discussion about notability and not a !Vote

In regards to both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Wikipedia: Notability clearly states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."

This means that even if it doesn't follow the general notability guideline on the page, you can use the subject-specific guideline to create the article. In this case we would be using Wikipedia: Notability (music). There are 12 different possible criteria for musicians and ensembles, Scandroid fits both criteria 5 and criteria 6. Both can be applied to Scandroid; therefore this deletion is unnecessary. The article simply needs to be edited to supply more information. I've already explained twice in the Scandroid Talk page why I believe they fit both criteria. cssc 14:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs)

Plus criteria 2, which I have sourced to the best of my knowledge. --152.20.131.171 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking criteria 2 right now, currently I have evidence that Scandroid has topped digital charts over and over on Amazon and iTunes. However I understand wiki guidelines require more.

Scandroid was charted on Billboard as #5 in the USA for Top Dance/Electronic album on Dec 3rd 2016. This should warrant that criteria 2 is being met as well as criteria 5, and 6. cssc 14:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs)

WP:BADCHARTS. Neither iTunes nor Amazon are charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Billboard? ^^^ Topped at #5 on Top/Dance Electronic. Also it's been added recently to the Scandroid article that they topped on Heartseekers Albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That generated so much press for them though. Where are the feature-length articles about the duo? That's what GNG requires. The other criteria simply states that the subject may be notable if the criteria is met. It never claims that the subject is notable. The longest piece I've found in a RS is https://www.allmusic.com/artist/scandroid-mn0003455671/biography and that claims it's a solo project of Klayton's, so merge and redirect there at best. It also means that there are not two notable subjects in the band. Not even https://www.allmusic.com/album/scandroid-mw0002991393 is a review, just a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to get snarky, remember you are suppose to be a neutral party. Is that not one of the rules? The project is currently a solo project yes, because Varien left to focus on Varien back in August of 2014. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that criteria 2 and 5 are still met. The project has topped charts on Billboard, and has produced two albums, three remix albums, two singles, with another album debut coming next week. If you want to get technical, even the notability guidelines state that something doesn't necessarily need to have fame, importance, or popularity. Those things simply add to popular opinion on the topic. cssc 16:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casshums (talk • contribs)

Sarcasm not snark. Neutrality is for the content in articles, not needed when discussion the lack of notability of a side-project for a band and whether its notable or not. Take the facts up with the author at AllMusic. GNG is not met and it must be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should still be neutral regardless, having a bias against a specific topic means that this deletion could be done out of bad faith. I don't want to believe that though. Anyways, this is going to continue to loop: GNG has two basic rules and this page meets the notability required for music as a subject specific category. The article is being rewritten and reworked in order to supply more information in regards to the topic at hand. That is all that there is. Deleting this article is not necessary as it still follows Wikipedia's MUSICBIO criteria. I understand that you, personally, would prefer more GNG and that will come with time. cssc 16:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Three clauses. One rule.

Significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the subject.

Thanks for the rewrite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although you may not consider this subtantial, here are some stats: According to klayton.info/press/ there exists approximately 13 interviews regarding Scandroid, 38 features (both discussions on artists or features of a specific album/single), and around 16 reviews of numerous albums/singles. These are all approximations, as it is quite possible more exists. And with the release of Monochrome in one week there will be more press coverage. Many of these interviews, features, and reviews are independent of the subject, and are reliable based on their connection to their subsidaries. Yes they have to be weeded through, but you cannot justify deletion simply based off of this. Those music guidelines are put in place to help protect smaller artists from deletion too, that is why GNG does not always apply in regards to musicians and ensembles. Sometimes the only coverage that exists for smaller groups is social media, and local outreach. This is easily not the case here, as there have been individuals writing articles, interviews, and reviews of Scandroid for quite a while now. cssc 17:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) edit: reset for text wrap

Keep. A quick Google search found [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. The coverage isn't stellar but is adequate, and a #5 hit on a Billboard specialist chart is a decent claim to notability. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to Keep, I have been working on writing the entire article and rewriting parts of it to help meet the "GNG" demands. I still believe that, as the Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.". This article clearly met, and now even more so meets, the guidelines set out by Wikipedia:Notability (music) and deserves to remain up. I'm still going to continue to work on the article, but I wanted to make my opinion/statement clear (once again). cssc 16:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Kamboj[edit]

