< 3 October	5 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 redirect to Mike Paradinas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ease Up[edit]

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

Another article essentially dedicated to an infobox with (!) a track listing. However, there is no indication this passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG after a WP:BEFORE turned up no reviews or other reliable secondary coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mike Paradinas; plausible search term as a single by a notable artist. I'm not finding any significant coverage to support an individual article for this song. gongshow talk 03:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mike Paradinas. I agree with User:Gongshow that this is a good search term. I also did not find any significant coverage to support an individual article for this song. The article is a stub article. And the article will not be expanded due to the lack of sufficient reliable sources. Stub entries might be sufficient for a dictionary, but not an online encyclopedia where people want more substantial articles. If any additional information is found on the subject it probably won't be a substantial amount of information and it could be incorporated into the Mike Paradinas article. Knox490 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NC-17 album[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced,~~ No reference to reliable independent sources, fails all criteria at WP:NALBUM, contested prod WWGB (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draftspace until more coverage is available. Should be notable when it is released and gets reviewed in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. I agree with User:Atlantic306 who believes the article will be more notable when it is released and gets reviewed in reliable sources (The artist is of sufficient notability where the reliable sources will come). A considerable amount of work when into the article. It makes little sense to upset the people who made the article in good faith. Wikipedia needs to be an editor friendly wiki. Not a wiki that quickly vaporizes the work of its editors when it is not warranted to do so. Wikipedia is only as strong as its editor base. Attention needs to be paid to editor retention. Knox490 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Very reasonable to assume that this album will get wide coverage once it actually is released. Too soon right now. A Train^talk 23:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Pure speculation but this album will likely become notable upon release. Move to Draft:NC-17 (album) at best, the disambiguator should be embedded in brackets. Hayman30 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bestiality (disambiguation)[edit]

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

2DAB: replace with a hatnote at the primary topic —swpb^{T go beyond} 23:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a hatnote on each of the articles should more than cover the job of the disambiguation page. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 13:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6: "bestiality" is not mentioned at Bestial sign contrary to MOS:DABMENTION, and so the dab page only disambiguates one page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a hatnote will suffice. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MOSDAB states; Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term. Bestiality and Bestial don't seem to be related in this manner. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:09, 10 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. bd2412 T 17:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Parrett[edit]

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

Fails both GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The only non-trivial mention is in a local news source. The other refs are from unreliable sources or the author's own website. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP: GNG... Among many other appearances, author made recent appearance as guest author on Anthony Bourdain's television show, "Parts Unknown."

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/anthony-bourdain-finds-parts-unknown-in-montana/article_6588bb68-5fd7-5dca-bf84-9e42c1ade03c.html

Re: WP:AUTHOR Consider "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The author is widely cited by peers. Search google books for "aaron parrett" in closed quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana Reader (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found a couple of good reviews of Parrett's book The Translunar Narrative in the Western Tradition, in Isis (mentioned in the article) - "Aaron Parrett's Book .. adds to the literary analysis of the lunar narrative,..", and in Science Fiction Studies - "True, Parrett doesn’t thoroughly address his assumption that there is a “tradition” of translunar narratives. .. he has produced a book that moves onwards from Marjorie Nicholson’s study (Voyages to the Moon - added by coola:)) and becomes not just an update but a series of questions about a historical event." and WorldCat shows library holdings of around 125 (not just in US), so could just about have a seperate article on this book. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Looks to be enough supporting references to fit into the parameters of WP:AUTHOR. NerudaPoet (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:AUTHOR which indicates "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The author most certainly is widely cited by peers. A simple Google books search for "aaron parrett" confirms this matter. The very first footnote I clicked on was impressive. I agree with User:NerudaPoet who said: "Looks to be enough supporting references to fit into the parameters of WP:AUTHOR."Knox490 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:AUTHOR; author of multiple books with non trivial reviews. Here's a sample:

Moon-struck. Sawyer, Andy. Science Fiction Studies, Mar 01, 2006; Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 191-195. Reviews the book "The Translunar Narrative in the Western Tradition," by Aaron Parrett... more
The Translunar Narrative in the Western Tradition. Fayter, Paul. ISIS: Journal of the History of Science in Society, Sep 01, 2005; Vol. 96, No. 3, p. 421-422. Reviews the book "The Translunar Narrative in the Western Tradition," by Aaron Parrett... more

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Pub quiz. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quizzo[edit]

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

seems like just another pub quiz organisation or loose arrangement. not notable enough for a separate page - maybe worthy of a mention on pub quiz page but nothing more. no significant coverage, fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete + Redirect to Pub quiz. I don't see significant secondary coverage, just a few bars in the Eastern United States advertising this. There's no proof in the article/references that all the "Quizzo" groups are related. Redirect to discourage re-creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:15, 3 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)}}} 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant references, just one blog reference.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + Redirect to Pub quiz. I don't also don't see significant secondary coverage from reliable sources. The most impressive sounding source cited in the article was the "National Trivia Association". But when Googled the term "National Trivia Association", the search results were unimpressive. When you find search results like "Watch out for National Trivia Association, they $^%#$%$ me", it doesn't inspire confidence. In addition, there are 8 external links in the article and merely one source in the citation section for the article. And given the quality of the external links, this is definitely a red flag. Knox490 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Chuck gadgets. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Intersect (Chuck)[edit]

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

PROD was removed for reasons of WP:LONGTIME, but okay. The article is solely fiction cruft and doesn't seem to merit its own article. Fails WP:NOTWIKIA / WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, pure plot/OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lead paragraph and perhaps a few relevant summary details back to List of Chuck gadgets, which is apparently where the article originally was split from. Far (FAR!) too much detail; reads like a Wikia article (I actually checked Wikia to see if their article was copied here, and if you can believe it, their article is shorter). Written completely in-WP:UNIVERSE. CThomas³ (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also chuck/delete List of Chuck gadgets. Way, way, way too detailed. The Intersect is well (and succinctly) described in the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with everything Cthomas3 said. I just created a redirect and didn't add that much to the article. If there is a Wikia that has most but not all of this information I can correct that and give Wikipedia credit. Back in the day I was not aware Wikipedia was supposed to have this type of information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I copied the lede and removed anything only necessary in a separate article, but I couldn't even begin to select enough information to describe what this is or what needs to be said. At least what I copied was referenced.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Chuck gadgets. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 3 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)}}} 22:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cthomas3. Once merged, the relative amount and DUE of the content can be discussed through the regular editing process, which may end up making this look more like a redirect... but we really don't need to get that fine grained in an AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but scale it back in place. It is much more than a gadget, was mentioned in (almost?) every episode, ties in with almost every character, and has more traffic/searches than some of the other characters with articles. StrayBolt (talk) 21:45, 11 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 prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touch-type Read and Spell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 23:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – At a quick glance at sources, it seems there are many mentions about the program & most of them seem to be in dyslexia-related books. So it may be merged to Dyslexia#Management or Management of dyslexia. Tomorrow I will look at it properly. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To get knowledgeable inputs, I left a note regarding this AfD at user Doc James's page, which seem fine per WP:APPNOTE, as they are known for "expertise in the field" of medicine. Obviously they might or might not participate here. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 11 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 21:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross McCray[edit]

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

non notable. The inclusion on the various under-30 lists is really the equivalent of not yet notable The references are notices or PR DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV as per EDwardx No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:35, 11 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) 21:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chekkt[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From linkedin it looks like they go more by discovercloud than Chekkt (whose coverage dies in 2014). Not enough coverage under either name in a BEFORE. article itself is out of date (eg the CEO has moved onwards).Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and all aspects of WP:ORGCRIT. Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a start-up, with content describing its proposition and initial funding. I am not finding substantial coverage under either of its operating names. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleImages[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Also advertorial fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate web page, nor is it a platform for advertising. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. At most, I would not oppose redirecting to Yuri Arcurs. gongshow talk 03:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quikly[edit]

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

Has received some coverage, but the depth of coverage does not appear to be enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I created this article when my wife ran across the service, and I wanted to learn more. Once I did the research, it seemed squarely within the concept of WP to share what I learned.

