< 31 August	2 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alkis Markopouliotis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any of these guys on the team sheet on soccer way.com. That should also show who has started this season. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they fail the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -they fail on all criteria. →34kor34 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel-Eyed Judy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, notability of song not inherited from band. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for songs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails WP:NSONG, because it was not subject to multiple published works with independent sourcing. RetiredDuke 16:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galkot primary health centre[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. I could only find one news mention:[1]. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 22:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is just a directory listing, for promotional purposes, and that is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a reference to a USAID document. Roberttherambler (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a directory list. It doesn't represent significant coverage, and therefore does not contribute to notability. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 20:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does provide independent confirmation that the Centre exists. I think the article should be kept so that people have the opportunity to expand it. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we can find sources that demonstrate that the subject is notable, it shouldn't remain as an independent article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 19:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a WP:Run-of-the-mill health care center, doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines under WP:ORG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PohranicniStraze. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PohranicniStraze and precedent, we have tended to delete primary health care centers. There are just so many of these around the globe, and while they often are cited, they often end up on directories and local news stories. In no way is this facility notable. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiranjeevi Jetty[edit]

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

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Possible COI.

Per WP:POLITICIAN: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". —usernamekiran(talk) 21:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a functionary of a political party does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ward (snooker player)[edit]

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

No grounds whatsoever to suggest he is notable enough to warrant an article (as per WP:Notability (sports) ); has never been a professional (as currently defined by membership of the main tour; 'semi-pro' does not exist), and aside from qualifying for the Paul Hunter Classic as an amateur, has been active solely in the amateur game. If the guidelines for notability were to be satisfied here, every amateur player who has ever come through the pre-qualifying rounds - at the Paul Hunter Classic, the Gibraltar Open or any PTC event - would be deemed notable, which, put simply, is not the case. The article may well have been written by a friend of the person in question; you might like him, but that still doesn't qualify him here. He may earn a place on the main tour in the future, in which case - as things stand at the moment - he would then have an article, but until then, he shouldn't be here. Monty (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable snooker player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. A Guy into Books (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Salloum[edit]

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

Lack of evidence of notability in English. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:NOENG and WP:GNG, which state "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." and "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." respectively, there are very clear guidelines to this matter stating that an English source is - preferred yet not a MUST - to prove a subject's notability. Although there are English sources that could be added BUT they would definitely violate Wikipedia's guidelines as they promote a product of the subject. The author of this deletion discussion mentioned this concern using a WP:PROD earlier, which was "insufficient evidence in English of notability". I responded to him immediately on his Talk Page with my thoughts as they appear above; requesting further clarification on his concerns and suggested machine translation to be of any assistance. However, he has not, yet, gave an answer. Someone else, later, removed WP:PROD and immediately nominated the article for WP:SPEEDY with the "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." as a concern - although, as per WP:PROD guidelines, this is violation of the rules where the article should take its 7 days to be improved and by then can be either deleted or WP:PRODE is removed by an Administrator. Such an action had me improving the article immediately; canceling all my set plans. Hours later another Administrator declined the nomination. That Administrator, who declined the nomination, has definitely gone through the sources to verify whether WP:SPEEDY concerns are valid. If the article MUST have English evidence, would its non-English sources contradict that WP:SPEEDY concerns and pass patrolling? Which guidelines should we follow here to avoid such a waste of time?! Sincerely, --Aaehasa (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG explicitly states that sources do not have to be [...] written in English to qualify. Reliability and depth of sources look fine and have not been disputed. FourViolas (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since nominations usually and essentially still question the notability of the subject, although the "in English" part is flawed, kindly consider the following: 1) For WP:BASIC: Sources #1, #4 through #9 satisfy being "independent sources that have coverage on the subject in addition to his work." 2) For WP:ANYBIO: Sources #1, #4 through #9 may or may not satisfy "2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." 3) For WP:ECONOMIST: Sources #5, #6 and #9 satisfy "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." 4) For WP:AUTHOR: Sources #1, through #4, #7 and #8 satisfy "The person's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention". NOTE: none of the listed sources is passing mentions and sources #2 and #3 are related to the publications, by authorized publishers, of the subject. Thank you. --Aaehasa (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources with rough translation appear to be all right, invalid rationale. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason for deletion given was of course totally irrelevant, but there is no actual notability here. It's basically publicity for him, as are the references. DGG ( talk ) 12:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear that the original premise (lack of English-language sources) is an invalid reason to delete, and this has shaded the entire discussion. Hopefully, people can spend the next week examining sources and evaluating notability, without regard to the language of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person appears to be a notable subject. After sifting through a number of the references it can be easily seen that this person is influential in Kuwait and most likely seen as an authority on economics and finances for both government and private concerns in these areas. Also, I happened upon an English language source which seems to indicate this person is also influential in the Saudi Kingdom [2].

Normally in a source such as this I would discount a quoted statement as primary sourcing and not independent. However, his thoughts takes up almost one half of the article and focuses on Saudi concerns, ~~as well being~~ and he is chairman of the organization. This indicates relations with the Saudis and also indicates that he is important enough to be substantially quoted. So, the subject is notable by having made, and is still making a significant impact in his field, and he may be somewhat of an innovator.

I am using common sense, and recalling some SNG notability criteria. and not just relying on GNG. I am also taking into account Wikipedia's systematic bias that does occur from time to time. Regarding the references again, I am contrasting these with other AfD biography subjects that I have come across. This person demonstrates substantial and consistent contributions that are matters of substance, based on an academic background. In comparison, there are many others in the western world who do not consistently and substantially contribute in such a manner. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the subject's book, The Currency of Mount Serenity. Notability of either seems marginal, and Wikipedia clearly does not need two articles on these closely related topics. This is typical outcome for an author of just one book (which may or may not be notable, but books are generally more notable than one-time authors, so this seems like a safe bet). The article is almost entirely promotional, so a redirect is a way to go here, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment K.e.coffman 1) Don't you believe redirecting would marginalize other elements/facts brought by sources #9, #6, #5, #2, and #1? 2) Isn't redirecting the book's article to this one, instead, a better option since all sources of the book's article present in here? 3) Can you help specifying the article's element(s) or language that should be changed, improved, or removed to eliminate the "almost entirely promotional" impression – that you're raising – without affecting the essence extracted from sources? I am very up to work on – and would really appreciate – sufficient suggestions. --Aaehasa (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed "External links" as they may be disputed to be promotional. Thanks to K.e.coffman for raising that impression. --Aaehasa (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since it has been confirmed that the original premise (lack of English-language sources) is an invalid reason to delete, and this has shaded the entire discussion, I will replace my previous keep vote with another thorough rationale. Following the guidelines in this evaluation:

1) It is very obvious that all the sources pass WP:PROOF and WP:GNG because they are by respected newspapers that have WP articles about them.

2) Let's see whether the subject passes WP:BASIC. In sources #1 and #4 through #9, the subject received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable (as they passed WP:PROOF and WP:GNG), intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Although the depth of coverage is substantial – as speaking of originating new accounting techniques, or of an authored book hitting bestseller on the largest middle-east's online bookstore – multiple independent sources are already combined to demonstrate notability. I can see primary sources were used here – the author's website, another WP article about the book, which shows the book's official website, as well as sources #2, #3 for the published field-related articles on the subject's article – to support content in an article, which already has secondary sources to prove the notability of the subject. Accordingly, it is clear that the subject's passes WP:BASIC.

3) When we look at WP:ANYBIO, I cannot tell whether the subject has made a widely recognized contribution – the new accounting techniques, which had a wide publicity – that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. However, ..

4) I can definitely tell is that these accounting techniques make the person known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, and accordingly pass WP:ECONOMIST. Publicity of such techniques proves the reduction value of some kind of difficulties that have been talked about by the public, as of what is being said by sources.

5) It is given that this subject has published a single book as well as a series of field related articles. For a second let's forget about the new accounting techniques, does publishing a single book make someone notable? Of course not! We might argue depending on the type of book, depth, value, and theories, etc. presented. Everyone can publish a book, but a very few of them hit bestseller, and even fewer receive coverage by reliable sources. Based on that, the subject passes WP:AUTHOR because the subject's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention by hitting bestseller as well is getting coverage for that state.

6) The last thing to look at is the articles that are being published by Al-Qabas, Al-Jarida, and Elaph. I really do not believe such publishers would waste their ink, paper, and reputation by publishing thoughts and ideas of someone that isn't notable or recognized. I am not sure whether this makes the subject's eligible to pass WP:JOURNALIST.

In conclusion, by strictly following WP guidelines, I believe the subject is notable and the article should remain because it passes WP:PROOF, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ECONOMIST, and WP:AUTHOR. However, WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST can be considered too if we're lenient. Thank you. --Aaehasa (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 2nd century. Sandstein 13:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of January 17, 101[edit]

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

Only information not already in an existing list article is incorrect; this was a partial eclipse, it's described as total. Beyond that, no relevant content is included (or is likely to be found, this is pretty obscure). Tarl N. (discuss) 17:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 2nd century. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 2nd century. TJRC (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Shame on Darafsh for creating it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, it looks like he had misunderstood it to be a total eclipse when he created it.

Just curious, why not the redirect? In the event someone is looking for this specific eclipse, I'd rather have them be taken to the one Wikipedia page that discusses it. And if some other web page outside Wikipedia already links to this page, I'd rather they got something useful instead of a 404. TJRC (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: I am unaware of any SNG for eclipses (partial or total), which means WP:GNG is the sole factor. The subject makes no claim of general notability. As the article never made any claim of notability the original author should have never created it. I am generally opposed to redirects because I have found they are easily hijacked later on. Let the reader go to the article about eclipses and find the list. A redirect is more of a liability than a utility, in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy says that AfD is for deletion discussions, not content discussion, and that content discussions take place on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn event cited to a catalogue. No claim of significance and no SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IGNORINGATD and WP:REDIRECT. WP:RFD wouldn't delete this as a redirect, so why should AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue This has turned into a content dispute, with AfD volunteers claiming WP:OWN of the decisions of content contributors, or just out-and-out ignoring policy. Unscintillating (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list article -- The only substantive comment is that an eclipse occurred (one sentence). The rest merely defines "eclipse". The NASA site cited indicates a partial eclipse only. I suspect this is all deduced from astronomical computations. If we had actual comments about it in historical sources that could provide the article with some content, it might be worth keeping it. Currently it appears to be a useless stub, which is never likely to be expanded. The fact that we would not delete the redirect at RFD does not justify it being an article, as opposed to a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 My Voice#Promotion. Redirected to My Voice#Promotion (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persona (concert tour)[edit]