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

Not notable.Self promotion. Shyamsunder (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, no apparent notability. Seems to be a WP:SOAPBOX for the "Tricolor" thing. TJRC (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – main editor is User:Kambojoffice which looks like COI. Oculi (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also : Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kambojoffice. TJRC (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is not notable by any standard, including WP:BIO and WP:NLAWYER Ira Leviton (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply fails GNG Spiderone 22:25, 24 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. A Train^talk 09:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half Marriage (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS, hatnote is best in these circumstances, easier and quicker for readers. Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for a disambiguation page when there's only two pages with one of them being primary. Jiten^talk_contribs 14:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to base title. Not convinced that the film is the primary title, given that it's old, doesn't seem to be highly rated, [40] and doesn't seem to have won any awards. The recent Indian television show seems to have just as good a claim. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too early to determine if a primary topic change is required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your rationale. So far, Half Marriage has had 1350+ views in the past 30 days whereas Half Marriage (TV series) has racked up 500+ in just the past week. Since its a new show, I'm guessing its the influx of readers curious to know more about it. From the limited time the article has existed, its not possible to say whether it'll consistently get more views or not. Same could be said for Special:WhatLinksHere for the two pages. The first one has more articles linking to it since it's been around for longer. The second one could gain more as time passes or remain the same. It's best to wait for some time before making a decision regarding the primary topic in this case. Jiten^talk_contribs 21:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in looking at a primary topic change we would need to assess 'long-term significance' and it is much too early for that. No prejudice against a WP:RM at some point in the future, but too early to change the primary topic. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at relevant pageviews shows that there's no primary topic. The earliest Google News sources I find for the Indian TV series is from August 2017. [41] Using July 2015 to July 2017 as a date range, Half Marriage, about the 1929 film, averages 5 hits a day. [42] After the news of the TV series spreads in August 2017, the pageviews from that month to today goes up to 31 hits a day, [43] and to 50 hits a day in the last month. [44] The page on the TV series has averaged 55 hits a day since its creation.[45] Given the timing, the logical conclusion is not that an old film is somehow regaining significance and popularity, but that the new Indian TV series (which has several Indian RS reporting on it) is what the majority of viewers want. We should not be directing readers to the wrong page. There's no reason why we should be favouring an old Western film, over a modern Indian TV series, when there is no evidence that the film is the primary topic, especially when the majority of viewers actually want the TV series. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We will create it again if needed, now hadnode is better then it. (HindWiki (Love My India) • Talk to Hindustani ! 16:44, 23 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. Sandstein 10:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Selling News[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a trade magazine for multi-level marketing/pyramid scheme companies. Finding signal in the noise of the search results for this is actually quite difficult: MLM companies tend to encourage the creation of spam websites on the part of their "distributors". If you pore over the results long enough, you will find that there is no evidence of coverage, discussion, or citations that would meet WP:N or WP:NMAG. There are a number of Google Books hits but they are exclusively self-published claptrap. A Train^talk 12:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the fence about this. Clearly this is an entity that exists and is using its platform to disseminate information. Readers may turn to Wikipedia to determine whether this source is reliable. If it is at all possible to provide readers with an accurate picture of the biases and motivations of the publishers of that source, I feel that we have a duty to carry this out. However, I do understand that there is a signal-to-noise issue, so I would suggest moving it to draft space pending the discovery of usable sources. bd2412 T 16:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to the above "fence" position, being an anti-MLM watchdog organization isn't part of WP's mission. If there are not sufficient RS for this piece then there are not. If there are at some future date, then a new article, based entirely on those RS, can be created. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 04:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about we move it to draft space, and if it is not improved with the addition of reliable sources, it will automatically be deleted in due time. bd2412 T 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around (and pretty terrible) for seven years. It hasn't seen a major edit in two-and-a-half. If there were good sources out there they would have turned up by now, I think. A Train^talk 20:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to draft would test that. A page moved to draft space and then abandoned for six months is automatically deleted. If anyone wants to save it, they'll need to put in the work there. bd2412 T 21:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when we draftify something at AfD it's because someone is clamoring to work on the article and save it. Nobody has turned up to make a keep argument for this thing in nearly a week. The article's had just two unique editors in over two years. I personally don't get what is so special here to merit unusual measures. But if you want to move the article to draft space, BD, I'll withdraw the nom. A Train^talk 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even consider the measure unusual. I frequently close AfDs by moving them to draft if there is a poorly sourced but likely notable subject with an absence of clear consensus for keeping or deleting. bd2412 T 01:10, 25 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. bd2412 T 03:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of naval collaboration treaties signed by the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

Unclear scope; "naval collaboration" is a novel and unclear term for a treaty, and many of these treaties are peace treaties with at most some commercial or navigation clauses. The article claims that "These treaties were instrumental to establishment of the Ottoman Naval force.", but the Ottoman navy was established by the 15th century, and most of these treaties are later than that. All in all, this appears to be textbook WP:OR. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no such thing (so far as I can tell) called a naval collaboration treaty. There are treaties and there is naval collaboration, so the term itself is OR. Most of this list are red links (if they were linked at all) and unsourced. No one is writing about the subject so a list of NN treaties doesn't make sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think the purpose of creating this article is developing Wikipedia. but sources should improve . so i think it not be deleted Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply suspicious of User:Lifeisstudyinghard, a new account behaving oddly, very oddly, has made a series of slapdash kVotes at a random series of AfDs, including this one, . and then this purposeful feeling edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Al-Haidos (2nd nomination).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure OR, as detailed by Chris Troutman and Constantine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Naval treaties of the Ottoman Empire. In WP, OR tends to imply that the editor is guilty of invention. I am prepared to trust that the author has got sources, which are indeed cited, though with syntax errors. There will also be treaties relating to land borders and commercial treaties. My guess is that "naval collaboration" refers to an alliance against a common enemy. It may be that the full length articles will not be about one treaty but successive treaties or international relations generally between Ottoman Empire and respectively Venice, Ragusa, Great Britain, etc. Please note for England/GB/UK that there is no need to split these according to the title of the state as international relations come under the Royal Prerogative, and there was only one lot of relations between the English/British crown and a foreign state. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OR does not refer to the treaties themselves, but to the topic at hand, and the specific subset of treaties included therein by some unspecified criteria as related to it. As someone who is actually somewhat knowledgeable about Ottoman history, apart possibly from the treaties with France, most of them definitely do not have the sense of "an alliance against a common enemy", and again, most of them are not primarily naval treaties, merely treaties that include clauses on navigation and commerce. Constantine ✍ 16:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might be worthy of inclusion in the Ottoman Navy's article, somehow, but not as a stand-alone list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Bushranger. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Troutman. Or rename it. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 28 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) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Capri[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No significant roles, just bit parts in episodes and a movie role that, as the article itself makes clear, was of no consequence. Largoplazo (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish delete - I managed to find quite a few mostly passing mentions (e.g., WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, Encyclopedia of Motion Picture Sound, some... book), but really nothing with any depth to it. If someone could dig up just a few sources with in depth coverage, combined with the many passing mentions, there could probably be an article to be written. But I don't think the stuff I've found on it's own is enough to work with. GMG ^talk 12:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The fact that we have sources that prove he landed some roles is simply evidence that he's competent at his job. This isn't the Who's Who Site of Everyone Who Is Employable and Isn't Incompetent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Total failure to meet notability guidelines for actors. These exist because of the huge amount of routine coverage of people involved in notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 23 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga T. Weber[edit]

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

See Wikipedia is not a memorial. This article reads like an obituary. It fails to establish biographical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