As a consumer, I find the ability to turn up some info on the company to be worthwhile; as a marketing professional, I was interested in the concept they were trying. As a semi-inclusionist, I'm not sure what the benefit is in deleting the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Also advertorial fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate web page, nor is it a platform for advertising. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The quick Google scan comes up with things that look promising, but are not -- many are interviews, promote Quikly, or in one occasion, written by the CEO himself. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Audax Films[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate web page, nor is it a platform for advertising. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not finding better than passing mention for this firm (nor under Kortschak Films which may be a later name), and the article makes no claim beyond being a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angelbird[edit]

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

Per source searches, including custom searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Some of the company's products may be notable, but not finding much coverage about the company itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delet Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I agree that some of the products may be notable but there are no intellectually in-depth references on the company itself. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much about the products, little about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not wanting to pile on but not wanted it to be relisted. Ifnord (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pile on, I know, but for clearer consensus. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts & the Law[edit]

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

article summarizing a single lecture at a university. No sources for its notability DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no basis for notability, and I can find none in my own searches. Pretty much all I can find is an SSRN page for the lecture. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree that there are no sources that speak to the notability of the subject matter. The majority of the sourcing points to the text of the lecture itself. NerudaPoet (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Man, who would have guessed that a lecture about ghosts could be so dull? Even if this lecture was notable (no evidence of that) the tone and structure of this article are totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. The user that created this may be well-meaning but they need to get into the WP:MOS. A Train^talk 23:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure, fantastic legal theory. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails to establish notability with reliable sources. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Savvy[edit]

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

Completing (and relisting) the below nomination, which was not added to the log. On the merits, no opinion - but I do note that some of the references are Press Releases and similar pages indicative of a promotional article. The original rationale follows. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page is spam. Wikipedia is not a place to post promotional material for your services, products or to promote any other cause. Page has been written by employee/s of the organisation, which are discouraged from writing articles about their organization (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which they hold a vested interest.No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. Organisation has had no significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey 78 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably could have been a G11 - it's pure promotion, lacks notability and RS. It's only cited to one source that could be considered "independent". ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News Corp Australia and Seven News are both reliable sources. Wikipedia should also be a consumer friendly encyclopedia and services that give people their credit score for free and track your rating are important services. There are lot of consumers who get roped into getting high interest credit cards, expensive payday loans, high interest car loans and other unfavorable credit products due to not previously using tools that help them manage their credit profile. The banks, finance companies and payday loan companies have enough money. Let's not give them more. I have seen countless people buried under big debt loads when it was completely unnecessary. In addition, we live in an era of big data breeches like the one at Experian. More people need to monitor their credit. Wikipedia needn't put up unreasonable barriers to entry in terms of companies like Credit Savvy having an article about them. The article indicates: "Credit Savvy launched on 10 March 2015, the first anniversary of the introduction of comprehensive credit reporting in Australia - an overhaul of the credit reporting rules that allowed credit providers to add a lot more information to consumer credit reports." Credit/capital are very important components of modern economies and often small businesses startups find it a particularly challenging to get funded and have sufficient capital. Many small businesses use credit cards when cash flow is tight when they know the turnaround time in profits is quick. And small businesses are very much economic engines of growth. It is very important that people - especially business people - be able to monitor their credit with as much depth as possible and in a very timely manner. Modern societies need more companies like Credit Savvy as they protect consumers and oil the engines of commerce in the small business and startup sectors. So again, let's not put up unreasonable barriers in terms of companies like Credit Savvy being able to tell consumers about there products. So let's not delete the article. A far more sensible solution given the importance of companies like Credit Savvy is to trim the article of information that is merely supported by PR services such as the #3 footnote (PR Wire footnote).Knox490 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a similar discussion to the Afd we had at TransUnion CIBIL. The organization collecting credit information is notable. The website providing access to that information is not ... unless you can show something remarkable. These websites are common. An ILIKEIT argument is not sufficient. This article was written by a COI editor. Rhadow (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Keep" argument is essentially a variation on WP:ITSIMPORTANT but does mention two potential WP:RS: articles in News Corp Australia and Seven News. Unfortunately, one of those articles merely mentions the site in passing and the other has a short quote from one of the site's executives both in the context of longer articles. Neither source counts as "significant coverage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 04:30, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
Delete -- an unremarkable commercial product, does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NWEB. The content as it stands is strictly promotional, as in:

In addition, Credit Savvy hosts a Credit Knowledge Centre which has range of articles about managing credit and credit reporting in general, as well as the Credit Savvy Blog which includes some general hints and tips to maintaining a healthy credit score and credit reputation.^[1]

References

^ "Hello and Welcome". Credit Savvy Blog. Retrieved 2015-07-27.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game console launch games[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, Already have lists for games. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see why we need another list, you can mention the launch games in the main articles. Govvy (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as redundant - this is usually listed at each console's article and/or list of games articles, and usually much better done. (This ones been tagged for improvement for a decade.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, aside from the fact that the article contains severe violations of WP:HEADER for having wikilinks inside section headers. This looks like a case of WP:REDUNDANT. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a terribly useful article when the same information can be easily found in each individual console's game listings, which can be sorted by date. Also, it's just too cumbersome to navigate when compared with other game list articles. Bruzer Fox 02:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State Counsellor of Biafraland[edit]

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

non-notable office of a yet to be actualized state created for promotional reasons. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article fails WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GROUP. The article is plainly promotional. A quick look at the article creator's contributions (see here also) and where the article has been linked to, the promotional motive can be clearly seen. 89.15.98.75 (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to The Godfather Part II. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genco Abbandando[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

More Godfather-cruft. Like numerous others, this has no independent sources showing the character is notable. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but a rough consensus to redirect the article elsewhere. This discussion sprawled out all over the place and I think any attempt to find consensus here will involve some tea leaf reading. So if anyone wants to convince me I've made an error then I will happily hear them out.

There is very little desire to keep the article as it stands, so a straight "no consensus" close feels like buck-passing to me. Despite a typically thoughtful David Eppstein argument there is no consensus to outright delete. There are an equal number of arguments for redirecting to Teaching assistant and Teacher, and there is opposition to creating a disambig page.

As Timtempleton has already boldly started the work to accommodate a redirect landing site at Teacher#Assistant teachers, I am going to redirect the article there. This is an imperfect interpretation of the consensus but a discussion about changing the redirect target can continue at Talk:Assistant teacher, a more appropriate forum than AfD. A Train^talk 08:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant teacher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is either a trivial, self-evident definition (not encyclopedic), or it is a defined professional designation in which case it must have reliable references from the country in which the role is defined ... or be original research (also not encyclopedic). It has been tagged for references since 2009. Rhadow (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The topic is highly notable per the WP:GNG as entire books are written about the subject. As you only have to click the search links above to establish this, the nomination clearly fails the elementary ABC: WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Our editing policy is to improve such topics, not to delete them. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure this can be made to work as an article. The risk of Original Research (by way of synthesis) is too high. It might be better as a straight-up disambiguation page: "You may be looking for Teaching assistant, a role often taken by graduate students; Teaching assistants in the United Kingdom; the Foreign Language Assistant program in Germany; Assistant Language Teacher, a role taken by foreign nationals in Japan; or the academic rank of Assistant professor." XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate I agree with XOR'easter. Re-tooling the page to be a disambiguation + Wiktionary link is the best option here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very topic that this article covers, a job title that is not notable per se, is non-encyclopedic. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the beginnings of a perfectly good article, given the term has been used differently in different countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The examples chosen for this article seem to have been included primarily because of the similarity of name (the words "assistant" and "teacher" in some order) rather than because they have any close relation to each other than that similarity of naming would already suggest. We have no sources on the broader meaning that this purports to be about. And we already have specific articles on the individual subjects linked here. These articles (in their proper names) are not even easily-enough confused to need a disambiguation page or set-index article; at best we need hatnotes between Foreign Language Assistant and Assistant Language Teacher. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary-type definition. Could easily be merged into teacher. Reywas92^Talk 06:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to teacher. Not enough meat, and proximity to teacher info helps the context more. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at starting a section Teacher#Assistant teachers. It needs refs. Not sure if it will work as a pure disambiguation page, but it is a bit jumbled still. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to teacher. It's a recognised profession - AfD is not cleanup. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Paging users Xxanthippe, Andrew_Davidson, Agricola44, Necrothesp: any interest in merging as suggested by Timtempleton or refactoring into a disambig page as suggested by XOR'easter?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 19:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. XOR'easter suggestion seems appropriate. Agricola44 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also strongly disagree with the idea of a dab page: there are no qualifying entries, e.g. an assistant professor is never called an assistant teacher AFAIK. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and David Eppstein's persuasive comment. Ifnord (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This article is a WP:CFORK of Teaching assistant and should be merged into that article. PFAStudent (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into disambiguation page- there is content about this and lots of studies, however, they are currently split into separate articles, XOR'easter's suggestion is very sensible. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to teacher. There is content that's worth saving here and while there is a difference between a teacher and a teaching assistant there is little to suggest the role itself passes WP:NOPAGE. DrStrauss talk 22:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teaching assistant as a valid search term per WP:ATD-R, respect the smerge to Teacher per WP:ATD-M, and in that section incorporate some pieces of Teaching assistant – They are practically the same thing and can be incorporated together. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 23:50, 12 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 Forté Agent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forté Internet Software[edit]