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

Delete per NTOUR. Reviews (a few) of individual shows do not add up to notability for the tour--which by any measure is small anyway: 9 shows for less than 40,000 people. It's just another promotional album tour. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Article should be redirected with history to either My_Voice#Promotion or Kim_Tae-yeon#2017–present:_My_Voice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Redirect and merge in 2-3 sentences about the number of shows and dates to Kim Tae-yeon#Concerts and tours. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why redirect instead of delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 17:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Persona" is a valuable search term, and the article contains valuable edit history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- tours are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. No need to keep the article history as its not needed in the artist's article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Voice#Promotion. A very plausible search term, so it would make sense to merge the information here (as little as it is) and redirect it to the album article that this tour is promoting. ℯ xplicit 02:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Promotionalism can be addressed by editing and "unencyclopedic" as framed here is too opinionated to override the GNG-grounded keep arguments Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Parent[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. PureRED (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi PureRED, it would be useful if you let us no why you believe the article doesn't meet WP:GNG ie. which of the sources cited are not suitable for WP:NBIO (and please not just a blanket "all of them":)), thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the purposes of this article, the only sources listed that are worthwhile are from the CBC, Macleans Magazine, PostCity, Globe and Mail, and the NY Daily News, and nearly all mention her in passing. The rest are all fairly blatant anti-GMO organizations. PureRED (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Passing mentions are still mentions, and blatant anti-GMO organizations are not necessarily unnoteworthy. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. possibly speedy delete G11 as promotionalism. A report of a non notable activist's series of minor interviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available online sources. Concerns with promotional tone stated in the !vote above can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment News sources publish accounts of clever teen-agers and children as a form of human interest stories. But WP is neither a newspaper nor a tabloid, and we are not obliged to include everything they include. The GNG sets forth what is needed to show something notable if the subjecect is encyclopediccontent in the first place. If , on the pother hand, it is not the sort of content that belongs in an encyclopedia , the GNG is irrelevant. The first question is whether it might belong here, and only then do we consider whether it is sufficiently notable/important/sourced. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this boils down to (1) how notable is the GMO / anti-GMO debate generally and (2) how prominent within that debate is Rachel Parent? For me there is enough. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG, per the impressive list of sources presented above by NA1000. Carrite (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article meets the notability criteria based on references brought up within deletion discussion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Waisome[edit]

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

college player with lack of notability. It appears he was a starter for the Seminoles, but does not appear to have any major points of notability at the college level. He went undrafted and did not make it onto an NFL roster Edday1051 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing general notability guideline per WikiOriginal-9. Nice research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal-9. Cbl62 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per WikiOriginal-9's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Malik Mujahid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No in-depth coverage found about him. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails to meet the guidelines. SahabAli wadia 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simple google search shows several news results from major news outlets (e.g. New Strait Times), google also shows him listed as Chairman of he Parliament of World Religions (a century old interfaith organization) Moulistas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:GNG. I see this and this right away. There is a lot more stuff in the searches.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete the two links in the above ivote both link to the same article. And this is in large part an interview - not considered an independent source for the purpose of verifying notability per WP:NRV. Mr. Mujahid has less than a one line mention here [13] and here [14]. Mujahid has authored articles in the Huffington Post [15], [16]; but these do not suffice as independent sources, and it is almost as easy to get published in the Huffington Post as writing a personal blog. He is covered in one article [[17], which is a college student newspaper [18], not really a reliable source for biographies on Wikipedia. This would be OK mixed with reliable sources, but there aren't any mainstream sources that cover Mujahid. As far as I can tell, significant independent coverage of this person is not available at this time. Fails GNG, BIO, BLP. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have cleaned up the article as best as I could as asked by Wikipedia tag from 2009. Reviewed and updated all 24 references. Hopefully the article is OK now? Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears in a video on fox news at the 4:15 mark http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/13/oreilly-obama-seems-disengaged-fighting-terrorism-needs-wise-fast 2601:244:4301:645E:496C:89E4:A88B:45BD (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be a respected commentator whose views are sought. He is the author of several commentary pieces for the "WorldPost" as well as giving his views on TV. Meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is quite well-known in the interfaith community, having served as a Chairman of the Parliament of World's Religions. See this Mthange (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reviewing available sources again, it seems this person is has made a significant and positive impact in the Muslim community on a large scale. Passes WP:BIO. Oh yeah, I changed my ivote from "delete" to "keep". Please notice that I struck out my former "delete" ivote. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in UK politics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Animals in UK politics

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

Looks like a joke page (Chief Tory-Botherer and Chief Julian Assange Sanity Saver are official government positions?) and/or WP:HOAX attempting to masquerade as a genuine article The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The details and references easiy convice me that this article is for real. In my opinion, this article is not a hoax, and while it is humorous, it is not a mere joke. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dthomsen8: You did see the "El Gato: Leader of the Oppawsition and Chief Tory-Botherer" entry didn't you? Plus if anything this whole article is a WP:C-P from the one and only source. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The Chief Mouser cats are notable, as the relevant articles make clear. The Time Out article is British humour, so we no evidence of significant coverage of the animals as a group, thus failing WP:GNG. We should probably have a category for animals employed by HMG, or something similar, but that would be a different discussion. Matt's talk 22:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dog kept in the White House by the President of the United States has often received extensive press coverage. Consider Fala (dog), part of FDR's Presidential public image, or Socks (cat) shown on United States presidential pets.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair comment, but the Presidential pets article is the equivalent of the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office article, which is not being challenged. Matt's talk 23:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The table format has to go even if the article is kept. I don't know if anything other than Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office is notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite to remove unsourced entries and nonsense and maybe rename. The post of Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office is notable but there is media coverage more generally about government cats that considers all cats employed by UK government departments.[19][20][21] (Although some form of rationalisation, even a merge to Chief Mouser, might be considered). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Assange cat and Philip Hammond's dogs from the article. Neither would meet any criteria based around UK government ownership or employment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula: What about the Jeremy Corbyn one? That one is clearly a hoax entry: "Oppawsition", I ask you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking this at face value - i.e. not as a gag - the fact is that there is insufficient evidence that animals in British topics is at all widely regarded as a topic. Delete as lacking encyclopedic value.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I wanted to go with keep here, but the topic itself looks to be WP:OR. There are some notable examples, but we would need more sources that treat "animals in UK politics" as a group (making for a notable list topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only the cat - this cat is notable enough. A Guy into Books (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like it would be perfectly valid with a rename to list of animals serving in official or unofficial positions in UK politics or something like that.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. As others have mentioned, there are some notable animals, and these seem to have their own articles already. The rest aren't notable, and the totality is trivia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This belongs in icanhascheezburger.com, not Wiki. A humourous article in Time Out is not WP:RS. The article could be expanded to include every animal ever owned by a notable UK politician, including Ken Livingstone's newts, making it WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Notable animals already have their own articles.

(The article fails to mention Catmando, a party leader, and H'Angus the Monkey, who won an election. I do not propose to add them.) Narky Blert (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non encyclopedic collection of trivia; fail WP:NLIST. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Housejoy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Intro reads as The company is based out of Bangalore and operates in Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Gurgaon, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Pune and Chandigarh.' The coverage are only for the funding information, not for why a company is notable. Investment by Amazon, doesn't makes a vanity notable. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this user has a history of adding external links, talk page is full of discussion of his multiple failed attempts to create Housejoy. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the 2nd nomination and the previous one closed as Keep so I was expecting to see enough sources to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately, none of the sources listed meet the criteria - they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The references are either relying almost exclusively on quotations from company sources and/or personnel, or are run of the mill business and funding announcements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housejoy participants and closer: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), M.Nishant (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), KGirlTrucker81 (talk · contribs), and Davey2010 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AFD - This "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia" is infact a well sourced article that is backed up by independent and reliable sources and most certainly meets WP:GNG, In regards to "Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia." - That may or may not be the case however the article is written in a neutral way and as I said is backed up by independent and reliable sources so at present I'm not seeing any valid reason to delete and WP:IDHT is not a valid reason. –Davey2010^Talk 13:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Davey2010, can you please point to two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? There's a difference between "reliable independent sources" and "intellectually independent references" - a reliable source will still be regarded as reliable if they successfully reproduce an interview with the CEO, for example, but that still wouldn't be acceptable as a source for establishing notability. The sources included in this article (and the Further Reading) section are interviews with the CEO and company announcments. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is a pure directory entry--because there is nothing else to report that wouldn't be considered promotion. When a subject reaches that point, there's no reason to have it in an encyclopedia , The entire concept of notability relies on their being encyclopedic information in the first place. The articles listed demonstrate this-they too are mostly directory information. Material only about finding doe not meet the GNG. And the only re I cna see that is more than that, Business Standard News, is a straight press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing else to report that wouldn't be considered promotion – I have provided negative coverage of the company below. The sources say "There's serious trouble brewing up within the house of Bangalore startup Housejoy" and calls Homejoy a "home services mess" that has provided a poor customer experience.
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm with DGG on this one. Legacypac (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gosh, Dhurba (2017-05-19). "A joyless house? Housejoy co-founders exit own startup post board decision". Moneycontrol.com. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The article notes:
  There’s serious trouble brewing up within the house of Bangalore startup Housejoy. Co-founders Arjun Kumar and Sunil Goel have allegedly quit the company, through a board executed decision leaving a professional CEO at the helm.
  Founded in 2014 by Kumar and Goel, the company has raised about USD 27 million so far from investors such as Matrix Partners and Amazon India.
  The board allegedly forced the founders Kumar and Goel to quit in November 2016 to create a single point of decision making in the hands of professional CEO Saran Chatterjee, at least three people familiar with the development told Moneycontrol.
  The company claims to service over 4,000 orders a day and competes with bigger rival UrbanClap in the home services space. The company offers doorstep services such as plumbing, carpentry, salon, beauty, electrical repairs and so on.
  Within a year of operation, the company had expanded its operations to 12 cities.
  It recently rolled back services from 7 of these 12 cities to focus on 5 of its biggest markets – Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, and Hyderabad. The startup also cut at least 50 percent of its workforce, mainly because of the roll back.
  This article provides very negative coverage ("There's serious trouble brewing up within the house of Bangalore startup Housejoy") and is clearly not a promotional source.
2. Velayanikal, Malavika (2015-12-15). "Will $23m in funding help Housejoy resolve its home services mess?". Tech in Asia. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The article notes:
  Housejoy has grown at breakneck pace since its launch in January this year, partnering with more than 10,000 service providers across 11 cities. That’s exciting for investors, but how does one ensure a consistent quality of service from so many partners in such a large, diverse land?
  Housejoy CEO Saran Chatterjee admitted to Tech in Asia in an interview for yesterday’s article on poor customer experience that it’s a Catch-22 situation: “The [services] market is highly unorganized. Their training is not standardized. While we have an onboarding process, we do see some problems.”
  The problem is compounded in a business that involves home visits by strangers, because there’s a looming security issue if the onboarding is not foolproof. Ask Uber about the humongous problems that arose in the on-demand cabs space in India after a convicted rapist became a driver. Housejoy is aware of the danger because it tied up with Bangalore-based background verification company BetterPlace just a couple of weeks ago. But it makes me shudder to think whether the unknown cleaners who visited my home earlier had passed any credible background checks.
  An article saying Housejoy has a "home services mess" and saying Homejoy provided a poor customer experience provides very negative coverage of the subject and is clearly not a promotional source.
3. Rao, Leena (2015-12-15). "Amazon Just Invested In The Indian Version Of Homejoy". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The article notes:
  Late Tuesday, Amazon made just its latest bet on India by announcing that it had led a $22 million investment round in a startup with a familiar name and purpose, Housejoy. It is the Indian version of the now defunct U.S.-based Homejoy, the on-demand house cleaning service.
  In addition, Housejoy offers in-house computer repairs, beauty treatments, bridal services, maintenance and home repairs to Indian consumers. The company had previously raised $4 million from Matrix Partners India.
  Along with Amazon (AMZN, +1.25%), new investors in Housejoy include Qualcomm, Vertex Ventures and Ru-Net technology Partners.
4. Chopra, Ambika (2017-05-13). "Housejoy Founders Arjun Kumar, Sunil Goel Quit; CEO Saran Chatterjee To Manage Operations". Inc42. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The article notes:
  The joy has left Housejoy at the moment. Reportedly, the co-founders of the Bengaluru-based hyperlocal startup, Arjun Kumar and Sunil Goel have quit the company in the wake of a Board-executed decision.
  The reins of the company are now in the hands of CEO Saran Chatterjee, a former Flipster.
  ...
  Housejoy was launched in January 2015. Its services range from maintenance and home repairs to plumbing, electrical services, home cleaning, and computer repairs. Housejoy additionally offers specialised services in beauty and in-house bridal make-up. The company takes a 10%-25% cut of the service depending on the service it provides.
  ...
  The startup also had to rollback services from 7 major cities earlier this month, as per ET. The move was made in a bid to tighten operational costs and move towards profitability. The startup has also reduced its workforce by 50% and is focussing on operations in its five major markets, namely: Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Housejoy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added negative coverage to the article. The nominator wrote:
So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia.
The negative coverage I added ensures that this will not be the case.
Cunard (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment[edit]