How does it fail to establish notability? I have cited sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstitutionTown (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote the article including rewriting the lede to show her notability. I also added additional references. She is the creator of the United States Constitution Day and the reason that Louisville, Ohio celebrates it annually and is called "Constitution Town." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is clearly the problem is with how the article was originally written and we do WP:AGF since the editor is even new user. But this obviously passes WP:GNG, and now improved by Megalibrarygirl, thus passing the standard –Ammarpad (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constitution Day (United States). The subject is completely devoid of notability other than her proposal and advocacy of Constitution Day. She merits a mention, but not a detailed biography. This is classic WP:ONEEVENT. TJRC (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets GNG and per recent article improvements (thanks Megalibrarygirl!). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG after good improvement by Megalibrarygirl.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:55, 27 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 deleted the article because it appears to be a hoax created a child editor who considers himself a writer. The article suggested that this alleged 2020 film was based on one of his novels. Color me skeptical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaqzaade Returns[edit]

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

There's no search result about this film on the whole of web. HindWiki (Love My India) • Talk to Hindustani ! 10:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found three so-called teasers on YouTube which together had amassed a total of 13 views, and no content to suggest anything more than a proposal. This is far WP:TOOSOON, with no other evidence or news stories it will ever be made. Even a redirect to Ishaqzaade seems TOOSOON until there's something more than wishful thinking to support it. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 20 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morar, Gwalior district[edit]

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

It seems to be an inaccurate duplication of Morar Cantonment, with fictitious statistics - it should be ~~merged +~~ deleted. Batternut (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge. Important information about the cantonment is already available in Morar Cantonment. Information is also available in Gwalior#Morar Subcity. No need for duplicate articles, not to mention the factual inaccuracies in this article. I think the same thing should happen for Lashkar Gwalior. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge The information is not sourced and some of it is factually incorrect. Most of the information is already at Morar Cantonment (as said above).--DreamLinker (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment (as proposer) yes, better not to merge, as explained by others above. Batternut (talk) 19:36, 22 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Phelan[edit]

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

Self-created article, only references are two WP:UGC sites (previous reference included did not mention Phelan). A WP:BEFORE search does not find anything to suggest meeting WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 22 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. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dikeou Collection[edit]

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

Advertisement for obscure collection, written by a co-founder. Still unsourced ten years after the prior AfD discussion. Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references at all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Devon Dikeou. There are no references, but there are external links, such as [46] and [47]. The links describe the museum generally in the context of talking about Devon Dikeou. I don't know if any content needs to be moved; the 1-paragraph treatment at Devon Dikeou may be sufficient power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious PROMO in dire need of an editor to let the hot air out. However, even my very quick gNews search turned up ample support for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page needs some overhaul of course, of the WP:COI especially, but it meets notability. Just because it doesn't have references doesn't warrant a delete, and just because its original iteration was pretty flawed doesn't mean the page fails to meet criteria for GNG. At the very least I think the redirect idea above makes sense - deletion does not make sense at all though. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:37, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armin 2 afm[edit]

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

There's no indication of notability. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly fails GNG. He was born in 1365? That's amazing! Jip Orlando (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think they operate a different calendar to us as it automatically says he's 31. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable for English Wikipedia his native language is Farsi also he has article in Farsi Wikipedia Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:02, 22 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. A number of sources were identified, but there is fundamental disagreement about the quality of those sources, with plausible arguments made on both sides. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Packer[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the page are either not independent or are blogs/passing mentions. I could find no others after a search that meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly fails NHOCKEY, no evidence she meets the GNG. Ravenswing 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and plays in top American league. "The sources on the page are either not independent or are blogs/passing mentions." is not accurate. Hmlarson (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As has been explained to you a number of times already, the NWHL is certainly not a "top American league" and playing in it satisfies no notability criteria, past or present. Beyond that, I'll pose a question to you that likewise has been posed to you a number of times over: would you care to identify specific cites that you claim meet the GNG? Ravenswing 20:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: I will probably abstain from voting on this (currently towards a weak delete based on evidence provided) but I will second Ravenswing's request for naming the specific articles that meet GNG. Most are from Excelle Sports, a site dedicated to women's sports. While I cannot claim to know the reliability of that news source, if we were to consider it a good GNG-type source, only one use would count for GNG as Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability (bolding is directly from the guideline). In regards to SB Nation (Blueshirt Banter and The Ice Garden), we have already discussed this and why the site is questionable as a reliable source. They are typically blogs written for a very specific demographic and often just written as an opinion or a commentary on team news. The others are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ROUTINE coverage and stats pages. Yosemiter (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Yes, as noted towards the very end of the previous discussion in response to your note that you find SB Nation "a highly useful site for routine day-to-day info on specific teams" and "possibly a reliable source for background information" ... I wrote, "I frequent SB Nation sites/blogs also -- perhaps initially drawn to them by the frequency of their use as citations in other sports-related articles on Wikipedia... SB Nation Editorial Board and reach. 'Independence standards' are subjective (see also Fox News and RT as a reliable source), thanks for sharing your take." Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, a difference between sources sufficient to support assertions made in an article (for which primary sources are often quite acceptable) and sources meeting the standards required to support the notability of the subject. Certainly in the hockey Wikiproject we rely heavily on nhl.com, the Internet Hockey Database, hockey-reference.com and eliteprospects.com, without the slightest misimpression that any of those sites can contribute squat to notability. Ravenswing 22:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Ravenswing mentions, a source can be reliable for sourcing a bit of information while not providing evidence of notability. SB Nation just reposts blogs from blog sites, as such they don't support notability, sites like eliteprospects are just stats sites so don't show notability, but both might be reliable for something like a stat or who scored a goal etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Madison Packer is an alternate captain for one of the top women's ice hockey leagues, and is individually significant to women's ice hockey. I disagree that the sources cited are all blogs - women's ice hockey reporting is unfortunately somewhat segregated from 'ice hockey' reporting, but women's sports journalism is still independent sports journalism with notability and an audience. Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means explain which ones on the page are not blogs. The B in SB Nation literally stands for Blog. The issue isn't that they don't have an audience. It is that blogs don't meet the requirements of being a reliable source for notability on Wikipedia. Being notable on Wikipedia isn't about audience or popularity or being significant in a sport. It only comes from being reported on in reliable sources. And even if you included the two SB Nations blogs, they just mention her in passing, they don't go into depth about her as required. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SB Nation is a reliable source which has been cited by national sports media such as ESPN, and has on many occasions broken major stories themselves. Maybe the B originally stood for blog, but it's like SAT. The abbreviation has outlived its purpose, but there's too much inertia to change it. Which is why nobody calls it "Sports Blog Nation", nor have they for some time. Fails WP:NHOCKEY but passes WP:GNG on these mentions. Smartyllama (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable along with NWHL's salary troubles. Alaney2k (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an evaluation of the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Unfortunately, I am not seeing sources beyond the routine coverage that any minor league player would receive and since I don't hold GNG to a lower standard for women, there just is not enough in depth coverage from independent sources. There are better covered women and this is very borderline at best. However, if kept, I do not think it is obscenely bad as compared to other pages. Yosemiter (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had no trouble finding plenty of reliable sources for this player. She seems to have stepped up as a spokesperson for women's hockey. While I don't think the sources impress the other editors, I don't know if anything will. :-) Women's hockey seems to be of little interest to the men's hockey media. Alaney2k (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reliable source I see that provides significant coverage of the subject is Excelle Sports. A single source is not enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG coverage is routine.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and the coverage is routine sports reporting. The only non-routine coverage is the interview about the NWHL salary issues, but that would still make her notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E) and one source is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article about Packer was posted by Sporting News today [48]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fails WP:NHOCKEY but passes WP:GNG given in-depth coverage in reliable sources (e.g. Wisconsin State Journal, The Hockey Writers, the SB Nation sources, Sporting News link above). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is clear that this passes WP:GNG and there is coverage about her in many reliable sources. Tag is appropriate here for any concern but not deleting. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:51, 28 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 per consensus that there is an absence of evidence of notability. bd2412 T 02:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daxcad[edit]