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. The article seems to be original research as there is no references within the whole article WP:OR. Mostly seems to exist to promote the company WP:NOTADVERTISING. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not searched for references yet, but main source of notability for this company is its news reader Forté Agent. That should be an ideal redirect target. Although page in question has its own problems (only one somewhat RS reference, also posted on AfD), I´m sure I will be able to improve the target article with the help of PC Mag, NetworkWorld and other magazines and add some reliable sourced informations about this company. Pavlor (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/transfer, then Redirect into a section at Forté Agent, or vice versa. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content into Forté Agent, then redirect. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like the sensible option -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - anything useful into Forté Agent and redirect. -- Longhair\^talk 04:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Anthony (ice hockey)[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. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Player who toiled in the bottom-most rung of the semi-pro leagues, and I'd have been at a complete loss as to who could have possibly thought this nonentity qualified for a Wikipedia article ... until I checked. Ravenswing 20:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG, but let's be careful not to attack the page creator. Who created the article is irrelevant - all that matters is if the subject is notable. Which he's not. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding any evidence of notability. I agree with not attacking the page creator, although given this particular editor's contributions, many, many of which have landed in AfD and I am sure there are many more to come, I think the frustration is understandable. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's put it this way, and it's exactly this stark: at this point, almost 50% of the player-related ice hockey AfDs filed in the history of Wikipedia (since records were kept) are on pages he created ... with more, as you say, to come. He knowingly and willfully trampled over notability standards for many years, cleaning up his messes have caused irreparable damage in terms of angst and man-hours from dozens of editors that could've been spent building the encyclopedia and improving new articles, he earned three separate community bans from page moves and new page creation and redirect restoring, and two years after his nonsense was shut down we're *still* cleaning up after him. With respect to you both (for of course you're right), I'll blow off whatever steam it takes not to start using indef block-worthy language. Ravenswing 20:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unnotable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 10 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 18:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Kadian (actor)[edit]

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

A non notable person. A few times, article was deleted through A7. New accounts keep removing the speedy tag using "page curation", and "AWB"(!)

And no, the subject did not win any award. It was Vicky Kaushal, a completely different person. Requesting salting as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EnVerid Systems[edit]

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

Obvious spam created by an account trying to game the ACTRIAL requirements, likely in violation of the TOU. On top of that it utterly fails WP:N, all the sourcing is press releases excluded towards counting towards notability by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND. Other sourcing is typical industry press, which we usually count as a recycled press release lacking in intellectual independence. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Couldn't have expressed the arguments for deletion more cogently. All sources are industry-related and promotional; nothing found in Google searches reflecting any independent review of this company or its product. As one source states "The ultimate goal of the project is to overcome market hesitancy that stands in the way of widespread adoption, by creating a critical mass of success stories across different regions and building types." Wikipedia should not be used as part of that process. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spam masquerading as an article. All coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 20:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Elashry[edit]

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

Person does not appear to be notable per WP:BIO. References seem to indicate he may go by "Ahmed Maher" publicly, but is not the same person as Ahmed Maher (youth leader). Supposedly an activist and former worker in the Egyptian government, but no significant coverage that I can find. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Asmundson[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE type sources. De-prodded without a given reason by an IP. Low-level player below the current standards of WP:NHOCKEY (NCAA conference-only awards are not high enough for presumed notability). Yosemiter (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. I could not find anything that rises to the level of meeting GNG. Also fails WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Ravenswing 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Bala Sundari Mandir[edit]

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

Just another temple. Nothing to indicate notability. Fails general notability criteria. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are other temples dedicated to Maa Bala Sundari as well, including one in Himachal. This one claims to be near Dehradun (in Sudhowala). Unfortunately, I cannot find any references to it and while it may be important for the local community, it is possibly just one of the hundreds of thousands of temples in India. I am fine with deleting this.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to claim notability and failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even its existence is unproven. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to photosynthesis system. Normally, I would leave the history intact under the redirect, but there seems to be specific consensus here to delete and redirect, so that's what I'm going to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated fluorometer[edit]

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

This article was created as part of a long term campaign by a company to add links and images to Wikipedia. This particular type of product does not appear to be manufactured by anyone else so this is a fairly clear advertisement. It doesn't appear to meet GNG either. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are three manufacturers of these types of device, that I know of, and there are probably more. The article makes no reference to any particular manufacturer. If you want to measure Gamma Star, Rd and Cc then you need to use this technique. If you wish to change the title or rewrite any of any of the content then go ahead. I thought that was the way this worked. You find something that is incorrect, badly written or can be elaborated on and you jump in and re-write. If anyone has more experience of these devices than me, then please correct any inaccuracies. These devices are new to science, they will make major breakthroughs in our understanding of photosynthesis and help to improve crop yield. Globally this could be the most significant device on the planet. I kid you not. This could be the difference in us feeding the planet in the future as resources become more scarce, global temperatures rise and populations increase. Bill and Melinda Gates have just invested in this technology to help feed the planet. "Photosynthesis improvement" is a hot topic and these devices are going to help in that fight. these devices deserve a place on Wiki. Please let me know if it is deleted and I will try to find time to rewrite it under a different title or I will ask some researchers I know to contribute to an article, even though they wouldn't normally touch Wiki with a barge pole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.202.173 (talk • contribs)

Note that this IP is registered to the company concerned and judging by the speed of their response is presumably the article creator. SmartSE (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. There has clearly been a very concerted and long term effort by this company, ADC Bioscientific, to promote its products on Wikipedia. I remember this from years ago. There is no intention whatsoever to respect Wikipedia's policies or the decisions of its community. The IP comment above that basically amounts to "If this is deleted, I will just rewrite it under a different title" is indicative of what we're dealing with. There are some comments on the article's talk page from a scientist who identifies as specializing in this field (User:Felim 5). He has recommended deletion or at least merging into photosynthesis system which covers the relevant science. Looking over these articles, I concur and recommend delete and redirect to photosynthesis system. Though there is clearly notability associated with science involved, which is what the article's references are about, there just doesn't seem to be independent notability for this specific technique/product. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My life experience, as an old man, is that anyone who says "I kid you not" without providing any evidence is trying to kid me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed that sounds like a sensible solution to me. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh GScholar blurts out a few sources that use that term ([1] is the best one), so I do not think it is fair to label the term as promotional (COI issues notwithstanding).

Arguing for notability is hard though. I could be convinced if someone rewrote the article to demonstrate how different this is from other photosynthesis systems, but at the moment I see no real harm in a redirect (or merge if someone finds something to salvage). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology in literature[edit]

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

Extremely poorly sourced (WP:PRIMARY) mish-mash of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. WP:TNT candidate if ever I saw one. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because the subject isn't notable but because this is so bad it can't be fixed unless someone can blank it and write a stub. I've warned this editor before as have others about such problems. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has many technical flaws (I've tried to rectify a few in the early part) and stylistic shortcomings that make it hard to grasp the author's ideas. That's a shame, because there might be something useful here, if it could be properly organized and presented. The author might consider getting assistance in putting together an article on the subject, publishing it in the traditional print media, then bringing the topic back to Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page reads like a personal essay, and the subject is poorly defined. This page might be renamed to something like Politics and literature or Political ideologies in fiction, but one should use good secondary RS, specifically on this very general subject, rather than a list of arbitrary examples. Which secondary RS on such general subject exist? I can see only a couple. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an original essay, many of the subcomponents of which are WP:NOTABLE topics for articles — but the overall essay attempts to cobble together too many disparate things into a common theme. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jahan Rabii[edit]