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

POV split. WP doesn't do that. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back into Work Capability Assessment. This was actually created as a page WP:SPLIT to reduce the size of the main article. See the discussion at Talk:Work Capability Assessment § Too long; can it be split? for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per North America --Penbat (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Work Capability Assessment then split it some other way if really neccessary. A POV split is the wrong way to cut up a too long article. Separating "Criticism of Foo" from the "Foo" article is inherently problematic. A much better (and NPOV) split was proposed by Dr Greg Wood at Talk:Work Capability Assessment#Too long; can it be split? to separate out the "Incapacity Benefit Reassessment Programme. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A problem is that the original WCA article was substantially re-worded and at the same time criticisms of the test were moved into a completely new article (not by me) — the one under discussion. Maybe revert the WCA article to before 'my name is not dave' began his work and then move the IB reassessment chunk to its own page? Dr Greg Wood (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legitimate split. Nom states that Wikipedia "doesn't do" POV-splits - perhaps they haven't seen Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Israeli government or Criticism of the Quran? AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to something neutral like "Reception of the Work Capability Assessment" or "Work Capability Assessment controversy"—and balance the content accordingly. The guideline WP:CFORK has two relevant sections. The first, WP:POVFORK, specifically discourages (but does not prohibit) "Criticism of..." article titles, and encourages the use of more neutral terms like "reception" and "perception". The second, WP:SPINOFF, gives examples where the controversy about topic X can legitimately be split off from the article about X to a separate article—where all sides of the controversy can be covered. That is what is needed here. There seems to be consensus that the article Work Capability Assessment was getting too long. The controversy can and should be split off, but not in a way that prejudices the points of view covered. As WP:POVFORK notes: '(consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).' Also, the new article on the controversy should have a brief (and neutral) summary in the main article, as advised by WP:SPINOFF.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment's sentiments are fine; the thing is, the original WCA had all that — then an attempt just to shrink the article a bit led us to where we are now. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I'm also not convinced that you can have an article about something that has been much criticised and then decant all the criticisms to a separate article. 'Criticism of Pearl Harbour', 'Criticism of Jack the Ripper'? Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed cases where the consensus of reliable sources is so overwhelmingly negative that to describe the topic dispassionately is to criticize it. WP:NPOV expressly allows for such cases. But it's hard to believe that a piece of 21st-century right-wing / neoliberal politics like the WCA is really in that category. Surely it has significant defenders!

There can also be cases where the criticisms of X (whether they have RS consensus or not) are directed at nearly every part or aspect of X. Even then, trying to include them piecemeal in every section of the article is likely to be distracting when the reader is trying to understand X, and splitting them off into a separate article is likely to allow for clearer exposition.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. This is from WP:SPINOFF:

"Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new subarticle is sometimes called a "spinoff" from the main article ("spinout" leads elsewhere); Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork."

I think the IB reassessment chunk, which was pretty large, should have been spun off. Instead, this Criticism page was built from numerous fragments of the original WCA article by 'my name is not Dave' a few months ago.Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do both? By all means create the IB reassessment article. That's likely to be short enough that controversy specific to IB reassessment can fit into a section within the article. But the need for a separate, general article about the WCA controversy remains.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now after today's editing, to make it more obviously balanced Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to renaming to a different title. Useful split of an overly long article, per User:Northamerica1000. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 10:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Watson (sheriff)[edit]

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

This sheriff doesn't quite reach the label of being notable. Being a sheriff has no inherent notability. He has been covered quite a bit [22] [23] [24] [25] in relevance to an event with a high-speed chase involving the mayor of his town, and a few mentions outside of that [26] [27], but no in-depth coverage. menaechmi (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest I was thinking of putting this up for AfD myself. Anyway non notable sheriff, police officers get in high speed pursuits everyday, maybe not with the mayor of the town they are serving in but it does happen a lot. Whispe ring 19:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually the chase involving Sheriff Watson was a slow speed chase, not a high speed chase, but that hardly changes anything at all. Wikipedia is not news, and that is what that would indicate. Wikipedia is generally not meant to be a complete directory. There are two exceptions that are fully agreed to, one is members of national legislatures, although the hope is to not just be a directory there, but we generally allow any article on a national legislature member to pass as long as it can be proved the individual was actually such. The same in theory applies to highest level sub-national legislatures, but that has not been as consistently applied. The other is that Wikipedia aims to be a gazeteer, with articles on every distinct place in the world, although if we are dealing with neighborhoods, there is some level of some notability guideline passing. Everything else, there is an expectation of some level of coverage, at least in theory. In the case of Watson, although his title is sheriff this is an outgrowth of the unique way Virginia is set up politically. In any other US state his title would be police chief, and we would ask if the police chief here is notable. I would say James Craig (police chief) is a clear case of a notable police chief, but we are comparing a city with under 100,000 to a city with well over 600,000 people. That even misses the point, Detroit is at the center of a metro-area with several million people and the largest city in Michigan. Plus Craig was appointed police chief at the height of the city going through the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history, he has outlasted a significant slew of predecessors (not hard considering how sort some were in place), and he has impacted the city in a postive way to the extent that people have put up "thankyou Chief Craig" signs. Plus, while Craig makes local news regularly because of big drugs busts, the ever present daily new murder investigation, having to field questions about corrupt cops being arrested, the green light program that is making people willing to shop at places where a murder has happened in the last year (OK, maybe my own actions are not a good indication, I once road a Detroit bus just because it was the only one of the top five crime Detroit bus routes I had not ridden). Craig however made waves back in 2014 with his call for the law abiding citizens of Detroit to arm themselves against the thugs. Criag is a go to figure in the local media. Our article on him does not even begin to give a good sense of who he is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a senior police officer provides no inherent notability. Watson seems to be mostly only covered in context of doing his job with no significant in-depth coverage such as profile pieces in national media. AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was surprised to see that the gutting of this article was done by the creator. Ordinary reportage of sheriff-type activities. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skill Housie[edit]

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

Non-notable "not-gambling-so-therefore-legal-in-India" online gaming website. Despite all the sourcing in here, there actually isn't any sourcing available that I could find on the game itself. The sources in the article are defining what a game of chance is vs. a game of skill and what is legal in various Indian states. This should be deleted per WP:NOTSPAM and WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not quite literally empty on this. Delete for lack of reliable sourcing. --Izno (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing non-Skill Housie related appears in "skill+housie" general search or "skill+housie"&source=lnms&tbm=nws news. Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron & Budd asbestos memo[edit]

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

This should be deleted. There may be some notable memos in history, but this isn't one of them. Rather, this is a vastly overblown WP:CFORK from the article on the law firm itself, which already discusses the memo more than is due. The article relies excessively on WP:PRIMARY sources, and innuendo that the absence of actions with respect to the memo proves its significance. However, a law firm preparing witnesses for deposition is unremarkable, so this is like having an entire article on a single foul in an non-notable basketball game. It is also concerning that a substantial contributor to this article was now-indefblocked User:Classyklowngrasper, who engaged in sockpuppetry to promote a documentary criticizing litigation over asbestos exposure. bd2412 T 18:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply does not have significant coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. Also troublesome that a user would dress this up as notable when it looks more like POV pushing. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing about the memorandum is separate from the authors of it. Pandeist (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a well sourced original essay about an otherwise non-notable document. Write a book or something, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Just because company went bankrupt does not mean that it was not notable. Is sourced and passes GNG as was at one point one of the largest agribusiness companies in Russia and statement is backed by RS. With that said, would like to see additional third party sources and the article expanded. Please note that notability is not temporary. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razgulay[edit]

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

This company is defunct and may have just barely met WP:NCORP and WP:GNG at one time. The website for the company is offline and the little information available about it are bankruptcy proceedings. It was also traded on a now-closed stock platform. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH due to the lack of depth of coverage and the only mentions about it have been trivial. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the nominator, "may have just barely met WP:NCORP and WP:GNG at one time." Notabiity is not temporary and does not go away when a company goes bankrupt. It was "was one of Russia's largest agribusiness companies" per the article. A major company usually gets more than trivial mentions. Sources likely exist, though perhaps not online and not in English, to satisfy the requirements of WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article says, Razgulay was at one point the largest agribusiness concern in Russia, the fact that it is now bankrupt does not change that. Also, the Moscow Exchange is not 'closed'.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Abraham Godwin[edit]

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

Non-notable Civil War private lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Author is basing notability on the fact the subject's name is on a war memorial. reddogsix (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 'Abraham Godwins' are well known in New Jersey, but their stories of what wars they fought in are often criss-crossed because there are so many of them with the same name and no numbers. I understand Wikipedia's policy that heritage does not denote a page but because they all have the same name they should be clearly differentiated. We shouldn't attribute any history of one Abraham Godwin to another Abraham Godwin's page because it will just cause more confusion that we don't need. The entire purpose of creating these Wikipedia pages dedicated to the Abraham Godwins is to officially end the local confusion CHGodwin (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can add a section to the Abraham Godwin article clearly delineating who's who with a sentence or two for each Abraham, whether or not they each have an individual article. Station1 (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is intriguing, but the claims in the article don't support notability nor could I find any additional sources, though the overwhelming number of soldiers named Abraham Godwin does make this a bit more challenging. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - John Reid Jr, the person who took the photograph of Abraham was a significant photographer in and after the Civil War. He doesn't have a wikipedia page, could I merge his with Abraham's or would it have to be the other way around? or neither? I would prefer linking this page to Abraham Godwin Jr and doing a merger rather then deleting it. thanks- CHGodwin (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and lacks sufficient sources to meet GNG. No claim of notability or significance apart of having the name on an obelisk, which is clearly not sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as failing WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. The name on obelisk does not grant passing. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many other names are on the monument? The linked article abut the park in Patterson does not say, and from its description, it would seem that it probably lists all the combatants from Paterson or Passaic County, so inscription of the name does not contribute to notability. Neither does having a picture taken by a notable photograper -- Mathew Brady took lots of pictures of privates. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in and of himself. Wouldn't be averse to merge if there is a plausible target (family and/or monument (that isn't a general monument with hundreds of names)).Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe it should be merged with his father Abraham Godwin Jr CHGodwin (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN soldier. No objection to redirecting to a list article or merging to a relative. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Having your name inscribed on a list on a monument does not confer notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, per Hawkeye7, above. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 speedily deleted. Was speedily deleted as G11 by Alex Shih at 05:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfatour JSC[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. 100% promotional and no indications of notability or significance; no appropriate sources. Created by as a SPA. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Ravichandran[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and GNG. No significant coverage in any acceptable sources, only passing mentions in some sources. I am unable to verify he is the author of the books listed. They are listed on Goodreads, but that is user generated and not independent coverage. e. Worldcat does not list his books by author name [28]. Subject does not seem to be regarded as an important figure and is not widely cited by peers or successors, and has not created any significant contributions, fails WP:AUTHOR.