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

Source search reveals little significant coverage of what appears to be non-notable software. Deprodded by page creator with dubious rationale. DrStrauss talk 10:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a specialized search on all industrial design journals I could find online, and absolutely nothing popped up. I also found two passing mentions in paywalled articles from 1987 ([49], [50]), giving DAXCAD as a typical example of CAD software, but that is well short of notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been marked for deletion due to non-notable software which was based on an internet search presumably. I can understand this to a point. However DAXCAD was commercial software long before the advent of search engines and the internet. As such its not surprising that there are no references to this software - however this does not take away from the fact that DAXCAD was a notable software package in the United Kingdom and other countries in the 1980's and early 90's. I was not aware that just because something was not the subject of an internet search - that its not eligible for Wikipedia. I and others have transferred our knowledge of a well known and well used CAD software application to Wikipedia to make it part of the great knowledge base. Most information about DAXCAD would have been on paper. Before the concept of the search engine this kind of information would have been in trade journals, trade shows and so on. It doesnt take away from the notability at the time. If the concept of notability has to be that the information must be part of a google search - then of course the article should be removed. If the aspect of notability is time based - in that DAXCAD was notable in 1989 - but is no longer because its not used - then this article offers a way to ensure that the information about the software is indexed and kept for relative posterity. I do understand that when the information is in peoples heads and there is no electronic version of the information then it can be difficult to find notable examples. For example - Prof. Stuart Bunt had written a paper on DAXCAD - called Cream of the CAD Packages in 1986 - but he wrote this on an Apricot computer than never transferred its information to the internet. I was able to contact Prof Blunt in 2007 and he gave me the original reference Cream of the CAD packages, Daxcad by Practical Technology. Apricot file 1.7, 2-4. Bunt, S. M. 1986 however the file is lost in the mists of time. You cannot do an internet search - but it does not detract from its existence in 1986. I leave it to the immeasurably superior minds of Wikipedia guardians to make the decision - but you are erasing information which is part of small corner of human history that is perhaps not that interesting to everyone - but is - in my opinion - notable nevertheless. Dave Robertson 09:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyrobertson (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davyrobertson: thanks for giving us what you have, but I have a few points.

its not surprising that there are no references to this software - however this does not take away from the fact that DAXCAD was a notable software package - You probably use "notable" in the usual meaning of the term, but on Wikipedia it has a very specific meaning, which is essentially "has been written about at length by reliable sources independent of the subject". So the lack of references is a lack of notability.

This being said, it is not necessary that such sources be accessible online. I am willing to accept your claim of an Apricot File article in 1986. However, if even you do not have access to it, it is not going to help a lot: we are not going to base any content on a source we cannot access! The requirement of sources is not a procedural quirk, it is how we strive to ensure Wikipedia articles are unbiased, non-speculative etc.

So basically the big question is: do you have access to that source (meaning you can read it)? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If WP:CSD#A7 covered software, this would have qualified. Alexius08 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is it a link in the chain of CAD technology, but it is currently supported software - most recently updated: June 29, 2014 "DaxCAD - Easy to Use CAD".. As for the article, it needs work. Somewhere there a Wiki statement that DELETION IS NOT (fixing). Pi314m (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the accusation of "Another example of corporate promotion/spam" (below),

a summary of Talk:OpenVMS/Archive 1#"Written like an advertisement"? Specifics requested @ 03:36, 21 June 2017 follows-

WP, unlike traditional encyclopedias, includes articles on commercial products
"And such articles must necessarily describe those products."
Some descriptions will necessarily ..be viewed as positive, i.e., reasons why one might consider buying the product.

There's more there.

My personal addition to the above-cited is: if the article has mistakes, please correct them. Even add negative statements, if true, such as slower than X, more complicated to use than Y, lacks feature Z, etc. Wiki is meant to be crowd-sourced. The article seems NPOV. Perhaps the one thing I see lacking is the scarcity of SourceForge-version specifics.