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

Non-notable high school student. I found two mentions of his high school science projects, one from 2011, and one from 2013, and nothing else. Rockypedia (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete getting an award in a contest as a 14-year-old is not a sign of notability. He might be on track to meet academic notability, but is no where near having done so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 01:00, 10 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chadar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This appears to be a variant of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadhar but not a recreation. The latter was deleted some time ago. Sitush (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Chadar, spelled as per this article's title (but not its body text) can refer to a type of shawl and a form of marriage for widows. The only sources for it being a clan are unreliable etc and we do not usually have a disambig page when there are just two possibilities, ie: the putative Chadar (shawl) and Chadar (ceremony) articles. Nor, as a rule, do we mention non-notable caste-related subjects in disambig pages because they just create a shedload of problems. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, we already have Chadar trek, so the potential for a valid disambig page (3 or more articles about notable subjects) does exist. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a disambiguation is a possibility here. Capitals00 (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there's also "Chadar" an alternative spelling of Chador. – Uanfala 07:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll create a disambig page. This nomination can be considered withdrawn. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 12 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. Hut 8.5 21:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. de Silva[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played a single match with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in in 1991-92 thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per this discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 15:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - not only is the GNG clearly not met, but the CricInfo profile for a player of the same name (see here) doesn't even have them having played a first-class match (I can find no other K de Silva - and if the first initial isn't correct then, given the surname, good luck finding anything specific...). We know a name and an initial and have a single scorecard to go on. That isn't "significant coverage" in the form that we need to have. I would not be adverse, as always, for the article to be recreated if a series of sources which could show that WP:N is met could be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Ordinarily I would say merge into a list of Kandy cricket club players, that being the correct way to deal with raw statistical entries, but in this case the two major statistics aggregating sites disagree over whether this player was a first-class player. That means WP:V is problematic, to say nothing of notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the CA page because of the uncertainty created by the incomplete CI one. Even so, in answer to the incoherent nomination, I would point out that no one says SSG supersedes GNG. They are held to be equal per the introduction to WP:GNG itself which states unequivocally: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if 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 it is not excluded under the WP:NOT policy". "Either...or..." means what it says and WP:NSPORTS is one of the listed SSG. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the (recent) discussion linked to in the nomination (the one) suggests that that is not the case in respect to NSPORTS and, in particular, to its sub-criteria. It suggests that arguments "must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS". Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. So you are saying that "suggests" takes precedence over "states"; that a "suggestion" from a discussion involving perhaps a dozen people takes precedence over an unequivocal statement in the introduction to WP:GNG. This illustrates how ridiculously illogical the whole stupid WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument has become. Which part of "either...or..." do you not understand? Jack | ^{talk page} 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that the close of that discussion made clear that it should not be acceptable to simply cite compliance with a subguideline of NSPORTS. That's what the close says and seems to generally reflect the consensus of that discussion (which, if I recall correctly, I didn't take part in) - a discussion which was active, I think, for a fairly long period of time. Given that that's the most recent and wide ranging formal discussion (as far as I can tell) we should probably try and respect it. There's probably a need for various notability guidelines to be adjusted to reflect things like this.

And I'll point out once more that the FAQ of NSPORTS says that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them" (my emphasis). Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, two things. One is that if there is "probably a need for various notability guidelines to be adjusted to reflect things like this" you do not blithely assume that the guidelines will be changed and act as if it is a fait accompli – you work with the current guidelines until they have been changed and they currently state "either GNG or SNG" giving equal weight to both. Secondly, how the hell does an FAQ supersede the guideline itself? Who wrote the FAQ and within what consensus? The FAQ is wrong if it contradicts NSPORTS, not the other way around. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A list of supposedly "frequently asked questions" on a neutral encyclopedia is pointless as it assumes the ignorance of those involved and serves to answer questions in an absolute way which (people are claiming) have no absolute answer even though there are absolute notability criteria to hand (which people still decide to go against because WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Sadly it's an unwinnable war for anyone attempting to compile a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bobo . 20:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jack, I can't remember whether it was with Kandy YCC that we were having a debate all those years ago whether their games actually met first-class level. I have a vague recollection of it being with one specific team but I forget which one. If the inconsistency was with Kandy YCC then I am willing to accept that there is disagreement between sources. Bobo . 19:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club, Bobo. They became first-class c.1990 but are not regulars and have played relatively few matches, mostly KO tournament. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the badger. Sorry, memory not working. Cheers. Bobo . 06:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kandy Youth Cricket Club as valid search term – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. Also fails WP:BIO1E. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:55, 12 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. If the related articles are also suspicious, we should have AfDs for those so enough consensus can be reached. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Kanpur[edit]

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

Fails the first criterion of WP: GEOLAND, that is to say it has no mention on the websites of Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh, so in all probability isn't a legally recognized place.

Plus, the article is unreferenced, contains an enormous amount of Original Research, the content is largely false, as both sides of Kanpur come under Kanpur Municipal Corporation, Kanpur Nagar district and Kanpur division.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 11:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is totally inaccurate information. West Kanpur is a conjectural name and there is no use of "West Kanpur" as a term in sources. I don't even know how they got the population and literacy rate statistics. I wasn't able to find in the census database. I agree with SshibumXZ that this is Original Research and it should be deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found North Kanpur, East Kanpur and West Kanpur. I am not very sure if these are original research. If they are, I will be willing to support deletion as well.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cincinnati Time Store[edit]

The result was speedy keep. No reason for deletion given (WP:SKCRIT#1). – Joe (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Reversion of an undiscussed blanking and redirect. I thought we had a discussion process for deleting articles? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article quality is not a reason for deletion, notability is. This is a good topic, it should not be summarily removed. (The irony of someone calling themselves "Czar" choosing to remove an article on anarchism or mutualism does not go unnoticed!) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no rationale for deletion in the nomination nor any reason that this does not satisfy WP:GNG.--TM 10:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal plant conservation[edit]

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

Totally nonsensical rambling, untouched since 2011. Seems to be pushing a point as it was made by an SPA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: copyvio. DrStrauss talk 21:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Founder2be[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are mostly WP:SPIP, primary or unreliable. Rentier (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a microbusiness with "1-10" employees, according to Crunchbase. According to a Techcrunch article from 2013, they had been looking at a seed round of $300,000. Niche business of no wider significance, unsuitable for the encyclopedia. Rentier (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many of the given sources are primary or blogs, though there is also a TechCrunch item which I have added as a reference. I am not seeing anything which goes beyond start-up coverage and meets WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Founder2be is noteworthy because it was the first to apply online dating principles to finding not romantic, but business partners. Founder2be created this space and led to a host of other companies following in its foot steps and trying to do the same, for example, collabfinder, hatchi, founder dating, cofounderslab, etc. As the pioneer of this approach, it is worth documenting its history and sharing it with others. I propose to improve the article rather than delete it.

A number of reporters at different sources have independently written about Founder2be over the years. These sources include publications such as Forbes or Inc. (in addition to widely read tech publications such as TechCrunch, Mashable, TheNextWeb, etc.) Thus, the notability of Founder2be is further supported by the coverage of these multiple independent and international sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.84.176 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly detailed with the clear intent of serving the company, therefore not an suitable article per our criteria. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created by an WP:SPA [2] who didn't cared about anything other than creating this article. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." WP:CORPDEPTH. And the links that have been provided as sources are dead or promotional. Capitals00 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Persecution of Ahmadis#Pakistan. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Jhelum attacks[edit]

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

PROD was declined despite the fact the issues I brought up were obvious and apparent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the lack of long-term societal impact makes this ever so more apparent. There was no post-analysis; the "background" is actually fabricated by news reports written before this incident with no connection whatsoever. Remember, we treat news reports as primary sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the PROD with a specific recommendation that the content could be merged into a relevant parent article as an alternative to deletion. Taking a closer look at the two parent articles I suggested, it looks like a new subsection at Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Pakistan would be the best target for merging, since the article about Ahmadis in Pakistan has a very brief section on prosecution which links to the "Persecution" article, which goes into more detail.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of a merge, are we also keeping the 2010 sources and the article title as a redirect?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Pakistan or Ahmadiyya in Pakistan - per Patar Knight. I'm convinced by a BEFORE this should not be standalone (at least the night of the attacks), and I'm not certain that the arson attacks are more significant than the subsequent blasphemy charges.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Pakistan as Wikipedia is not newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS. 119.160.118.121 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:DIVERSE. See: The News, DAWN, Express Tribune, The Nation, Pakistan Today. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Icewhiz. Greenbörg (talk) 16:04, 11 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. Merely being referenced doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. Hut 8.5 21:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Baltzis[edit]