Also, this Wikipedia article seems to contain dubious claims that the subject "secured post graduate degrees in English literature, economics, politics, history, sociology, philosophy, commerce, Malayalam literature and public administration..." This is the first time I have heard of anyone garnering nine post graduate degrees. I am guessing the CV is designed to inflate the subject's importance. Also, this claim does not seem to be backed up by sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; as mentioned, plenty of the claims are dubious and seem to be a desperate attempt to assert notability which might not actually be there Spiderone 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of securing Post Graduation degree's in multiples subjects cannot be considered 'dubious' with respect to Indian Educational system. There are many people who have secured that many degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkrishnan R (talk • contribs) 14:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be maintained - One of the main allegations made over the article was that the article listed academic qualifications (several PG degrees) which seems to be dubious. DC Books is an established publisher in Kerala, India, their official website has a profile page for C. Ravichandran that can be verified here : https://onlinestore.dcbooks.com/authors/ravichandran . The profile (although in the language Malayalam) clearly mentions all his PG degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkrishnan R (talk • contribs)

The individual is Notable too* Notability is a very relative subject, and the person is quite famous and known among the Rationalists group of Kerala.A youtube search would prove : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=c+ravichandran . His books are quite famous, and are found often in the 'Best Selling' list of DC. He appears in TV talkshow debates ^[1]^[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkrishnan R (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:PROMO; 100% advertorial content which is specifically excluded under WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all Advertorial - The article doesn't have any contents which are placed for the promotion of the individual, or an organization which he's associated with. The allegations and the logic of being categorized as being promotional has to be proved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkrishnan R (talk • contribs)
Symptoms of Wikipedia turning into a brick* Let this article be deleted, and the technicalities of Notability hail.

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations.com[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reservations (website).

As written, this is a promotional listing. Since Wikipedia is not for promotion, this leaves the author and others with two choices. First, they can accept the AFD and let the article be deleted again. Second, they can build a neutral article, and this is not, and does not reflect a Google search. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is neutral and only provides facts about the company based off of source material publicly available. Please highlight which language is promotional - so that I can find better source material to draw from. This is a large company that I used recently, and was surprised they didn't have a wiki page - when competitors like booking.com have a page. Gurutsm (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, no, no. I don't intend to help neutralize a promotional listing when there is already an AFD that is an adequate basis for G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they rely almost exclusively on material from company sources and/or routine business and funding annoucements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeating my rationale from the AfD on the previous instance: "An article on an intermediating company website, with content and references predominantly primary or routine announcements of the partnership deals inherent to that kind of business. No evidence of notability, whether as website or company." The added Q&As with the founder do not change that position. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm just not finding the in-depth coverage needed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Jolivet[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable corporate executive. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dantes (musician)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG due to lack of multiple secondary sources —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Subject has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. The references do not link to anything important- just some self-published material and passing mentions by his school newspaper. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Zeb[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Mahmood[edit]

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

No such coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

**Delete: This person fails to satisfy Wikipedia notability requirements. The article is better than it used to be, but it's still really weak. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Mahmood[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. No such coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any significant coverage. The references both seem to be dead links. Looks like it fails WP:AUTHOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.A Guy into Books (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmood Ali (editor)[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanzeb Qamar[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. Failed to verify the information. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically an unreferenced BLP; the references provided are all either facebook or video-sharing sites. Only minor mention in reliable sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Zulfiqar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete though she has passing mentions in few a couple of news articles but she clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. This bio mention a huge list of discography, however as per her IMDb entry, she has only two songs in her credit, [29]. The bio is promotional in nature and the major contributors surely have some COI. Being a finalist in Pakistan Idol doesn't makes one notable. --Saqib (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Uttar Pradesh Police. The nominator was fine with a redirect (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 10:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allahabad Police[edit]

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

Every district unit of Uttar Pradesh Police doesn't need an article, plus, the article is way too short. SshibumXZ (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @SshibumXZ: So why not merge it with that article? Regards So Why 16:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As SoWhy says, why not merge it with Uttar Pradesh Police? FITINDIA 21:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there's no content in the article. There's almost nothing to merge, and Uttar Pradesh Police already has organization structure of police in districts.SshibumXZ (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why not just redirect there? Regards So Why 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, I hadn't thought of that. But redirecting is a great idea, and I can get on board with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SshibumXZ (talk • contribs) 22:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 25 August 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 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uttar Pradesh Police. Not independently notable, but a plausible search term. Narky Blert (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basit Ali (singer)[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. Namechecks only. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references cited do not mention the subject. fails to meet WP:SINGERS. --Saqib (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqra Qureshi[edit]

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

No such coverage. No award. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appeared in only one TV programme so far .no entry in the IMDb. unless we have a RS confirming that she won the awards listed here, delete vote from me.. --Saqib (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one possibly significant roles is not enough to make an actress notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryson Pitts[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ACTOR and other criteria. reddogsix (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for actors or the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HireAHelper[edit]

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

An inconsequential moving company that hired somebody to write an article about them. Two sources are actually about the company, one concerns financing in general, the rest are about a single lawsuit. Fails WP:NCORP. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Great concept but doesn't meet WP:GNG and references fall well short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Also concerned that this reference is listed in the article as coming from Entrepreneur Magazine when in fact it comes from Tech.co. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid for spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dirigo Public House[edit]

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

Non-notable local restaurant. The tone of the article is highly promotional and the topic is not covered in-depth by multiple, independent sources. TM 15:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. There are some RS mentions, but they are for the 100lb burger stunt, which is not enough by itself to establish notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the only thing with good non local sources is having once made a 100 pound burger, and that's TRIVIA, NOT NEWS, and NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janita Asma[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. Name-checks only. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep she seems to have a major role in a movie however she fails to meet our criteria on actors. --Saqib (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated for a film award, appears notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is really notable actor and i have added more references which prove thatMr.ref (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janbaz Mirza[edit]

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

No such coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Name-checked in books only. Greenbörg (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be mentioned in several places [30]. Mar4d (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject has been cited in numerous books as can be seen via G'books. --Saqib (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited in books isn't a Wikipedia notability criterion. Is he the subject of, or at least more than just glancingly namechecked, in any books? That would make a much bigger difference here. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all references are directed to Wikipedia also I found she is Indian not PakistaniMr.ref (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please familiarize yourself with the Partition of India... --Soman (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Soman's right — you might want to do a little bit of research into why this article contains the phrase "After the independence of Pakistan in 1947..." Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- appears to have been a prolific author. I suspect sources may exist in Urdu and / or offline; pls see Worldcat Identities: 16 works in 36 publications in 2 languages and 167 library holdings. The content of the article largely checks out (i.e. official historian, etc), so it's an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Sanjeev Singh[edit]

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

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Possible COI.

Per WP:POLITICIAN: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". —usernamekiran(talk) 21:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'd say there is sufficient coverage in media, see http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/rebellion-brewing-in-bihar-unit-of-youth-congress/1076400/ , http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/youth-cong-leader-pays-for-17-yr-old-fraud-case/story-0PIYpKeIn7TCYHjkgBD4EI.html , http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/man-disqualified-to-be-bihar-youth-congress-president-after-election/1/250074.html , http://www.bihartimes.in/Newsbihar/2013/Feb/newsbihar10Feb2.html , See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaLPbGH-P-Y --Soman (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete political figures will inevitably get passing media coverage. The coverage here is not to the level to show notability for a politician so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal RS coverage, doesn't appear to meet GNG under WP:POLITICIAN. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's general agreement that it's WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone page, but no consensus for any specific solution. There does appear to be a consensus against deletion. Draft/Merge proposals can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Now Tour[edit]

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NCONCERT and WP:TOOSOON. There's not much content here other than tour dates other than tentative information based on one WP:PRIMARY source and two sources that offer little. Compare to other tour articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have noticed that editors have changed the name of the tour at least twice since this discussion was opened. If there was enough in the way of RSes to support the name, such efforts would not be needed. The fact that the name is still being debated is further proof that the tour, or at least information about it, is not sufficiently established. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is as much information as possible for the time being, it is suspected that more information will be revealed soon, as tickets go on sale as early as next week. I personally, do not see the sense in deleting this article. I also do not understand the use for the word "tentative" as this is confirmed information (the dates are official) by Shania Twain's own official website. I say leave the article as it will save the hassle of re-creating it down the road. - 21:35, 17 August 2017 - Pwgallant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwgallant (talk • contribs)

Redirect — I vote to redirect to Shania Twain#Tours and residency shows for the time being, until it can rightfully qualify WP:NCONCERT properly. livelikemusic talk! 03:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NCONCERT, "Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." E! News, Rolling Stone, CBC, Billboard, LA Times, plus basically every other major media source in North America. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So we have coverage, but the coverage present is not significant at this point. Brief discussions of plans, etc., and locations, but nothing significant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The significant coverage is the fact that she is going on tour, despite the fact that she said her previous tour would be her last. This is discussed in the above sources. Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what "significant coverage" means. Please read WP:GNG to understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". All of those are met, you're really reaching here. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Details are who the set designer, lighting designer, costume designer and sound crew are, what the set-list is planned for, not just "she never planned to tour again and oh, boy, here she is". See her other tour articles to compare. You're really reaching here if you think the brief mentions of trivia constitute GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Besides the set list, none of what you mentioned are listed on Butterfly World Tour which is rated a Good Article. Thankyoubaby (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        With MOS:LINKING issues and other problems, you can see why being a good article does not mean that the article follows policies, guidelines or anything other than a few requirements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when something more substantial than this can be written and sourced. WP:NTOUR specifies what kind of content the sources need to support to justify an article about a concert tour — "show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms" — and explicitly states that "sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." But all of the sourcing shown so far demonstrates the latter, not the former, and since the tour isn't slated to even start for another ten months there's no prospect of the former being shown anytime soon. For an example of what the distinction actually entails between coverage that confers notability and coverage that doesn't, ponder The Tragically Hip: most of their past concert tours don't have standalone articles, but the Man Machine Poem Tour of last year was such an extreme Special Case that it actually got the band's lead singer named as the Canadian newsmaker of the entire freaking year. Yes, over the Prime Minister. And even that article didn't actually get created until a few days after the last show of the tour, once the dust had settled and the depth and breadth of coverage could be properly assessed from a place of après le déluge recovery. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. There will likely be significant actual news on this topic in the next six months, and definitely in the six months after that. bd2412 T 22:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Shania_Twain#2016.E2.80.93present:_Now or Shania_Twain#Tours_and_residency_shows. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the tour announcement doesn't constitute anything more than a glorified list at this point. Arguably Too Soon. Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 The Quill (band). The singular source nor external links are reliable sources to indicate any independent notability. While this may change in the future, for now, there is simply not enough for this album to have its own article (unless more sources can be found). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Blood[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC, basically an (unsourced) tracklist. Propose redirect to The Quill. Kleuske (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article now meets critera with various independent sources added. Danger2 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Quill (band): fails WP:NALBUM, none of the three sources in the article are reliable ones, simply a link to a blog review and two track listing databases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Not eligible for speedy keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Godwin (soldier)[edit]