"Corporate promotion/spam" - does that apply to the dead as a door nail 1980s stuff, or to the SourceForge most-recent-update-2014 that's freely available for download. Pi314m (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m: the problem in that case is to demonstrate that this software is "notable", meaning it has been described by previously published reliable sources independent of the subject. If it is not, the problem is not fixable. Being a link in the chain of CAD technology certainly is not enough (CAD is notable and we have an article about it, but see WP:INHERITED). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another example of corporate promotion/spam in violation of WP:Promotion which also fails WP:V as well. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. I disagree with it being spam and I'd decline a db-A7. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:10, 28 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 List of Australian films of 2006. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 02:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebery 7470[edit]

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

eBay, reddit, and Amazon are patently unsuitable sources. The others given here appear to lack independence from the subject or its participants. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Australian films of 2006 as a valid search term – Not a single news article found (see here); nothing found in books from a quick scan. As such easily fails the general notability guideline. I'm happy to overturn this !vote if someone can find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as notability standards require, or alternatively indications that this film meets film-specific notability guidelines in addition to at least 3 paragraphs from good sources about the film. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Australian films of 2006.Amran khan1 (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this review here is from an independent reliable source used on rotten tomatoes. WP:FilmProject regards all Rotten Tomatoes reviewers as reliable sources. Not sure if the references in the article from filmbizzaro and the czech and russian sources are reliable so going for a weak keep unless someone finds more rs. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Australian films of 2006 as outlined above. Sources exist, but they're pretty weak. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of Australian films of 2006 per everyone else. Fails GNG and NFLIM. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:05, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamz Unlimited - Nagaland[edit]

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

Tiny organisation, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP and has not yet produced anything of note that would confer notability. Also, the article treads close to being WP:PROMO.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 26 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Andhra Pradesh[edit]

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

The lead section and infobox from the article Andhra Pradesh have been copied to make this article, without much emphasis on the regions as the article goes by. Does not merit a stand alone article as it stands now. Mark the train^Discuss 05:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A10 This is just a copy of part of another article --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete 100% copy/paste, and nothing new within it. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 23 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topological morphology descriptor[edit]

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

Notability not yet established; No secondary sources; New method and name first published in peer reviewed journal on 3 October (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12021-017-9341-1) ELEKHH^T 05:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is from a paper published in 2017 and so the topic has had no time develop the secondary independent sourcing needed for verification and notability. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, therefore no prejudice to re-creation if multiple independent RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Mark viking, with no prejudice against recreation if term becomes accepted by independent sources. It's fantastic to have scientists helping create articles about academic concepts on Wikipedia, but all in good time. I've flagged the page creator as having a likely WP:COI, but hope they won't be put off contributing elsewhere. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reasons. A lot of scientists coin new terms for their findings, but not all of these catch on, and the originator is a poor judge of its significance. If the term starts to be used by scientists other than the group that originated it, that would be the time. Agricolae (talk) 19:02, 22 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 WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Drill Therapy[edit]

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

Self-published theory (on CreateSpace). Almost all the references are on exposure therapy in general. Everything that's specific seems to be written by Rakesh Kumar and Bankey L. Dubey, separately or together. and they are the only people who have ever cited their work.

Accepted from AfC. presumably on the basis of the references that might seem impressive until one actually looks at them. But the promotional style of the draft should have indicated the true situation. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete that is a dead-on nomination. We have the self-published book and a couple of articles published in low-quality journals like this; the rest is WP:SYN/padding. This page is an effort to promote a psych treatment using WP. NOTYET. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 23 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 options boil down to "redirect, not yet notable" and "keep already notable" or "keep soon notable", but the argument for keeping is perhaps slightly more convincing as gongshow's sources have not been contested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lazer Team 2[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the refs are social media or trivial. Was a redirect and probably should still be a redirect. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is in desperate need of expanding once the film has come out especially with references, but I fail to agree that the film is not notable. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The teaser for the sequel is out and its a good time to have it up. Crazybob2014 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will be a LOT more to add once it comes out, which is only a month away. The article should stay up. —Jman98 20:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Lazer Team#Sequel until at least its release date. Not notable at the moment, but restoring the redirect to the subsection of its prequel until it gains notability post-release (which'll be in a month anyways) seems like a better idea than just deleting it. Booyahhayoob (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem is that much of the detail due to Rooster Teeth being an internet production company will come through nothing, but social media, which means this round o0f social media is still very relevant. In the coming weeks, more "legitimate" sources will cover the movie. At that point, I and no doubt several others will personally add details and sources.Daneonwayne (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lazer Team#Sequel. While the movie may very well be notable once it comes out, right now it is not notable. Per WP:TOOSOON, the supposition that a topic will be notable in the future is not sufficient to warrant an article existing now. -IagoQnsi (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to have been a fairly steady stream of coverage since this film was announced. [51][52][53][54] gongshow talk 17:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. Artw (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For now. In a month when we have more info we can revert and expand. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:39, 28 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. No agreement between "Keep" and "Merge", no agreement on whether the information on these natural features are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND, in light of the controversy over their original names, and no real agreement on a merge target if we were to do that. This close doesn't preclude further discussions occurring on talk pages regarding any potential merge, nor should it be taken to be giving any particular direction to the discussion at DYK (as DYK is DYK's business). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhai Hill[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all at issue in the same multi-hook DYK nomination and all have similar subject matter that I question in terms of its encyclopedic nature:

This article has become controversial at WP:DYK, where it is currently part of a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream. There has been extensive discussion about the propriety of the hook there and at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Using_the_.22N.22_word_multiple_times_in_a_hook. Those discussions surround the propriety of the words used in the nominated DYK hook. Eventually, I called into question the notability of the three related articles in the hook. To me, the articles appear to be "just Hills that all were renamed after a bit of controversy". I find little encyclopedic content in any of the three articles and thus question the notability. When I mentioned this an editor opened up a merge discussion at Talk:Canterbury,_New_Zealand#Proposed_merge, but I feel that is a bit of a back-door deletion. I think the articles should be given a formal WP:AFD review. Comments welcome. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography. These are not independently notable landforms; rather, their sole claim to notability comes from the decision of the Canterbury, New Zealand authorities to collectively rename them. Had any one of them been renamed individually, that would likely not even have been taken note of. bd2412 T 01:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three and merge into Canterbury, New Zealand. There is almost no content apart from the name dispute, which was addressed by the government as one issue; see the New Zealand Geographic Board Report. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' into Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography. As reviewer of the DYK, I was skeptical of having three articles about places that seem to be notable only because they were once offensively named and no longer are. The information would be useful as a historical anecdote and useful for geographers to understand old maps and references, but probably not ready for stand-alone articles. - Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GEOLAND, it states that named geographical features are notable and are able to have their own pages. Also under WP:GNG, it has sufficient sources for each to confirm notability. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:GEOLAND says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." What we have is a name and no information beyond statistics and coordinates. I don't think a controversy about either the name, the statistics or coordinates counts as information beyond the basic info. You need some additional encyclopedic information.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of tiny hills and creeks in the USA with articles, perhaps these are a bit short currently but I don't see why features in NZ should be treated different. There's definitely enough info beyond name/coordinates to justify keep Shanno n 14:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Canterbury, NZ, with no prejudice against recreating them if more content other than "it used to have a strange name" is found related to them directly. SnowFire (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three to New Zealand Geographic Board. I've had a look which district they are in, but as they fall across two different districts (Hurunui District for Tawhai Hill, and the other two are in Selwyn District), it is indeed the Canterbury Region that is common to those three. That said, in the same process of renaming geographic features, Darkies Creek, Darkies Terrace Track and Darkies Terrace were also renamed, and they are located on the West Coast. I can't see it being sensible that the Canterbury and West Coast articles separately discuss the renaming of these geographic features. I therefore suggest that the New Zealand Geographic Board, which managed the renaming process, is the better home for the merged articles, as it can also mention the West Coast Darkies. With regards to WP:BEFORE, I did check whether the three articles under discussion have an entry in Alexander Wyclif Reed's Place Names of New Zealand (I have the 2010 revision on my bookshelf), but they aren't in there. This would have supported GNG. Darkies Creek and Darkies Terrace are listed, but they aren't up for discussion here. Schwede 66 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to that as a merge target. The topic could also be mentioned in the article on the region, with reference to the board there. bd2412 T 02:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, BD2412. Schwede 66 02:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the word has a section on place names. We could add them there instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The LINZ reference in each of the articles establishes notability and the articles meet WP:GEOLAND. The fact that the locations have been renamed because the original names were considered offensive means that the articles can now be more substantial than the stubs they would otherwise have been. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I disagree that these articles meet the GNG per TonyTheTiger and Schwede66. But even if it does meet the GNG, that does not guarantee inclusion as a stand-alone article, and I think the benefits of a merge outweigh the benefits of multiple stubs. The GNG creates a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should have a stand-alone article; from the GNG: "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". These both claim notability due to a single event (a renaming) by decision of a singular group, since the articles provide nothing more than geographic data and two separate discussions of the same renaming, it seems like they are best discussed together in an article that provides the context for the renaming rather than having multiple stubs on geographic locations ostensibly notable only for having their name changed. From WP:N: "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page...Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Whether that page they be merged to is New Zealand Geographic Board or Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography, I'm ambivalent, but lean more towards NZ Geographic Board per Schwede66. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, geographical landmarks are significant unless there is no further information about them than statistics & geographical coordinates exist. So far, no one has made a reasonable effort to determine this. I don't expect someone to attempt to prove a negative, but there are standard references (these include: geological surveys, ecological surveys & standard references of history -- either national or local) that provide a base line one can make a judgment against. (I'll admit the discussion about their renaming doesn't quite meet this standard, & merging would be the best solution.) In conclusion, until some attempt in this direction is made, these articles should be kept. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the articles should be moved to draft space until they are improved by the addition of such material. Also, if you think merging would be the best solution, why not favor a merge over a straight keep? bd2412 T 19:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Because I'd prefer to see someone in favor of this article's deletion/move do the needed work. So far it appears to me that much of the sentiment in favor of delete/move is motivation out of distaste for a hateful word, rather than actual notability.