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

Not seeing sufficient independent coverage. Nearly all the sources are written by the subject in question (his CV, research gate, papers by him). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, thats not quite true. All sources from both hospitals, that newspapers article, it would not be published at all if its not true and written by someone else. Also, we have 12 sources in article now, so, if needed, i can add more. Subject is more then relevant. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering your relation to the subject in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None at all. I saw nice article in creation and added content and references. Its stupid to analyze in detail obscure subjects and delete quite normal, standard articles per a bit fake notability questions, while some other MASSIVE problems are not solved or answered at all, in far more notable and bigger articles. Also, just to point out, check other articles from Category:Diabetologists. At least half are in far worse condition then this one, witch now have 12 valid references for 12 sentences. People, i dont understand you really. Anyway, i really could not care less, i got entangled in this subject without any wish or intention, i am sure that this article have far more valid references then needed to prove notability then half of Wikipedia, so i really dont want to prove again and again something that's completely normal to me. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--As the one who initiated the discussion at the talk and asked the nom to take a look, echo nom.And I am smelling some PAID/COI over here.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I involved myself with this over copyright violation content, for which I was taken to the edit warring noticeboard. After the text--from the subject's personal website--was approved for use, I maintained similar reservations as those cited in this nomination. My take is that there's COI here, as there always is when resume-like bios are posted to Wikipedia. The only saving grace would be if the published research was considered important enough to have been copiously cited by others, but it doesn't help that most of the articles list multiple authors, which tends to dilute the individual's prominence. In all this I cede to Doc James, who knows this particular academic landscape better than do I. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles and papers have not been well cited by others [3]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not?? With pages and pages of content? Doctors are not movie stars, this is more then enough to point notability. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heads of clinics are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doctor of international career, everything is properly sourced.Svetisrdj (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From where you were canvassed ; s.t. you returned to cast a !vote after about an year!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From my point of view the subject is more then relevant, especially because there are 12 sources and there are dozens more that are available on internet. --Bandzimir (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)This user is the creator of the article, subject to this XFD.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing exeptional on him. No independent secondary coverage to support his notability. Scholarships, fellowships mentioned is commonplace for hundreds of thousands of scientists. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Chalk19 and .Now every head of a Diabetes Clinic in a hospital is not notable.It is not clear how the subject the notable.Lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and relevant, i dont think this one is for scrap. But it should be expanded anyway. --Axiomus (talk) 12:49, 3 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)}}} 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not notable. As stated above, nothing exceptional about him. -- Dane ^talk 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Dane. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about person who does not meet WP:GNG. A bunch of sources in the article, but none are WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus. I call shenanigans on the keep votes and counsel discounting them. Ifnord (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and Harvard University Health Services are certainly reliable sources. That being said, the promotional reading of the article should be rewritten to be encyclopedic and neutral. PFAStudent (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary sources do not prove notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:57, 12 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 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Women in Europe Blog[edit]

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

This article was previously proposed for deletion, deleted, and then restored on the request of an IP editor. Unfortunately, the notability concerns remain. Most of the coverage of the blog in independent sources consists of brief mentions rather than anything of significant depth. The awards that the blog has won do not appear to be particularly significant ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a list of awards, none are bluelinked, and most appear to be given to blogs by groups of bloggers; I can't see that these give much support to notability; they may not even be independent of subject. Worse, is the utter lack of evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. a gNews search comes up blank: [4]. Sources on page include two books, one Don't Bring Home a White Boy: And Other Notions that Keep Black is written by one of the bloggers who write this blog "“I started the Black Women in Europe (BWIE) blog after moving to Sweden because I wanted to connect with other black women in Europe." , the other book is a mere inclusion on a list "The women envisiaged utilising various social websites and blogs such as Facebook, BEWC, Black Women in Europe Blog, Afro European ...". In sum, this is mere PROMO by a fan or a blogger. Mere PROMO overstuffed with worthless sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wow. Former PROD in a different appearance of the article, then deleted. I don't imagine a clarification would be needed at WP:NOQUORUM, but is a first for me at least. Note to closing editor: In the discussion's current state, I would think that an full delete would be the best closure if this discussion attracts no more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, J947. What is it that's unusual here? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Former PRODs mean the article cannot be deleted under soft deletion, but this former PROD was a PROD that was in a former version of the article, and then the article got deleted due to that PROD, and then the article was restored to its same version, so I am assuming that the article is ineligible for soft deletion. That's what makes it unusual. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable blog fails WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Awachat[edit]

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

no apparent basis for notability. No evidence for importance of the rehabilitation centre he founded. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if he is a notable person or not, but he is a very popular writer as far as I know. I have met him several times. He might not remember me, but he is a very well known writer and social worker I would say. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was restore original redirect. Although this is technically an involved close, the consensus to restore the original redirect and take future action against potential spam is clear. So per WP:IAR I'm redirecting and requesting revdel on IRC. If it doesn't get done maybe Dlohcierekim could oblige? :P (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 22:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anex[edit]

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

Little indication from Google searches etc of any independent, reliable coverage. The article mainly consists of "Our story", failing WP:PROMO. It's a miracle that this has survived since 2006. DrStrauss talk 10:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: it appears that this version of the page is a hijacked redirect however I also propose the deletion of the redirect because it's from an implausible typo. DrStrauss talk 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2006 this was a redirect to Annexation - this is a clear WP:PROMO with no indication of notability.PRehse (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restored to original redirect Deletion is not the answer when a good version has been restoredDlohcierekim (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierkim: my view is that the redirect was of an implausible typo and is therefore not needed. DrStrauss talk 20:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Not given as deletion rationale. Discussion has been about the hijacked version. Interesting. Not a recently created redirect. Listing at WP:RfD would be the way to go. This is not the correct venue or discussion. Might want to withdraw here and list there.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I've updated my rationale, I think taking it to RfD would be unnecessary because AfD gets more input anyway. DrStrauss talk 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Welp, Timkatania has removed the redirect w/o an informative edit summary, thus adding another bit of unusual to the whole strange affair. I don't know why.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: I'm fine with keeping the redirect to be honest, I thought deletion might be a good idea because if the implausible misspelling was re-hijacked it would be best off in the new pages queue. DrStrauss talk 14:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

refocusing The original issue is the hijacked version of the page, "Polish brand Children strollers" and so forth. The contention is this is a non notable subject and a spamacious article. Those versions can be revdel'd. Had I been smart enough to do that after it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anex&oldid=802672114 tagged for CSD, we probably would not be here. The redirect version can be dealt with a RfD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: perhaps that's a better idea. You could always sysop-protect the redirect if the spam keeps being added. Redirect is probably the best way to go then. DrStrauss talk 22:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parbati Rai (dancer)[edit]

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

Google search reveals no independent (third-party) coverage. Does not satisfy creative notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of 3rd-party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also, see duplicate at Parbati Rai please... --Hsarrazin (talk on wd) 09:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. There is a duplicate of this article, Parbati Rai, which also needs deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (suggest speedy) purely as a duplicate of Parbati Rai. PK T(alk) 13:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inke[edit]

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

Fails to note WP:GNG within the article. Shaded0 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only non-paywalled source that isn't cited in the article that gives significant coverage is this. While the app is the primary topic of the article, I think the overall coverage it has received fails software notability standards. DrStrauss talk 14:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete confirms some prevalence and existence, but not notability. Capitals00 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Zenetzis[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPNOTE. Sources found on Zenetzis' work as a painter are mostly listings from auctions ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Mahbub Hussain[edit]

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

NN relation of several notable people. The article has only ever cited one source, a magazine with the article title, author, and page number missing. Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and Questia, by Bengali script and two transliterations of his name, found only one other reliable source that is more than an author or translator credit: a brief obituary that doesn't mention anything he accomplished. [5]

WP:BASIC requires multiple sources so that a neutral article can be written that doesn't simply repeat one person's point of view. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on authors, or translators, just because their names are on books. Enough people have to have written about the person for a full and balanced biographical article to be constructed. If the subject were notable, then he would have been written about, in depth, independently, in multiple sources. Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom statement. Altaf (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after 1 decade of death, the struggle of notability is apparent. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Asserting that sources exist while being mysterious about supplying them doesn't work well at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kraja (band)[edit]

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

I can find no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources about this band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I find several sources for them. Seem to have some notability within their field. BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would be interested to see the sources BabbaQ refers to because while a Google search for "Kraja" "band" reveals 363,000 hits, the only stuff in the first 10 pages that constitutes independent, reliable coverage is this and this, both of which don't give any indication of notability per band notability standards. DrStrauss talk 14:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still standing by the fact that article quality is irrelevant to notability. Clearly sources are available to be added at a Keep or No consensus closure.BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability in the article, and no secondary sources provided. BabbaQ has not provided links to the sources that he claims exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:07, 12 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. On the one hand, new sources have been added to the article since it was nominated. On the other hand, there's no clear consensus whether the available sources are sufficient or insufficient to establish notability. Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McCafferty (band)[edit]