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

Borderline notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject had his own chapter in the Sons of the American Revolution and a plaque. Find it hard to delete him. Rogermx (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more sources. He wasn't just a Soldier in the Revolution, he was the Captain of his own Militia from Totowa, NJ, and stationed onboard the USS Lady Washington. He led Washington and his troops through New Jersey to the Deleware River. He was a high ranking official. CHGodwin (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article directly about him establish notability on the keep side of the border. Alansohn (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*After reconsidering, I withdraw my nomination and I am for keep as well. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do I know when the discussion is closed? Is there a certain time period? Thanks- CHGodwin (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. Until we establish consensus here, the discussion is opened. Also, as far as I see from your username, you're related to the person in subject, so I would advise you to look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to avoid misunderstandings. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose withdrawal and advocate delete. The problem with this article is that it lacks reliable sources. If Godwin was as key to General Washington's travel through New Jersey, we would have reliable, scholarly sources supporting this. This article is built on primary sources and sources that seek to build up the reputation of the individuals they commenorate, as opposed to giving balanced historical treatment. The sources here are just not the level of sourcing needed to support the claims of the article in an encyclopedia entry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having Captain Abraham Godwin Chapter at Sons of the American Revolution may grant passing, but the lack of sources makes me reconsider again. Gosh, this one is hard to decide. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment @Johnpacklambert The source of what Abraham did for George Washington was recorded by his son David in his recollections which are currently held at the library in Lambert Castle. They are not online and I have no idea if Lambert Castle would work with wikipedia to get the proper sourcing. CHGodwin (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see plenty of book mentions (in a quick google book search) for this particular Goodwin.Icewhiz (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Arthistorian1977 More sources have been added and the currently unsourced claim about George Washington has been removed. Abraham wasn't just in the military but was also elected to multiple government offices in New Jersey. I sincerely thank you for your patience. CHGodwin (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after looking at the sources, I finally get off the fence and I do withdraw my own nomination and think it's a Keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Mosale[edit]

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

Non-notable "upcoming actress" lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:BIO. Verges on an advert. reddogsix (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO and is WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 18:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "upcoming actress' is screaming "this person is not notable", "we are using a crystal ball to predict the future". We can not know if she is an upcoming actress, or someone who will never break into the acting profession, until she actually becomes a coming actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, Too soon WP:TOOSOON Chrisswill (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cook (actress)[edit]

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

Non notable person in a non notable film. The 'About a Boy' link is to a disamb link. David.moreno72 15:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she's a 16 year-old girl whose only claim to be an actor is having appeared in 'About a Boy' when she was a baby. Don't see how she can claim to be an actor at all, let alone a notable one. Fails WP:ACTOR. Neiltonks (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources.Rogermx (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like her twin sister, Madison Cook - who's vanity article is also nominated for deletion - subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. As with her sister's AfD, this is just another poorly written, unreferenced and blatant vanity article that should have been speedy deleted from the start. X4n6 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nissin Kogyo[edit]

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

No indication of notability--speedy was declined because of association with Autoliv. As that company does not seem notable, I don't consider it a valid reason for declining the A7. `` DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very respected company and very well known in the motorcycle world and comparable to Brembo. This company has been mentioned and highly regarded in numerous motorcycle reviews online and in print in magazines and books such as here [31], [32],[33],[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40],[41]. This company also has significance as a large corp and partner of Autoliv the world's largest automotive safety supplier. How is the world's largest automotive safety supplier not notable? What are you using to gauge that this article should be deleted? There are two editors on the article talk page and a admin so three in total that have assessed that the article should not be deleted so there is no consensus for deletion. -72bikers (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to pass WP:ORG as a large corporation (trading on the first tier of the Tokyo Stock Exchange) with subsidiary companies in several countries. The subsidiaries have regional coverage. Its a Japanese company founded in 1953, so I expect that there is also significant coverage in offline foreign language sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Hoobler[edit]

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

Donald Hoobler was an NCO with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. Neither his rank (corporal) nor his highest award (Purple Heart) make him notable under WP:SOLDIER. Hoobler died during the Battle of the Bulge when a trophy weapon accidentally discharged; he has no general notability. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting the notability guidelines for a soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable for stand alone article; re-direct name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Kierzek (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability. No redirect as would not be clear if actual person, or the TV series/actor in same is target. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aethericism[edit]

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

I'm having a hard time finding any secondary references for this. It seems to be a WP:NEO coined by an artist named Degard who has published a book related to the term, [42]. Also of concern is the use of a PR company to "Writing and working with Degard to complete 15 Wikipedia pages ready for publication there", [43]. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Aethericism or aetherism? Devine or divine? All the references have been removed. If the author put in some effort, fine. Otherwise, it needs to go.

And more -- Of the eleven references given, (1) is a hardback book without access, even to pages 1-2; (2) ditto; (3) an hour and forty minute video; (5) journal article behind a paywall; (6) I found one citation of this journal article, but not even the journal; (7) a dangerous website. Search for article unsuccessful; (8) Only Google result led to dead site; (9) citation found in a book, found the journal but not the article; (10) not by the listed author (11) Behind a paywall. Rhadow (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a pile of unreferenced original research. Google search didn't turn up any reliable third-party mentions.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a manifesto, not an encyclopedic article about a notable Art manifesto. Mduvekot (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aethericism has been discussed at a symposium at the royal society of art in march 17 by a dozen acclaimed academics. i have seen the footage of this event. maybe it isnt online yet.

because someone gets help from another company to write content means the piece is even better i would suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainterABC (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aethericism is the term used to describe an artistic movement initiated by Degard, which seeks to re-establish the vital relationship between Art, Science and Divinity that has been disrupted by the advance of modern scientism. As such it has an important place in Wikipedia and deserves to be developed further, showing, for example, how it is akin to the scientific understanding of 'natural inclusion', pioneered by Alan Rayner and to the theological principles of what is known as 'panentheism'. When this is done, the article will have abundant secondary references to draw upon, making it less dependent on the work of Degard herself, and enabling the reader to explore further and deeper.

References

Christ, Carol P (2003) She Who Changes, Re-imagining the Divine in the World. Palgrave Macmillan.

Rayner, Alan (2017) The Origin of Life Patterns in the Natural Inclusion of Space in Flux. Springer.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.125.199 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unambiguous promotion for what appears to be a non-notable new-age movement. —Paleo Neonate – 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And even more -- Thank you, PainterABC for the url to First Book of Aethericism. It has a picture of the cover, but no text. Should I buy it as you suggest? It costs £150.00. As to other sources not yet online, I find the whole matter far-fetched -- as I do your WP:SPA and editing out my comments. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - DO NOT DELETE THIS POST *** ***AND EVEN MORE*** - EVERYTHING I HAVE JUST WRITTEN HAS BEEN DELETED OFF THIS POST WHICH IS ILLEGAL - Derek requested that nothing is deleted Rhadow - you should be deleted off wikipedia because it is clear that you have done this damage.

The book is a book of art and costs a lot to produce and therefore sell. have you noticed how much decent artwork costs? Aethericism is a serious debate amongst hundreds of academics worldwide.

- - do not delete ***

• http://www.degard.org • https://explore.scimednet.org/index.php/annual-gathering-2016-abstracts/ • https://explore.scimednet.org/members/degard/profile/ • http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science • http://www.aethericism.com The Royal Society of Arts are publishing a blog post on this very topic shortly Degard, MONAD and Transition are putting together a series of exhibitions covering the whole of this year and next year on the subject of aethericism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainterABC (talk • contribs) 14:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the independent references you mention even mentions Aethericism, and that states Degard will be launching a new art movement, to be called Aetheric Art, in the very near future. At best this is WP:TOOSOON, so maybe if and when this gets off the ground, this topic may have a chance of meeting WP:GNG. In the meantime, see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a somehow "re-worked" version of what Degard writes in her self-published manifesto of 28 pages: The First Book of Aethericism (see in the book, passim, esp. section "Aethericism"). I don't see -even in the above listed links etc.- any third-party sources on Degard and her "movement". ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 12:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game X Change[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the stated reason of WP:RANK which is not a legitimate reason to prevent deletion. Too few significant mentions in reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Careful; WP:RANK includes the following text: Notability is not about being the biggest, the best, or the only of something. Likewise, not fitting this description does not make something not notable. (Emphasis original.)
Google (news) seems to have a number of regions with differing sources mentioning the company, but nothing that constitutes a significant treatment. Google books has nothing. This is probably a delete. --Izno (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But the prod removal in question said it in a way that implied that due to its rank, it was immune from being deleted, even before considering sources at all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NCORP as mentioned above. I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability. Wichita Coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDDC:7A0:526:44B6:5A07:3ED5 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Going to need more than a single, local source to indicate significant coverage czar 20:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple more sources like the above IP's, which is what I tried to convey in my !vote above. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Balhara[edit]

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

Fails notability; all questionable references that fail WP:RS. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:CAPTAIN RAJU. Definitely needs additional reference coverage. --EngiZe (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources are primary, and unreliable. Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 18:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Around a decade ago, he changed his name to Abhiman Balhara. I did a quick search & found sources like this one & this one. More can be found here & here. Tomorrow I will look again for sources before !voting here. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, he might have been a notable model in the late 1990s & early 2000s. And there might have some offline/inaccessible sources about him like this one. As usual, some older online sources like this one might have been lost due to link rot. But the accessible online sources aren't sufficient to prove his notability. The page could have been redirected to somewhere as he acted in TV serials like Radhaa Ki Betiyaan Kuch Kar Dikhayengi, Jhoome Jiiya Re, and Jaane Pehchaane Se... Ye Ajnabbi. But he changed his name to Abhimaan Balhara before becoming an actor. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tre Jones[edit]

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

This page was deleted on August 16, 2017, and was immediately recreated on August 18, 2017. Fails WP:GNG as no sources can be found about this person beside local websites or statistics databases. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a quick check and found articles about him on si.com, ESPN.com (1, 2, 3), StarTribune, SBnation.com, BleacherReport, CBS Sports and many more. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it can be sourced by the recruiting/scouting community, but that's it. Right now, the subject is just a high school student playing basketball on a really good team. Our tolerance for WP:N is incredibly high in that field, and rightly so. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Power~enwiki (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sources unearthed. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara Student Federation[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to be covered in some web and news sources. Mar4d (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any such coverage to pass WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does this and this count for much? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', I'd say there is sufficient coverage to justify an article: https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/11/08/hazaras-protest-against-seven-year-old-girls-murder-in-quetta/ , https://www.dawn.com/news/1143145 , https://www.dawn.com/news/714185 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=UG&hl=en-GB&v=a2Tg0qm_muw , https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/0619/Pakistan-bombing-hints-at-free-rein-for-radicals-in-Quetta , https://tribune.com.pk/story/371460/hazara-killings-a-systematic-genocide/ , http://www.hazarapeople.com/2011/10/01/hsf-protest-at-press-club-quetta/ , http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20120302&page=5.1 , http://awamiworkersparty.org/meeting-on-building-an-alliance-of-progressives-nationalists/ , http://www.marxistreview.asia/revolutionary-youth-chants-with-one-voice-were-all-mashal/ , http://www.alifailaan.pk/30_june_2015 , http://nation.com.pk/editors-picks/18-Feb-2013/hazaras-hold-off-mass-burial-till-military-acts , http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-hazaras-offended-by-kabul-express-1074490 --Soman (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Taylor: Pull Over Tour[edit]