    As I thought about this AfC after posting my comment above, I realized that any repurposing of the content will require some careful thought. These three landmarks are evidence of the use of racist language, in particular a term I thought unique to us benighted Americans; so I find it interesting that it was in common use in New Zealand. And so far probably the only notable information in these articles. Moving the content to the article about the NZ Geo Board or about the Districts these landmarks are in would obscure that information, & lead a user of Wikipedia to erroneously conclude use said word was confined to the US. IMHO, needing to duplicate this information over two or more articles would indicate that an independent article is called for. Or maybe an article about these kind of landmarks in NZ. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - So far it appears to me that much of the sentiment in favor of delete/move is motivation out of distaste for a hateful word, rather than actual notability. That's a completely unfair characterization of the arguments. Firstly, your impression and argument show you didn't closely read the merge rationales. You said: there are standard references (these include: geological surveys, ecological surveys & standard references of history -- either national or local) that provide a base line one can make a judgment against. and just a few comments above Schwede66 (linking to WP:BEFORE) noted in their rationale that none of these places have an entry in the 2010 edition of Place Names of New Zealand. You say no one checked standard sources for whether there may be more information available but ignore a tertiary source on place names not even listing the names of these ones. If an academic book on the names of geographic features doesn't even consider them worth inclusion, arguments for suitability in an encyclopedia are suspect. Secondly, by your logic much of the sentiment in favor of keep is motivation out of an enjoyment of a hateful word. A characterization that, like yours of merge rationales, is completely unfounded especially considering not only my merge vote but numerous others have made arguments based on policy and guidelines. I quoted the GNG and N, TonyTheTiger quoted WP:GEOLAND, Schwede66 mentioned the lack of an inclusion in a tertiary source as undermining a GNG rationale. No one has said "delete because these are naughty words", the arguments are "being a naught word doesn't make something deserving of a separate article." WP:NOTCENSORED isn't a suicide pact, it doesn't mean we have to have an article for everything that's a naughty word just because it's a naughty word. More importantly, just because something passes the GNG does not mean it must be included, and having a number of articles on geographic locations only known for being renamed from a *snicker* naughty word *te-he* is not useful but merging them to a page with greater context would allow, to quote WP:N again, "the relationships between them [to] be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page"; a point you yourself recognize: These three landmarks are evidence of the use of racist language...IMHO, needing to duplicate this information over two or more articles would indicate that an independent article is called for. Or maybe an article about these kind of landmarks in NZ.. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: these geographical features are not independently notable per Schwede66 and Wugapodes above; I do not see that they have enough other notable information to meet WP:GEOLAND despite its invocation above; their failure to appear in Place Names of New Zealand is telling. Much of the text in the three articles is repetitive among them, and readers would be better served by having it all in one place. The closer can best determine which of the New Zealand articles already suggested will be the best target. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pūkio Stream: per WP:GEOLAND, there is enough relevant information in this scientific paper relating to the Nigger Stream/River and its geology etc (I have added a bit to the article)...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:06, 26 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Maryland shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS no non-routine coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably going to be kept because enough editors fall for sensationalism over recent events or may employ the "wait and see" tactic but when we access this incident on certainties, it is clear this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Almost none of the criteria for events can be appropriately accessed because this article was created far too soon, leaving me with the assumption that it fails until further analysis -- the kind that demonstrates long-term impact -- can be found. A small point as well, the shooting occurred in Maryland but the gunman also attacked a location in Delaware so the article title is not entirely correct.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it certainly didn't feel routine if you were anywhere near Baltimore, with the emergency alarms ringing on everybody's cell and a confusion of reports flying. Perhaps article creator edits form somewhere nearby. Nevertheless, the Baltimore Sun seems certain that it was that mundane horror: a volatile man with a gun who turned it on the people he worked with.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if someone wanted to add a sentence in Crime in Baltimore, maybe. Neutrality^talk 18:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is just a sentence describing a crime. Does the article convey that the crime had a lasting impact and deserves its own article per WP:NCRIME? No. DrStrauss talk 11:41, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Raburn[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Being a local transportation board member hardly qualifies one for a Wikipedia biography. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, board members of a local transportation authority don't qualify for inclusion into Wikipedia, unless they have done something significant. A quick search on Google only provides the one source mentioned in the article, no significant others, apart from facebook, et al. Nightfury 08:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After searching, I don't see sources that would rise to WP:BASIC. Frequently quoted, but never discussed. --joe decker ^talk 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a member of a transit authority board can occasionally get a person into WP:GNG if they can be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it — but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees an article just because he exists. And there's no evidence that he clears GNG, either. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Konner[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Of the given references, #2, IMDb, is not a reliable source and should be removed. #3, Twitter, is even worse. #1 is used in a highly misleading way because the one Emmy that Drunk History won had nothing to do with Konner's work - in all categories for which it was nominated where Konner himself is mentioned, it did not win. It's also not a secondary source but the Emmy website reporting on the Emmy. #4 is not independent coverage but a press release from his alma mater. #5 and #9 are interviews, Konner talking about himself, not independent coverage. #7 is IMDb again. That leaves the article with two reliable third-party sources, #6 and #8. Neither of those has more than a single sentence of content on Konner, basically just name-drops. Huon (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of reliable indepth coverage as shown by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is attached to numerous projects with other celebrities of note, he consistently works as a creator and director to numerous popular television programs, and he has been profiled on numerous websites. The noteworthy aspect of this person likely appeared limited because the original post used unapproved sources. However, the poor sources have been removed and appropriate and approved sources have been added. This allows readers to recognize that this is a person of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munchkin1616 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the subject is not yet notable; his achievements are not yet signficicant. WP:TOOSOON -- just run-of-the-mill producer / filmmaker. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 24 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. Clear consensus. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Lucha Tres[edit]