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

Virtually no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources found in searches. Currently wholly unsourced. Was a redirect to the song of this name, which I can't understand why a band would be redirected to a song. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band with no viable third-party sources. Not that it matters in this discussion, but there's also next to nothing on their "official" site. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references have been added to the article including two magazine articles, alternative press source and a billboard reference that shows they have charted with a peak of 5 on the heatseekers chart, it also suggests they have charted on a different chart but does not display that info Atlantic306 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this band is a total joke Evangp (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources confirm charting on Billboard. Between this and the Allmusic bio there's just enough to pass. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per addition of sources confirming that the song made several charts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no sources found. Song didn't chart. Prod declined for no reason other than WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThis is a very notable song. It was released to celebrate the 50th anniversary of BBC and it was a hit sung by the top stars of the era such as Hildegard Knef, Enrico Macias, Sandra & Andres, Alice Babs, Demis Roussos and Vicky Leandros. The article may be stub. So what ? Most song articles are of this size. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedim Ardoğa: Notability is not inherent from notable people being involved. Also, "What about this other article" is not a valid argument either. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To correct the record, this song charted at number four in the Netherlands and number five in Greece. There's also this article, written in Dutch, that goes into some depth. I suspect more coverage exists but finding it online might prove challenging given the age of the song and where it had success. I'm not seeing an ideal merge target, either, so taking these findings into consideration I prefer to keep rather than delete. gongshow talk 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Gongshow's analysis and balancing of the considerations here, especially given the desire to avoid FUTON bias and other forms of systemic cultural bias on Wikipedia. I note GBooks produces a variety of mentions in snippets, including at least one in Turkish [6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst it's a dire song (and a total rip-off of "Those Were The Days") this article just about seems to meet WP:NSONGS. The references, though sparse, do seem to support notability in my view: - in 1972 it peaked at No 4 in the Dutch national charts (above Michael Jackson's Ben), thus meeting criterion 2 of NSONGS: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart."; it received detailed coverage in at least one website, and probably more could be found; it appears to have other cover versions made of it (though god knows why!). Whilst notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, it was written specifically about a world-reknowned institution, the BBC, and not a dead animal like Dead Skunk from the very same year (WP:WAX, I know). Neither should probably be played again, but both justify having a page here. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compa

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compa (2nd nomination)

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

The situation hasn't changed much since the last AfD, but the prose is significantly changed enough that this article does not qualify for WP:G4. There is one source that qualifies as in depth, reliable coverage [7]. Everything else included on the page is proof that the musician participated in some event. Might pass WP:MUSICBIO point 12 with this, but it doesn't seem quite substantial. menaechmi (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm, what about FACT, mixmag, Vice, XLR8R, and err... The Clitheroe Advertiser and Times? --Michig (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, like the one in factmag, aren't independent enough for notability concerns; that Mixmag isn't awful but it doesn't say a lot (it also has an awkward ad in the middle of the page - so I might have missed the second half on my first viewing); the Vice piece is a list of music he likes; XLR8R is a four sentence piece about a new release; and that Clitheroe Advertiser piece is wonderful, and I'm trying to figure out how you found it because even knowing the title of the article I have difficulty finding it. menaechmi (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Euronet Pakistan[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, written like an advertisement, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no content worth keeping even if this were a notable topic. It is not a notable stand-alone topic, it's a sub-division of Euronet Worldwide. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO, merge / redirect into main article. — fortunavelut luna 12:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The subject for this article is not notable enough to write about. In addition, the referencs are only interal sources. There are not any external sources on the subject to support this article. More research is needed in order to keep this article. As such, it is recommended to delete this article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very WP:PROMO and not notable. -- Dane ^talk 20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday Digital[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG written as WP:PROMO and lacks real WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopaedic cruft of little interest to anyone other than shareholders or seeders, del. per WP:PROMO, WP:NOTYELLOW. — fortunavelut luna 12:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adam Motor Company. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Boltoro[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- agree fails WP:RS and WP:GNG--EC Racing (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Adam Motor Company. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adam Motor Company; valid search term per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ousley[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO the sources do not prove notability and nothing more was found in a search. I analysed the 28 sources and none are sufficent to prove notability as per WP:GNG. 1: subject's company is affiliated to wework 2: passing mention 3: passing mention on a blog 4: interview in a blog 5: press release posted by the subject 6: press release posted by the subject 7: single line quote from the subject as publicist fro an album 8: press release posted by the subject 9: blog that has a copy paste of a press release posted by the subject 10: press release posted by the subject 11: alumni lisitng 12: doesn't mention subject 13: podcast by the subject as a contibutor 14: article written by the subject 15: credit on a photo taken by the subject 16: behind paywall but doesn't seem to concern the subject himself 17: passing mention and credit on a photo 18: doesn't mention the subject 19: doesn't mention the subject 20: passing mention in a local interest what's on website 21: photo credit in a blog 22: doesn't mention the subject 23: doesn't mention the subject 24: doesn't mention the subject 25: doesn't mention the subject 26: photo credit and quote from the subject 27: broken link 28: bio about the subject's father on his church's web site Domdeparis (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of meeting notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of persistence and depth of coverage in independent third-party reliable sources, insufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 12:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Hits[edit]

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

Non-notable film company fails WP:COMPANY lacks CORPDEPTH. FITINDIA 09:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, failure of WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND make this nothing more than unencyclopaedic, recycled-PR puffery. — fortunavelut luna 12:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inova Software[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources appear to be press releases or mentions of this company as a supplier for Biotechnology Innovation Organization. PGWG (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ordinary sales marketing press releases repurposed as news articles which is an instant factor of deletion, which is not what we consider significance. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R-Mean[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, no reliable secondary coverage or releases on notable labels. Tone is somewhat promotional. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 31 references and none meets WP:RS, which is weirdly impressive. Sources are either promotional, e.g., music downloads, PR Web, forum posts, record labels, etc. or not significant, e.g., album announcements, track listings, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Point Software[edit]

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

Non-notable game development studio, fails the requirements for WP:NCORP independent notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. gongshow talk 10:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability has been demonstrated. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Mandy[edit]

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

Prolific, but mostly uncredited bit actor. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the subject had a career spanning more than 20 years, across 140 films. As he was active mainly in the 1920s and 1930s, online sources can be hard to come by. Therefore, to counter systemic bias, there must be some sort of notability of having a profilic pre-WWII career. In other words, if this was a modern-day person, there would be plenty of articles, online and in the press, about someone with this number of films to their credit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and WP:RECENT. Information in article is verifiable (search ""Jerry Mundy" film" at Books) and useful. While his roles were certainly mostly minor, he is credited in a large number of movies he appeared in, contrary to the nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The early film industry has been extensively studied, and Jerry Mandy does not feature prominently in any sources that I'm able to find: Google Books preview. Instead, they rather confirm that Mandy had bit roles only; he's credited as "barber"; "Italian waiter"; "gangster"; etc. He would not be notable if he were an actor today, so I don't see an issue with recentism. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is at least 6 good articles on him at newspaper.com from about 1925 to 1930 with additional biographical information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones? All I see there are passing mentions, plus a 1944 ad for him and his wonder dog Pal. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete there are no reliable sources, and newspapers.com just gives us passing mentions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. His acting might not have caused huge biographies to be written about him but there is sufficient coverage in multiple sources that notability is established (examples: [8] [9] [10]). Regards So Why 08:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SoWhy and 78.26, sources seem to be available, just not easily retrievable online. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lugnuts, SoWhy, and ILIKEIT. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:09, 12 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. So Why 07:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zweihänder (RPG)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Could not find significant mentions in reliable sources. The cited sources are about the Kickstarter rather than the game itself, and aren't sufficiently significant/reliable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - removed from list of Video games-related deletion discussions, as it is not a video and has no relation to video games. Canterbury Tail talk 22:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I just realized this is a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zweihänder (game), so if any admins could Speedy Delete G4 this, that would be best. And also possibly administer a block for violating WP:COI._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment is not in accord with policy. In particular, it is not appropriate to speedy an article as G4 when the reason given for deletion by most contributors to the AfD was WP:CRYSTAL, and the request for speedy comes after the game has been published (so the article is no longer CRYSTAL). Newimpartial (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the previous AfD was five years ago, and the print edition of the game finally came out this year. The previous article really was CRYSTAL ... Newimpartial (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the new article is equally as non notable as it was before. It's still WP:TOOSOON so the article creator clearly got impatient and wanted to advertise it. He was notified a number of times about WP:COI guidelines, but still went ahead and made the article anyway. The page states, "you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on notability at this point, but you have correctly described what COI editors should do, if not simply rely on non-COI editors to create content using publicly-available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a video game, it is a tabletop role-playing game. The cited sources are Forbes.com, RPGGeek.com and Kickstarter, and is sufficiently significant. _{MforMoniker (TALK)} 17:35, 12 September 2017 (CT)