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

Standard musical artist tour with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCONCERT. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IAR. James Taylor is so high-profile that as far as I'm concerned all of his tours are notable by extension. CJK09 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why I specified IAR. James Taylor is so prominent, he isn't just "meets notability criteria", he is far and beyond that, so I am proposing NOTINHERITED be ignored in this case for the sake of improving the encyclopedia. CJK09 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - This could very well be merged with a simplestatement in the James Taylor article that reads, "From June 1 to October 27, 2001, Taylor embarked on his Pull Over Tour in support of the compilation album Greatest Hits Volume 2". And even that would have to be sourced for inclusion. The content here certainly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about DVD Talk, Billboard, Amazon.com editorial review, and Digitally Obsessed? Do they help? --George Ho (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No suggestion that the tour is in itself notable, no matter how famous he is. Rathfelder (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR, with only one reference that is invoked in the article, but it is not defined, so really there are no references. Aspects (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Digitally Obsessed (mentioned above by George Ho) is a RS because while anyone can apply to become a reviewer, they have strict standards and editorial control and it covers the subject at length. Additionally, there is some coverage at newspapers.com [44] [45]. Imho, it's sufficient to establish stand-alone notability but even if not, it can easily be merged into the main article, so I see no reason to delete. Regards So Why 09:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Praveen Chauhan[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable astrologer or writer; a search failed to find any significant coverage (reliable or otherwise) about him, the best I could find are articles written by him. I could nominate this for speedy deletion under A7, but there's a credible claim to notability, as he apparently has written for a number of Indian newspapers and journals, so AfD it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^{tc csdnew} 06:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User I have seen his few articles on reputed Indian websites, so bit skeptical to doubt his credibility. However, I tried visiting his website. I can see he is kinda popular in Indian political circle. Hence, I look forward to find some more credible sources from India which stablize his credibility.

Delete - astrologers are not inherently notable; this one fails WP:GNG Spiderone 10:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to find mentions in popular media, other than self-published social network profiles, so appears to not meet notability guidelines. —Paleo Neonate – 08:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

notable - User:PaleoNeonate I have seen his many articles on reputed Indian magazine and national journals as few mentioned in his profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhanmrt7 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC) — Chauhanmrt7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -Location (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Khan (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are mostly single line mentions, press releases, and relate to the company he owns. Notability appears to be based on his firm buying gems. reddogsix (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Permanent protection, well-known gemstone auctioneer based in Toronto. Featured by independent news sources including The Globe and Mail, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star, Business News Network, American City Business Journals, CityNews. G.Isabelle (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in newspaper articles about other subjects isn't sufficient. The articles must be specifically about the subject of the WP article, in this case Kashif Khan. For example, the Toronto Star article is about a diamond, and had a statement by Khan about the diamond. Mind matrix 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator, lacking in in-depth notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is Permanent protection? That is such an unusual !vote that I have to ask the author whether they have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is the only article which G.Isabelle (talk · contribs) has edited. Mind matrix 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sources need to be indepth about him as the subject, not a diamond. therefore fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 with WP:NPASR. So Why 09:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod de Rosario[edit]

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

Subject not notable enough to warrant their own page Contaldo80 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable subject in the field and is prominent figure in Argentina. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - There are hardly any reliable supporting references, and none demonstrate widespread or mainstream notability of the subject. Certainly nothing to suggest the prominence of the individual in Argentina. No media coverage for example. He is not an academic and his writings are fringe (dealing with "hidden" knowledge etc). Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator and the delete !voter are the same editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found only one source from Bolivia which does not confer notability. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Maureen Judge. (non-admin closure) f e minist 06:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of a Poet[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a TV series. WP:NMEDIA does not hand every TV series an automatic notability pass just for existing, but requires the series to have been the subject of reliable source coverage about it -- but even on a deep ProQuest search, every source I can actually find falls into one of three camps of non-notability: (a) glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of the poets who appeared on it, (b) glancing namechecks of its existence in "what's on TV tonight" blurbs, or (c) its own Canada NewsWire press releases about itself. There's just not enough coverage available here to support an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability guideline says that pilots and upfronts are not necessarily notable. It does not mention series but my inference from that is that they are notable. With approximately thirty episodes listed, I have to vote keep until a better guideline comes along. Ifnord (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA does mention TV series: the very first paragraph of the section on programming says that TV programs are notable if they're the subject of sufficient reliable source, and not notable if they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, the cached ELOFFICIAL cites a John Doyle pullquote from the Globe and Mail: "“Heart of a Poet is that rare thing, a new and funky literary series.” - John Doyle, Toronto Globe and Mail." I'm guessing that was just a brief capsule mention from Doyle, a la b)? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ��[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article isn't unsourced anymore. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the new references represent reliable source coverage that is substantively about the show. #1 is a PR blurb on a website that just republishes PR blurbs and doesn't write its own original content; #2 is the show's own self-published press release about itself, not third-party attention; #3 is a brief blurb about one particular poet's appearance on the show, as an "also on tonight" coda to a column that's primarily about something else otherwise unrelated to either the poet or the show; #4 is a brief namecheck of the show's existence in an article about a poet, not coverage about the show. We require reliable source coverage in which the article topic is substantively the subject of the piece, not just nominal "namechecks and press releases" verification that it existed — an article is not kept just because references are present, but rather the references do still have to be measured for their reliability, their independence of the topic's own self-promotional efforts, their substantiveness, and the degree to which the article topic is their subject rather than just getting mentioned in coverage about something else, and every single source present in the article fails at least two of those four conditions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge to Maureen Judge? Most of the article content can be referenced, but while I can find a lot of mentions, there's a lack of in-depth coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merge proposal (another potential target could be Bravo_(Canada)#Programming)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect– To Maureen Judge. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Child of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia[edit]

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

It is WP:TOO SOON. When the child is named an article can be created under that name, if notable. Lineslarge (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Lineslarge that this is WP:TOOSOON. Even after the child is named it will still likely be WP:TOOSOON. This could all be mentioned in his/her parent's articles. --PureRED | talk to me | 11:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move and improve In line with what was done for his older brother and cousins, whose pages were created after the birth (as "Prince N., Duke of X") and the pages were then renamed when the names and dukedom were announced. There is no question about notability, he is in line for the Swedish throne. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted! The child is in line to the Swedish throne, and that shows its importance. The name does not matter. We will know in two days anyways. I remember that Alexander had a page and we didn't even know his name yet. Same thing for Charlotte, but when Kate was pregnant? What is wrong this time? I do not see anything wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.188.238.170 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - much as I am personally against the monarchy, a person who is in the line of succession to the throne is de facto notable. He has now been named, his name and dukedom have been made official, and the article has been moved to the relevant title, so I don't see how WP:TOOSOON can apply at this point. (To be honest, once the child was born he or she would have been notable, so I don't quite see the point of the nomination to begin with. If the naming was the problem, surely all the royal sprogs are named within a couple of days?) --bonadea contributions talk 10:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The child is clearly notable now, his official title has been confirmed. All other children of the Swedish royal family have their own articles. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I try to make something even out of articles such as this, but it's hopeless. The subject is not notable for anything but being distantly in line to the throne. That much fits into a single sentence in the articles about his parents. The subject is now 4 days old and we cannot expect him to become notable in the next two decades. He is not expected to become a monarch. He is not expected to take on any official role (let alone have one now). Take a look at what the article about his brother looks like 1 year after it was created. Nothing biographical but birth and christening. Can we be objective and reasonable for once? Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Shellwood. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second Child of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia as per my original nomination. It is now a redirect that no one will ever use. Keep the page it redirects to, Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna. It seems the afd tag moved with the page move, which would not have been my intent. Lineslarge (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per bonadea. No opinion on deleting or keeping the redirect. /Julle (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna. His name was announced yesterday and I think that he is notable as a member of a reigning royal family. --Editor FIN (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His named was announced on September 4, and as we already have so many articles about minor royals I can't find a solid reason to vote in favor of the main article's deletion. This "redirect", however, can be deleted as the child has a name now. Keivan.f^Talk 11:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - name has been announced. He is in the succession order now. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - Page has been moved to Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to indicate that the topic of the current article - as opposed to different topics which are also named "clinical method" but aren't the focus of the article - is not notable Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical method[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Please see Talk:Clinical method for discussion in support of PROD. I think it all applies here as well. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete at first glance, it appears to be written in English, then you realise it is in Gibberish. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There can probably be an actual translation made from the French article at some point and it may be just fine, or it may be better off as a section on the main article for the apparent person largely behind it. But right now, it's just AFAIK original research explained in gibberish. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:ATD; the article is phenomenally poorly written, but a WP: BEFORE suggests the topic clearly is notable. After all, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and masters of style can be addressed out pig mainspace. — fortunavelut luna 09:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi that is remarkably unthougthful !vote coming from you. Of course people in medicine sometimes mention the phrase "clinical methods". It is basically "the practice of medicine" in normal speech, and is not what whoever wrote this, is apparently trying to discuss... which appears to be some muddle-headed fringe bucket of stuff. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No evidence of notability"... Except the term gets over 14,000 Google Books hits, including, for example, this one which describes it as a specific method within psychology. It looks like there is a very large body of publications on this subject— I don't disagree that the current article is one step away from gibberish, but that has no bearing on the subject's actual notability (for which there seems to be lots of evidence, no?). (Also, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi— what is "out pig mainspace"? Is that like Pigs in space??) KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no. Those are hits referring to "medicine" which is NOT WHAT THIS GARBLE IS ABOUT. This is altmed bullshit gussied up in medicalish terminology that is so vague that braindead google searches yield "Oh!!! So many hits!! There must be something here!!!!!". Hell is other people Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are hits related to the term in question and the subject of psychology. We have no other article on the clinical method, and I am not sure that this one needs to be deleted on the basis of garble. I think that the current article is meant to be about the clinical method of psychoanalysis/ psychology (as opposed to being about a city in India or a kind of fungus or an asteroid or a political movement or something). The wording is, of course, French in its style, and the translation is rough at best— that makes it a bad translation, not unremarkable as a subject. Is there some other article that covers this method to which this one should redirect? If this article is not about psychology, then what do you suppose it is meant to be about?