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

Non-notable segment of a wrestling show. Was returned from a redirect with the comment, "as notable as Uno and Dos". Which I actually agree with. However, NONE of them are notable in and of themselves. Give me 5 minutes, and all 3 will be included in this AfD. While the show is notable, breaking these three out is completely unnecessary. All 3 fail WP:GNG, and all sourcing is more focused on the series, rather than these episodes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Lucha Dos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Lucha 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of independent third party reliable sources covering these episodes, they may not be greatly refrenced but notability is not about sources presented but coverage that is out there. This is no different than an article on an episode of the Simpsons or another show where specific episodes are broken out. If it was not the Ultima Lucha season finale shows I would agree with deleting them. MPJ-DK 14:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not accusing MPJ-DK of lying, however the burden of proof lies with the editor including content for verifiability purposes. The argument that if the subjects weren't part of a particular series isn't too good either as notability isn't inherited. I'm just not seeing the sources, either via the article or my own searches. DrStrauss talk 17:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you are not accusing me of lying so that is a good thing. There is plenty of coverage by sources that are listed as reliable undet the pro wrestling project WP:PW so i disagree with your assessment of the available sources, without prejudice for said assessments of course. I agree with reliable sources not currently being well used in the articles though, but that is not a deletion argument. Not sure what you are trying to imply I said beyond that. I said there are some LU episodes I don't think are that notable and should not have stand alone articles - these aren't, so i don't get the "not inherited" comment at all?? MPJ-DK 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side note - you provided a link to "prove it" in regards to notability. But that relates to Verifiabiliy. In other words "prove that the content is true", which is a different argument and not really supporting the "notability" issue that lead to this AFD. MPJ-DK 18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the sources? DrStrauss talk 20:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive 4280 Google "Ultima Lucha" hits on sites deemed reliable sources by the pro wrestling project, you can check it against the project's Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources page. MPJ-DK 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Received. Still sparse on independent, in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Ghits aren't everything. DrStrauss talk 22:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now that we have moved thr point of "well I could not find any" the point becomes "they are not in depth"? I am not about to trawl through all the hits to find the number of articles that are ONLY about the various Ultima Luchas, wouldn't change your mind so I am just going to agree to disagree with you that this does not fall under the definition of "significant", i believe it does. MPJ-DK 16:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similar to MPJ, Ultima Lucha is the most important event of Lucha Underground. Also, there is a lot of reliable sources covering the subject. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MPJ-DK's link above is enough to prove this is received continually coverage over time, enough to pass WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:31, 24 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 mere existence of citations is not enough to pass WP:GNG. The references to which the citations point us must be in-depth, independent, and reliable. As pointed out by Ravenswing, none of the references cited in the article meet those criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Fritz-Ward[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the page are either not independent or are blogs/passing mentions. I could find no others after a search that meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fritz-Ward was an alternate captain for an NWHL franchise and has notability as an important player in women's ice hockey. I've updated article to include independent sources. Female player that meets WP:GNG which overrules WP:NHOCKEY, Fritz-Ward has notability (WP:GNG) as one of the first alternate captains for the NWHL.Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except none of the sources on the page meet WP:GNG. They are all passing mentions, or blogs, or from the league itself. The only one that might possibly be GNG worthy as I don't know the source well enough is Excelle sports, however, that article doesn't really talk about her, just that she left the team which is WP:ROUTINE coverage so doesn't meet the WP:GNG either. The meet the GNG the sources must go into significant depth about the player and be from an independent reliable source. -DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:NHOCKEY but there are enough citations provided to pass WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have notability. Alaney2k (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have hockey notability guidelines to avoid over inclusion. If someone is only known as a hockey player, they must meet hockey inclusion guidelines to be included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. They can pass GNG as well. That's what GNG exists for. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the sources available, I can't imagine how anyone can advocate keep beyond "ooo, citation links!" Half of the cites are from leagues for whom the subject played, and of course cannot count thereby to support notability. The Excelle Sports cite, even if it wasn't far too scanty and was a reliable source, is a quote from a press release, for pity's sake. The Collinsville Press cite comes from a small-town weekly serving two towns with a combined population of 28,000, and is of the sort that doesn't count towards notability either. The Yahoo sports cite is an admitted rehash of the theicegarden.com cite, which is routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Perhaps the keep proponents can come up with actual cites from quality media sources, but I haven't found any. Ravenswing 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "we have hockey notability guidelines to avoid over inclusion.", however from the lead of WP:NSPORTS there is: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Despite not having many credentials, the SB Nation story on her leaving the league due to the cutback in pay got reprinted in more than one place on top of the normal routine coverage, is just barely what I call GNG-worthy sources. However, it should be noted, that the sources for a male would likely end in a delete without argument. If it wasn't for how she left the league, she would not be notable. Yosemiter (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only 2 sources in the article that are independent reliable sources are Excelle Sports and Yahoo Sports. But these two stories are both about one event, her retirement. I was not able to find other significant coverage. So even if I give credit for these 2 relatively weak articles meeting the GNG criterion of "multiple" reliable independent sources, as a BLP the subject still fails WP:ONEEVENT. Rlendog (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG either. Coverage is routine sports reporting for a minor league hockey player. A minor league athlete retiring because of low pay is hardly unique--thousands do it every year. Even if you consider the articles on her quitting hockey to be significant, it still appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 15:43, 25 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 indication of GNG, certainly nothing of significance that requires a separate article, can be dealt with in a couple of sentences in the club article if necessary. Fenix down (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Monday Riot Supporters Group[edit]

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

Claims to be an officially recognized supporters' group of Ottawa Fury FC. Named similar to the historic Stony Monday Riot event. However, I can't find reliable sources that may assist in clearing this group over the WP:GNG or WP:ORG notability bar. Lourdes 02:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about the group and the only sources I found were primary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)*[reply]

KEEP added more sources, see no reason to start edit war. article is already growing naturally. User:Hugo1009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo1009 (talk • contribs) 05:02, October 12, 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hugo. All sources (except one) you have added are PRIMARY. The one Ottawa Sun source has one line on this fan club. The statements you have added now and in the past include the following:

"Stony Monday Riot is...with the mission of promoting the growth and support for Football hooliganism in the Region."
"Its a well known fact that all SMR members share a hatred for FC Edmonton and the City of Edmonton."
"...common songs of "We don't want your oil" and Edmonton is full of shite are common songs..."
"...we do not follow a particular ‘style’ beyond what our members bring...We operate on the donations of time and money of their members...We believe ‘members’ are the people who contribute their time"

May I request you need to read WP:COI and WP:Paid editing before you edit the article again? Please ask me for any assistance in understanding Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines. Thanks. Lourdes 07:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:21, 22 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 KBS2. Redirect to KBS2 until it passes/no longer is WP:TOOSOON. Not opposed to redirect being reverted (or article rewritten) & sources added once show airs and there are more sources available. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcide[edit]

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

Show slated for release in 2018, and as such a prime example of WP:TOOSOON. There is some coverage of this project, but in my view not enough to confer the necessary notability to maintain an article about an upcoming show. Note that moving this article to draft would also be acceptable. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KBS2 (the applicable network) until (and if) this passes from WP:TOOSOON into reality. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KBS2 as a plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:01, 27 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Pareja[edit]

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

Unable to locate any significant external coverage from reliable sources. Home Lander (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A successful real estate broker, but the potential sources seem to amount to a bunch of resumes and commercial promotion. I don't see any evidence of the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources that we require to establish notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom and Arxiloxos. Reads like a puff piece and has no indication of notability. Fails WP:NBIO. Curious that many of the substantive edits to this article appear to have been done by his wife. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable real estate agent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non–notable subject and article appears to be promotional. Lepricavark (talk) 20:40, 23 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.