Delete - I know of this game, I do not own it but I have seen it and was aware of its development. That said I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The game is not really getting much attention even in RPG circles, and the number of independent articles on it are extremely low. The Forbes reference is just a general contributor piece that anyone can write, not actually written/endorsed/connected to Forbes (strangely Forbes is allowing more of this sort of stuff now.) The RPGGeek is just a link to a forum discussion and therefore not a RS. DriveThru is just an online store for the selling of RPG PDFs, anyone can get their game sold there. Yes it's sold quite a few copies, on DriveThru a Platinum level product has sold a lot of copies. As someone who spends a lot of time paying attention to the RPG industry I must say that it being in the Platinum bucket with only 457 other products is actually very impressive considering the other products also in that level, but I'm not sure if sales alone is a measure of notability. The others are primary sources. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and redirect to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. The redirect would deal with any promotional issues and would direct anyone looking for this retroclone to a proportional, DUE mention of it within the article on various versions of the game it is retrocloning. Then if the reliable mentions proliferate, it could be split back out in future. Newimpartial (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think it should be merged into Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, as it has no actual connection to WFRP. It is heavily inspired by it but has no official connection in any manner. It would be like merging Battlestar Galactica or Battle Beyond the Stars into the Star Wars article just because they're inspired by it. Similarly I don't believe a redirect could work either for the same reasons. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing is too thin for GNG. Per Canterbury Tail's argument, M&R is not suitable as this is a product inspired by the suggested merge target but not officially connected to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also note that the only editor to the article appears to have a strong connection to the subject as the only edits they've ever made on Wikipedia have been to promote the game. Canterbury Tail talk 13:31, 11 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 consensus for a particular action has emerged from this discussion. Matters regarding the article can continue to be discussed on its talk page, which has received a great deal of commentary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Church[edit]

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

Several editors have expressed concern in this ANI thread that the article at present is based exclusively on primary sources, either published by the church or its affiliates or written by members. There seems to be a growing number of editors who believe such primary sources are the only sources available to use in the article. Since GNG requires that a topic be covered sufficiently in reliable, independent sources, this seems like that would the article a fair candidate for deletion, so I'm nominating it. (I'm gonna say this up front because I'm almost certain someone will !vote "keep" based on this non-reason if I don't: please note that interviews and press releases, even when they are covered by external as interviews and press releases, are still primary sources.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I'm one of the people who commented on this topic at ANI. There are a lot of the church's own publications; and some publications by groups opposed to the church, but I have been unable to find neutral/secondary coverage. As a church with 5000 members that is a schism of a (still modestly sized) church, I don't feel it's inherently notable either. A merge to International Churches of Christ may be acceptable if the content issues can be solved. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I support deletion Qewr4231 (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. Denominations of this size virtually always qualify under GNG, and the only way I'll believe that this one doesn't is if you go through a detailed (and solid) explanation of your search for print sources and e-sources without finding them. However, the current content really isn't an encyclopedia article — a proper article would have virtually none of the self-sourced information appearing here, and it definitely wouldn't have the mix of low-level promotion and low-level criticism of the subject. We'd have to remove everything here in the process of writing a proper article, so we might as well make it a red link and encourage the writing of a totally new article. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article does have a good many references, even if a lot of them are blogs. Vorbee (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge: agree with Power~enwiki and nom. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update* The International Christian Church has 43/43 primary citations. The church founding members came from , The International Churches of Christ has a similar issue. ~81/87 are primary. Down the road when the Icc presumably reaches Icoc size, then what? Just a question to consider. I don't see a MERGE as reasonable. Their doctrine is mutually exclusive in nature so if this occured, that differentiation would HAVE to be made or there would be a potential riot with all the SPAs that would form. The 4 content issues are noted in the talk page fyi. I'd like to add, the [Kip McKean] page should also be monitored better. "Presumed accuracy" with monitoring of the hate blogs as citations is my thought. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search of 'MERCYworldwide" generated 28K Google responses and revealed a network of churches indicating that this is a significant Protestant denomination. I feel we need to treat these things like we do political parties: keep them all because this is information that our readers should have a reasonable expectation of being covered in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Yes, this is primary-source-based, but it is also of presumed accuracy. We need to tread very carefully with deletion, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but prune -- This is about a denomination, not a single local church, so that on normal outcomes, we would have an article. I agree it is a bad article and with far too much non-RS sources. Others want to merge it, but Where? If this were about a local church we could merge to denomination, but I do not see how there can be a merge target here! Merging back to the denomination from which it split would certainly not be right. Most of the "see also" section is no doubt inspired by a claim to be an authentic reflection of the early church, which amounts to OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune - The merge option suggested by some is impractical, this is a separate denomination, which group are you going to merge it into? It is notable, having a notable founder, Thomas McKean (who has his own Wikipage), and is spread out across a number of countries worldwide. My suggestion would be to limit @Qewr4231 (an ex-member of McKeans church) and @Coachbricewilliams (a current member of McKeans church) from editing it and hopefully the quality can improve from there. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite. New article should read as follows -"The ICC is a xtian sect with 5,500 members worldwide." -Roxy the dog. bark 09:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about a denomination not a local church and has 43 citations a rewrite is needed which can done through normal editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:43, 11 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 17:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BookIt.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The references fall into 3 classes: mere mentions in articles about travel; press releases; local news stories where the have the headquarters. None oft he three of these is a reliable source for notability, DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources do not meet WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH; just an unremarkable travel agency going about its business. Nothing stands out about this company, so it's a delete for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Dane ^talk 20:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Þráinn Hjálmarsson[edit]

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

The sources do not back up notability as per WP:COMPOSER they are passing mentions at best in the RS and a review in a blog Domdeparis (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhopal Pride March[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT. no lasting significance as per WP:EFFECT. no wider geographic notability as per WP:GEOSCOPE. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:EVENT. Lepricavark (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT, the latter of which states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Source examples include [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) My searches show significant coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources such as the Times of India, The New Indian Express, Hindustan Times and The Free Press Journal; to name a few. The coverage goes beyond the WP:ROUTINE coverage you may expect. Purely having not recieved coverage in the New York Times does not remove notability. AusLondonder (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, the sources mentioned in the above keep !votes should be included in the article if its kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:18, 11 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 deleted (to remove copyvio history) and redirected to Baxterwood Priory. bd2412 T 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haswell Grange[edit]

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

Not counting the amount of WP:IBID on the page, not enough references to satisfy WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment: I have repaired all instances of WP:IBID on the page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so nothing was actually built (based on the title i was going to add this afd to the architecture list, but no:)), as notibility is shaky without more sources it would be good if/when this is deleted that there was a good redirect target, oh, heres one - Baxterwood Priory:))Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually against redirecting to this article in particular as the proposed target doesn't even mention the monastery. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A grange is a farm belonging to a monastery. I do not know the subject or the sources, but they look reputable RS. It looks to me like a case of land given for monastic endowment, not as a place where a monastery was founded. It has the feel of someone trying to make more from the sources than they will support. However, I am not sure if the appropriate solution is to merge to the history section of a village or the foundation section of the priory that was built or both. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (changing from the above). This appears to be a COPY-VIO of VCH, Durham which is still probably in copyright. A redirect to Baxterwood Priory (perhaps with slight amendment) would also work. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 21:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bible University[edit]

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

An unaccredited school, a google search fails to return any reliable third-party sources for it's existence. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) as both a school and a business Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this article does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. The single source is it's own website and it is clearly not a reliable source. Even so the major content within the article is a list of degrees that are not notable and should be deleted per WP:NOTLIST. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No indication of size, number of students, how many are full time, or much else. It might easily be a degree mill for all I know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Peacock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY (simply playing for a national team, as the earlier AfD asserted, does not now and never has satisfied NHOCKEY), no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Unsourced BLP. Ravenswing 02:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 10 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 Withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNZ48[edit]