As alternative to the existing article, I have just put together a very brief article on the clinical method based on what I could glean from just the first page of Google Books results. It is here. I don't think stub articles are things to aim for, but the stub has two independent sources, one of them published by Elsevier Health Sciences, which is usually pretty reliable. KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a technical term. You seem to be reaching into mystery. There is no mystery. Only babble. The phrase is used the exact same way in medicine. It is "what the doctor does when seeing a patient". You can replace "doctor" with any of therapist, nurse, dentist, veterinarian, etc etc Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a technical term, absolutely! And maybe eventually we should have articles titled "Clinical method (psychology)" and "Clinical method (nursing)" (except that the article from the nursing book I reference is on psychology) and "Clinical method (dentistry)", inasmuch as those are actual topics in those fields. And until we need to disambiguate these different topics, we just have one article on "Clinical method", for which I have now composed what I think is an acceptable stub article from the perspective of psychology where it appears to represent an actual, notable theoretical approach and which is discussed specifically and non-trivially in multiple reliable independent verifiable secondary published sources. Even if the current version is babble-speak to most, it is apparently a real concept in psychology (at least), and not babble-speak. If you checked out some of my references (which I am guessing you have, yes?) then this should be clear. For still more evidence of this you may also have a look at this reference, this one (which does a nice job of separating it from the meaning the term has in medicine), or this one (all from just the first page of search results!). I am pretty sure the mere existence of these sources means the concept is notable, and I doubt an admin who has a look at them is going to move to delete the namespace, even if the apparent consensus in terms of !votes is against it at the moment. Hell is being told you are brain-dead and wrong by other people you respect when you are certain you are not wrong. KDS4444 ^(talk) 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not a technical term. If you google "clinical method medicine" or "clinical method dentist" or "clinical method nurse" you get the same kind of results that you get with psychology.Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe this makes sense in French on Fr-WP, but it is gibberish here. Time for TNT, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, then create a redirect to Medicine#Clinical_practice because it is a plausible search term. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know if this is mistranslated or just plain old nonsense ("psychic care particular practice"... what?), but I do know the encyclopedia is better off without it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G13. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Desire The Fire[edit]

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

This page was pulled out of article space by a patroller. It is now elegible for G13 deletion, but I'm really not sure about notability here. Bringing here because until the last edit, a mainspace page. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right forum? The band doesn't meet WP:NBAND as local/regional charts are not sufficient. They don't meet general notability requirements either: their only press coverage seems to be a local social media dispute in Vegas after they said they didn't like black people[46], which is despicable but also falls foul of WP:1EVENT. Regional press coverage isn't generally enough, anyway (outside of the largest local media markets). But equally there are separate procedures for disposing of drafts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few editors trying to argue that Drafts pulled from Mainspace should be dealt with differently than other Drafts and some other misguided editors that refuse to consider notability at MfD (which is what is needed here) so I broght it here for discussion. Thank-you for the insightful analysis which leads to Delete. Legacypac (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close. I agree that there might be some pretty good arguments in favor of changing how we handle draft articles at MFD, but the place to make such changes is at WT:MFD. Not only is this a non-article space page, the AFD template does not even properly link to a debate where the article being debated isn't in the mainspace. So until there's consensus for changing the process, this needs to be closed. (And if it's a G13 candidate anyway, then tag it as such and let the next admin do the necessary.) UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyrtone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently deleted, within a week recreated by brand-new WP:SPA. Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is identical to the deleted version but for a couple of very minor wording changes in the introduction — neither the base notability claim nor the reliable sourcing was improved a whit. I'm speedying as a recreation of deleted content, and adding some WP:SALT. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catrina Tapley[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all, about a person whose primary claim of notability is as deputy secretary to the federal cabinet of Canada (which makes her a staffer in the civil service, not a legislator.) This is not a role that gets a person over WP:NPOL, and there's no actual prospect of passing WP:GNG since it's not a role that actually gets any significant media coverage at all -- she literally gets just two hits on Google News, of which one is a press release and the other is basically a same-day rewrite of the same press release. And no, she isn't even the sole or even primary subject of that press release, but just has her existence namechecked in a list of civil servants who got new jobs that day. This is not enough media coverage to get over GNG, and nothing here entitles her to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough media coverage to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable government functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't state it better than the nom. nerdgoonrant (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparing to similar roles in other countries these people have Articles. Sorry guys just not sure if this is fair to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.219.220 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For one thing, those other "similar" roles might have more reliable source coverage than Tapley has, thus clearing WP:GNG in a way that Tapley doesn't. For two, if they don't have that coverage, they might also be deletable articles that just hadn't gotten noticed by a responsible editor yet. And for three, you might also be misjudging how "similar" those other people's roles actually are — for all we know, your control sample could be Ivanka Trump (who's obviously not equivalent in any way.) So unless you show specific examples of what you think you're talking about, we have no way of knowing how they do or don't relate to this. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Michael Smith[edit]

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

Vanity article with substantial contributions by a single-topic IP. Subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:FILMMAKER and WP:MUSICBIO, as well as WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Subject appears to have had several non-notable, extra or minor acting roles; and some dated, but minimal, local coverage related to subject's high school achievements. Subject also appears on several self-edited music websites and benefits from unrelated coverage about other individuals with the exact same name. Article also relies heavily on notability by association. But upon review, no coverage of the subject warrants inclusion; despite the well-written, but deceptive, appearance to the contrary. X4n6 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear vanity page. Should have been a speedy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - subject lacks coverage to meet WP:GNG, and his roles and projects to date do not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 06:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion for non notable individuals. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Fictional 15[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - For the same reasons this was deleted twice before, since nothing in this new version, other than avoiding copyvio, makes it any more encyclopedic. This is a completely arbitrary list made up of fictional characters who have a net worth of anything the character's most current writer says it is. If the Batman writer says Bruce Wayne is worth $50 billion, the Iron Man writer could say Tony Stark is worth $51 billion. And Santa Claus has infinite wealth? This is all meaningless fancruft and completely non-encyclopedic. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with coverage across media in multiple countries.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53] Last nomination was 10 years ago so that doesn't count for much. An alternative would be to merge to Forbes if it had a section on the company's famous lists, but do the thing which requires the least work. No indication of WP:BEFORE either: lists are notable if they get media coverage which this plainly does. And if fiction isn't notable or encyclopedic then why do we have approximately 1000000 articles on fictional topics? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not prepared to wrote a !vote rationale, but I wanted to point out that the nom is entirely misconstruing the definition of FANCRUFT that might apply in AfD. A wikipedia article about fan commentary published in reliable sources whether journalistic or scholarly, is never "fancruft" in the sense of fan-generated content that is assumed to be unencyclopaedic by nature. Once an article has made it through the eye of the (editorial) needle and to publication, it is no longer "fan-generated content" in that sense. It may, of course, be inappropriate to the encyclopaedia for other reasons. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in two non-primary RS'es in the article as it stands now, so GNG is met. The nom states that this was deleted twice before, but the first AfD resulted in no consensus. More tellingly, the complaint now is essentially one of notability, which is entirely separate from the COPYVIO reason it was deleted in AfD #2. It is clear that COPYVIO does not apply to this instantiation. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If this were Wikipedia's own List of richest fictional characters, I'd concur with the nominator. However, the publication of the list is an event that gets coverage in major sources - here is Time, here's ABC (US) News, here's The Telegraph. I would be happier if the coverage discussed some impact of the existence of the list rather than it just seeming to be a cute annual tradition that generates coverage restating select portions of the list's content, but the articles do cover the history and methodology. Articles in multiple reliable sources that are focused primarily on the list indicate to me that the presence of this article is not damaging to Wikipedia --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nat Gertler. This isn't a referendum on Forbes's methodology; I'm sure this is mostly about fun, as fictional characters have no actual wealth. But the list itself garners significant coverage. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've edited the article to add the references supplied by Colapeninsula and NatGertler (thanks!), and to remove the Luxist reference, which was deadlinked, and which I could not locate. I could probably have found more to add, but I don't think it's necessary at this point.

I've also added some discussion of the comparisons between reality and fiction that a couple of the sources make. This was to address NatGertler's concern about impact of the list. It says something about the world we live in when writers of fiction—even of fantasy, like Tolkien!—cannot match the real-world accumulations of some of our billionaires. If you want to make a case that the wealth of e.g. Bill Gates literally beggars the imagination, the Forbes Fictional 15 can provide you with ammunition.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable Forbes magazine column. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say that, given the extensive coverage in reliable sources? Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 09:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Cook[edit]

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

No major roles in any major film, or other evidence of notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave A member of the American child actress, participated in the filmography About a Boy - an iron match VP: ACTOR. Stub is stretched, you can add. Rustam Kussainov 89 ( talk ) 10:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is left leave to item 3. VP: Actor. - Alisher Novarro 82 ( talk ) 12:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear non-notable vanity. Could have been speedy. X4n6 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that user(s) above may be trying to subvert the vote process. Using almost identical language, it is highly likely the 2 users are the same person. I'll leave it to an admin or someone else to clean up the format issues with the user(s) above. But more importantly, to expand on my Delete vote, subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. What else is there? Like her twin sister, Jordan Cook's article - which is also currently nominated for deletion - this is just another poorly written, unreferenced and blatant vanity article that should have been speedy deleted from the start. X4n6 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG David.moreno72 15:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toufik Boushaki[edit]

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

promotional article for scientist who fails WP:PROF. The most cited article of his has only 54 citations--and the others in order are 19, 18, 18, 16, ... The awards do not have any international recognition. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 283 cites in a well cited field [54] fails WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The listed awards do not appear significant enough for notability and there is nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 his campaign gains traction, presumably there will be better coverage and we can revisit this then. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward James[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a candidate for US Senate, no other claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of right now, he isn't even a general election candidate yet, but merely a candidate in a party primary. This is not a notability claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself, however, and nothing else here properly demonstrates that he would have been eligible for an article for any other reason. And for added bonus, this is plainly written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after election day 2018 if he wins the seat, but he doesn't get an article just for being a candidate in the primary. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winners of party nominations who receive significant coverage may be notable (but passing human interest type coverage clearly not, especially when the actual positions of the candidate are so unnoticed as to not be explored, eg Misty Snow), but candidates who have declared for a primary where final determination of who will be on the primary ballot is still 9 months away, the primary election is more than 11 months away, and the general election is 15 months in the future, are clearly not yet notable. If elected James will be notable, and he may become notable if he gets significant, sustainted, indepth coverage while running, but he clearly does not at present pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James is a major candidate for the Republican senate nomination in Michigan. In addition to his background being worthy of a wikipedia page, he has drawn a wide swath of national media attention. He is a major candidate for a major position who has drawn national attention, so he clearly has the notability and the relevance to maintain a page. Easily meets WP:GNG. The page does however need improvements. MountMichigan (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence of national attention? All the references in the article are from Michigan, and Google doesn't show much obvious. If he did have substantial national coverage, obviously he'd be notable, but you still have to show evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see this "wide swath of national media coverage"—relisted for a week

Response to Colapeninsula A quick Google search yields examples of national attention for John James: Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, another Daily Caller, and a mention in the The Hill.MountMichigan (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Especially the 3rd criteria. Vanity article beyond that. X4n6 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any references about him with his career Mr.ref (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stipulating WP:POLITICIAN "being a candidate is not notable," I do think James passes the further "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" test simply because his background made him a candidate worthy of media attention in places like Politico and Black Enterprise in addition to other coverage linked above. A relatively young African-American West Point grad Army vet and businessman running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate is unusual enough that it attracted media notice, hence notability. (Also agree that the page needs serious work to fix quality issues if it's kept.) Jmozena (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 22:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Dumplings: A Tasty Chinese Tale[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Created by an editor with a probable WP:COI. Edwardx (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are reviews in Publishers Weekly[55], Kirkus[56] and apparently Multicultural Review (EBSCOHOST gives: Boy Dumplings, Lee, Ginny, Multicultural Review; Spring2010, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p66), and an article in The Mercury News [57]. Merge to author's page Ying Chang Compestine would make more sense than deletion, if a keep isn't merited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don;t think any of the reviews are substantial coverage. In particular, Kirkus is no longer considered a RS for anything--they do reviews for payment. DGG ( talk ) 12:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no independent, reliable coverage of the topic. The sources provided are wholly unreliable as they have had a history of selling reviews (e.g.). DrStrauss talk 21:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article needs improvement and expansion (and additional sources), but appears to satisfy relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muntra[edit]