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

This is nothing but a sub-group of SNH48, not in itself notable. User:LMX97 keeps reverting without giving a reason (pretty disruptive already). Doesn't pass GNG, consists of basically nothing but an enormous list of names, not notable per NBAND. A redirect and a merger of some content is acceptable. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: LMX97 restored the redirect, would you be fine with closing it now, or do you want to let it run? ansh 666 07:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LMX97: I'd rather let it run in case others have things to add in.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General Datatech (GDT)[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small supplier of accesories for Cisco products. No apparent notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. The coverage provided and found through searches is predominantly routine announcements and partner awards, plus some local coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fishburners[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A co-working space is almost never notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. looks advertorial. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. -- Longhair\^talk 10:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could probably consider zapping Peter Davison (investor) as well should this article be deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 10:11, 11 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ogasawara Shōsai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All I can find about this subject appears to be WP mirrors. It has been banging around, spawning copies since it was created in 2014. Any history book that describes a Japanese person from 1615 would likely be written in Japanese. This article in the English version of WP should be deleted. If the Japanese version lives and is later sent to English with references -- and spelled the same way, fine. For now it has to go. Someone figured out how to generate hundreds or thousands of English articles from the Japanese version, but without references. The last time this article came up for AfD, an argument was that the Japanese WP had the same guy, but the name was spelled differently. That's not a reference. Rhadow (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale behind this AfD is hard to understand. We don't delete articles just because they have been spawning copies. We also don't delete them because they currently have no references (see WP:NRVE: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article"). The characterization of the previous AfD is also incorrect: as I and others agreed, there are reliable sources out there for the individual (even though not a lot on the net), and then there's the additional fact that this person has become a recurring character in many novels and historical accounts of the era, achieving fame in the popular imagination. No where did I argue it should be saved just because it has a Japanese Wikipedia article (and that was definitely not the main reason the article was saved). My previous argument stands (though, as anyone who reads it can see, I did consider the article from multiple angles and did not argue that it was an obvious keep). If referencing is an issue, I have now added the Kumamoto Prefecture reference, though more can be done. Michitaro (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 03:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable game. Only covered in two reviews [17][18], neither of which is enough to meet WP:GNG. Hakken (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reviews, though I don't know what counts as a reputable source for that. -- Sander (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage from reliable secondary sources. IGN review, GameSpot review, PC Gamer review, Computer Gaming World magazine review, GameSpy review, Jeuxvideo review, GameZone review, PC Games review, Electric Playground. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources presented above, many of which were at the MobyGames external link already in the article. What is up with all these big WP:BEFORE fails in the video game deletion discussions area lately? Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Kindelan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, which just states that she exists and sources the fact to one primary source and two glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, but must be properly sourced as passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion -- but this is not how you source a person as a notable journalist. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sure it's a stub, but stub articles are valid articles. Page is referenced in other pages on Wikipedia, so there is impact to the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about her, not just nominally verifiable as existing, to qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article — and simply having her name mentioned in other Wikipedia articles is not a notability criterion that automatically entitles a person to have a standalone biography either, if that article can't be expanded and properly sourced into something more substantive than "Katie Kindelan is a person who exists". Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I only looked through about the first half-dozen pages of results, but all of it appears to be content written by the person and not content written about the person. Besides that, incoming wikilinks don't determine notability, and the article as is currently stands it very close to WP:A7 territory. GMG^talk 13:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be reasonable. An assertion of notability is made in the stub article. It's nowhere near A7. You may certainly disagree that the subject is notable (and you do) that's fine. But A7?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite close. Articles that state simply John Doe is a person who does a job. are fairly regularly A7, and a relationship with a notable company is usually only sufficient to avoid A7 if they claim a central role (e.g., John Doe is the CEO of Notable Company, but usually not John Doe has worked for Notable Company for 20 years.). The reason this would likely avoid A7 is because they are media companies, and so it may be more likely that she has received coverage herself in the media. Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to have, and except for a case like WP:NPROF, writing a lot doesn't establish notability if your 9 to 5 job is to write; it just means you're a person who showed up to work and did your job. GMG ^talk 16:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not any coverage that I could find that is about her, including in databases. No prejudice against recreation when RS are available about her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Summer Music Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no indication on its notability or any sources. Shaded0 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to find sources, but there doesn't appear to be any significant independent coverage of this subject. Edgeweyes (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete. The only third-party mention I can find anywhere is this free listing on "summercamps.com" with no real information and a link to the program's now-defunct webpage. —Rutebega (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My google-fu needs work, evidently. The local paper ran a pretty detailed piece about its closing. Notability is still debatable. —Rutebega (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable and has been an important place for musicians in furthering their education and careers. I have done some work on it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Twist (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per expansion and new sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titica[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had an Angolan top 40 hit this year (no. 15 in fact), and has won a major award according to the BBC - hence notable according to the criteria. Malick78 (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except she does meet the guidelines. Strange comment, JPL. Malick78 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BBC coverage of an Angolan performer is pretty significant. Needs more sources, but for appears to have hit the top 40 in her nation and award-winning. Meets NMUSIC. (and Malick78, was your comment a "keep" !vote? Might want to label it as whatever you intended) Montanabw^(talk) 02:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is also covered internationally in non-English sources. I've added a few. GNG and NMUSIC. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Steel Mills[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subsidiary of a megacorporate group/s, and covered amply in refs: [19]. Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:INHERITORG which says 'No inherited notability'. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's WP:LISTED and has made headlines over the years. 1, 2, 3 & 4 -

Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails corp guidelines122.172.215.246 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Although listed, the references provided above fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are all based on company announcements and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Searching through Google hasn't yielded anything better than the references provided. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barmak Akram[edit]

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

Not enough notability. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:CREATIVE. Looks like the article is thin because he's not in US media. But his accomplishments collectively get him over the bar. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to S. K. Thoth. Sandstein 09:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kungha Drengsen[edit]

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

Former musician with a notable band, but no indication of independent notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S. K. Thoth. I found a pair of Allmusic reviews on this subject's works [20][21] but I'm not convinced that there's enough material to warrant a standalone article, so I'm leaning towards a redirect to his band's page. gongshow talk 04:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates and State-sponsored Terrorism[edit]

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

Fork created from the State sponsored terrorism article, not enough content here to justify a standalone article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Darkness Shines.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Twinn Connexion. Sandstein 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twinn Connexion (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. It is a rather curious and obscure piece of sunshine pop but without enough secondary sources, it does not make a case for notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Twinn Connexion. The article on the album only has primary references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twinn Connexion; not independently notable. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manatsu no Magic[edit]

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

A single that does not appear to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The sources on the page are limited to mentions of the song (product pages, discographies, etc) rather than actual coverage. It is, however, a Japanese song so notable coverage could exist in Japanese, and Xenobia4 (the article's creator) mentioned that they know of a source, but I remain skeptical.

I originally proposed this for deletion, which was contested by Xenobia4 with "Page follows wikipedia guidelines and has information from various confirmed sources, including charting information, arranged by famed Japanese arrangers and is of a well-known Japanese group". We discussed the notability of this article briefly in the article's talk page, in which Xenobia4 states that "charting on official charts is the main thing to have a wiki article", which I would contest. Sjrct (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User does not know Japanese and cannot confirm source, whereas a simple translation tool can be used to confirm. I can source to the aforementioned article if need be. However, the article already has substantial information to maintain a Wikipedia article. The sources being in Japanese should not be an issue, given the various wiki articles on Japanese artists. Lead and their releases are issued under an official label (Pony Canyon). The group has been in the public eye and on the charts for 15 years - there is more than enough information to support this. Xenobia4 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of confirming the sources in the article, I was saying that they are insufficient to merit inclusion. Would you mind linking the source you mentioned in the article's talk page? Sjrct (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I will link it later on this evening when I get on my home computer.Xenobia4 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their debut song is dicussed in this article from earlier this year when they released "Tokyo Fever" (http://ent.smt.docomo.ne.jp/article/289193), this blog from 2012 where people discuss Lead's debut to where they were at the time (http://d.hatena.ne.jp/idols-worship/20120731/1343735649) and here on Dwango, where they talk about Lead's 15th Anniversary as artists (https://news.dwango.jp/2017/07/31/142545/j-pop/). There is more than enough substantial information for "Manatsu no Magic" to warrant a wikipedia article, as do their later singles. Xenobia4 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 22:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I believe that being in the top 20 on the Oricon weekly chart is sufficient to meet WP:NSONG. However, I can't find a good reference to verify that claim. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per power~enwiki. Btw, I've found a source for the chart position: [22]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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