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

Muntra is modified version BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle (not tank) developed and now operated by the Indian Army. An equivalent description of this vehicle exists in the BMP-2 page and sufficiently covers the same information. There is limited information available on the modifications/the modifications itself are insignificant enough to warrant a separate article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Limited technical information not reason for deletion. The vehicle is new development regardless what is was based upon and is actually in operation by the army. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Developed off of the BMP-2, by India's DROD (not the original manufacturer) and differing significantly in details - e.g. unmanned operation. Article should be improved and expanded, not deleted, it is clearly both notable and distinct from the main BMP-2 article (where it merits a brief mention). UGVs are an emerging weapon system class (relatively few actual deployments as of yet and what is deployed - small scale), which sould should cover on-Wiki. Furthermore I'll note that it isn't clear (in current sources) if it is actually a BMP-2 variant, developed off it, or just resembling it - even if developed off BMP-2 - turning it into a UGV would be an extremely major modification.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz. Distinct weapons systems typically get their own article because there is significant coverage of them and they are unique from anything that they are related to. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Mr. Peter Hayden#Studio_albums. If more sources come to light, I would not be opposed to the redirect being reverted and the article expanded to incorporate them. But, with that said, there are simply not enough notable search results in the brief Google search that I did at this time. I concur with the conclusions that both the nominator and MassiveYR came to. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Hayden[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Altho there are refs, flaky is the word I would use to describe them. I actually favour redirecting to the band's page, which is what I did when I encountered the article. But (what a surprise0 article creator reverted. Seeking a broader consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. I couldn't find sufficient coverage for this release to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 03:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There's a consensus not to delete this article. Any merge proposal can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Marxist Party (Aravindakshan)[edit]

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

not notable faction of political party Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page claims this party has representation in a state legislature which would likely contribute to this being a notable party if true. AusLondonder (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't find any source, confirming this fact. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Try google: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/210516/chavara-s-giant-killer-n-vijayan-pillai-is-no-novice.html --Soman (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking Soman for the source. Now changing to Keep. AusLondonder (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the party is clearly notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, not sure how to deal with the Communist Marxist Party article after the split. Are we to consider the original CMP defunct and that there are 2 wholly separate parties in existence or is one of the 2 factions to be considered continuation of the original CMP? --Soman (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Party has one elected legislator. Beyond that, I am of the belief that we should automatically keep all articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or political ideology. This is exactly the sort of material that our users have a right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Soman is our resident expert on political parties of the developing world, and the question of split articles v. merge is best left in his capable hands. Carrite (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Days of Future Passed. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Hour (song)[edit]

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

I am awfully confused as to why there are so many articles about individual Moody Blues songs (aside from their singles, of course). This was not a single, a charting song, or sufficiently covered in any reliable sources. Basically, it the commentary of the editor who wrote it, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Days of Future Passed, and the same goes for all the other articles created for tracks from the album that aren't the two singles "Nights in White Satin" and "Tuesday Afternoon". They all fail WP:NSONG and are WP:OR by the articles' creator. Richard3120 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album Days of Future Passed; not independently notable. No sources to provide SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Days of Future Passed as ((R from song)) because it fails WP:NSONG, and keep the categories. Category:X songs and Category:Songs written by X and the like are useful search tools. Narky Blert (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church São Paulo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Creation of an article previously deleted by AfD. Still fails to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable church lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article fails WP:GNG now, but this really needs to be confirmed by a Portuguese-reading editor to avoid systemic bias. E.g. is this article significant coverage in an independent source, as it appears to be? Matt's talk 12:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is an announcement that the Sao Paolo branch of Hillsong plans to open in 2016. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Probably TOOSOON for a freestanding article, but something brief might be added to the article on the Australian mother church with a redirect to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete -- The article is still orphan, but it can be great. There are reliabe sources from official Hillsong's page (hillsong.com/saopaulo). Please, keep the article, it will be improved and will receive new reliabe sources. --187.35.196.111 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Please, do not delete the article, there are reliabe sources. The church opened in Brazil last year is already a success. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was reviewed and accepted. It is still a baby article, but have reliable sources and can be great in the future. My opinion is to keep the article. --Lindodawki (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and very selective merge to Hillsong Church#Network. Hillsong (Hillsong Church) is a big Christian brand, but I cannot find that the new branch in Sao Paolo has had enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a separate article. Perhaps merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hillsong Church UK has an article; I can see that Hillsong Church Kiev was redirected to Hillsong Church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- UK includes the entire nation and it runs an annual conference for Europe. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's right. Also as Peterkingiron says above, while it now seems WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article, it may, merit one as the London branch church did. Not all parishes have articles, but all dioceses are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Hillsong is not organized as parishes and dioceses, but it is a similar a hierarchical church structure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

The article expresses a larger organization of the Hillsong Church and its scattered units. The affiliate has its own identity and particularity. It is growing and can be greater. The sources are reliable and the influence is already enormous. --191.8.82.64 (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The church is located in the largest country in the southern hemisphere and already has a great influence. The unity of the Hillsong church in São Paulo is already recognized and famous. The article must be maintained because it is a unit that has its particularities and that in a short time of opening already exerts great achievements.--DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of this recognition should be reflected in write-ups in the media, shouldn't it? The fame, should similarly be reflected in the media. Certainly someone has recognized and written about the great achievements you mention. Why can't we find this content? I tried to look for them in the Portuguese-language article, but there isn't one. There isn't a Spanish one either. Perhaps you can provide sources to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has reliable sources, great Christian and secular media sites have already highlighted the importance and influence that the unity of the Hillsong church in São Paulo already has. Great internet portals already follow the church community, which is located in the heart of Latin America, the largest country in the southern hemisphere that has enormous relevance. --191.8.82.64 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in Portuguese and Spanish have not yet been created, but will be. But that does not justify the lack of relevance, it simply shows that someone has not yet created Wikipedia articles about the newly opened church, but highly relevant sites prove the success that the church already has. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article should be maintained because it is about a newly opened church that already has high relevance and influence. The article is under development and may still grow, but already has reliable sources. --177.47.238.22 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are simple: 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent of the subject. The sources provided are

http://revistatrip.uol.com.br/trip/a-igreja-australiana-hillsong-fenomeno-gospel-chega-a-sao-paulo-entrevista-com-o-pastor-chris-mendez - great article with significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-church-sao-paulo-dezembro/ - not significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-sao-paulo-sera-inaugurada-em-2016/ - not significant coverage - same editor as above

http://www.adiberj.org/portal/2015/10/29/hillsong-church-divulga-sobre-nova-igreja-em-sao-paulo/ - not significant coverage

http://oguiacristao.com.br/agenda-cultural/hillsong-sao-paulo-se-reune-dia-17/ - not significant coverage

https://guiame.com.br/gospel/agenda-gospel/com-pastor-brian-houston-hillsong-sao-paulo-realiza-seu-primeiro-culto-nesta-terca-feira-31.html - not significant coverage

http://www.stefanyblog.com/2015/02/hillsong-sao-paulo-nova-filial-da.html - not significant coverage

So we have significant coverage in one source that is independent of the subject. This fails GNG as stated so many. Pretty simple really. This is TOOSOON. And I find it odd that a few minutes before DavidStarIsrael7 responds an anon from the Sao Paolo ISP called Vivo responds with a positive comment as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article follows the criteria of relevance in its sources, because it has significant coverage, reliable sources and independence of subject. Correcting you, below is the real significance of the sources. Adding new ones. The sources provided are:

http://hillsong.com/saopaulo - official Hillsong São Paulo's page

http://revistatrip.uol.com.br/trip/a-igreja-australiana-hillsong-fenomeno-gospel-chega-a-sao-paulo-entrevista-com-o-pastor-chris-mendez - great article with significant coverage

http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2016/02/hillsong-a-igreja-hipster-que-atraiu-justin-bieber-e-busca-sede-em-sao-paulo.html - greatest secular Brazilian portal - article with significant coverage

http://celebridades.uol.com.br/ooops/ultimas-noticias/2015/03/11/igreja-de-justin-bieber-abre-sede-em-sp-em-dezembro.htm - great secular portal - significant coverage

https://tvefamosos.uol.com.br/noticias/ooops/2017/01/02/saiba-mais-sobre-a-igreja-hillsong-que-acaba-de-chegar-ao-brasil.htm - great secular portal - significant coverage

http://fotografia.folha.uol.com.br/galerias/49632-filial-de-igreja-australiana-na-vila-olimpia - great secular portal - significant coverage

https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/bbc/2016/02/25/hillsong-a-igreja-hipster-que-atraiu-justin-bieber-e-busca-sede-em-sao-paulo.htm - great secular portal - significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-church-sao-paulo-dezembro/ - great Christian portal - significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-sao-paulo-sera-inaugurada-em-2016/ - significant coverage

http://www.adiberj.org/portal/2015/10/29/hillsong-church-divulga-sobre-nova-igreja-em-sao-paulo/ - secular portal - significant coverage

http://oguiacristao.com.br/agenda-cultural/hillsong-sao-paulo-se-reune-dia-17/ - significant coverage

https://guiame.com.br/gospel/agenda-gospel/com-pastor-brian-houston-hillsong-sao-paulo-realiza-seu-primeiro-culto-nesta-terca-feira-31.html - secular portal - significant coverage

http://www.stefanyblog.com/2015/02/hillsong-sao-paulo-nova-filial-da.html - not significant coverage

I must correct you, Walter Görlitz for your rashness and false reasoning. Almost all sources are reliable, only one source is not. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct you, for your rashness and false reasoning because each source must be all three, and while almost all sources are reliable, most of the sources are brief mentions of the place. One to two paragraphs is not usually considered significant coverage which is why most of the editors have been stating that this should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources listed above are not convincing for notability, being WP:SPIP or passing mentions. The page is largely WP:ADVOCACY as in:

"According to Hillsong Church senior pastor Brian Houston, the inauguration of the church in Brazil will be a major breakthrough!"

Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion, even for worthy causes. This content belongs on the church's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the sources listed have notability. They are from great portals of influence.

"According to Hillsong Church senior pastor Brian Houston, the inauguration of the church in Brazil will be a major breakthrough!"

This phrase said by the pastor is not something promotional, quite the contrary, is a proof of the notability about the open church in Brazil. It shows how important the institution is. --191.8.82.64 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources are from great news and media sites of relevance.

The article has reliable sources with relevant paragraphs. The greatest secular portals in Brazil, such as UOL and G1, have already reported on the importance and influence of the church. The article needs to be kept. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It need to be kept.

The article is good and has reliable sources. It is still a beginner article, but it can still grow and become a great article, so one needs to give it a try and keep it. The article will grow and become a better article than it already is. --191.190.154.28 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. As mentioned by Coolabahapple and North America, meets WP:GEOLAND notability guideline.. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Magan[edit]

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

Not enough notability, and makes no such claim. Jtrrs0 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep – Appears to meet WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place, as per the Census of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1385 (2006) source in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, as a populated place, clicking on the coordinates takes you to a village on gmaps. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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