The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falls Creek, Oklahoma[edit]

Falls Creek, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article contains zero notability , no references, and Does Not Exist on any Map search - the Closest Match identifies Falls Creek as a church in Davis, OK and not an unincorporated community Mikejones675 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center. There's nothing to the "community" other than the conference center and camp, and the only references I can find to there being a community here are just references to the conference center (for example, "Falls Creek Camp" on this county highway map). The conference center seems notable, but we don't need two articles on the same place. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Unless some proof comes that it is an independent community; the fact that the county DOT map just shows the camp suggests it is not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The USGS GNIS database has Falls Creek Assembly (1092757), a U6 unincorporated community with coordinates near the conference center. This is part of Davis, Oklahoma. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• additional comment. A check of the map confirms the subject is Falls Creek Assembly at 34°25′35″N 97°06′40″W / 34.42639°N 97.11111°W / 34.42639; -97.11111. USGS and Google maps show a modest cluster of streets and buildings at that location. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center per Catalyst31, for lack of any better, more policy-based actions. ToThAc (talk) 20:44, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexon (Hungarian company)[edit]

Nexon (Hungarian company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does Not Appear to meet Wikipedia Guidlines on Significant Notability Company is only mentioned a few times in Local News Outlets and its own website only has 5 media references Mikejones675 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to dubious sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:33, 18 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) 19:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphire Jubilee of Elizabeth II[edit]

Sapphire Jubilee of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Her Sapphire Jubilee was not publically commemorated, and is not comparable with her Golden and Diamond Jubilees. --Nevé–selbert 23:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The event did occur, it was observed (see 1), even inspired the name of a building, and it does appear in numerous reliable sources. The fact that it is the first sapphire jubilee for an English monarch also points towards notability. So, even though Liz II evidently decided to stay in for the occasion, it still meets WP:EVENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As PohranicniStraze says, there's multiple substantial international coverage of this event and its commemorations, including stamps and coins, a building naming, etc. [[1][2][3][4][5]. "Low-key" it may have been [6] but notable all the same. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:00, 18 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) 19:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Perniciaro[edit]

Charles Perniciaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsuccessful primary candidate for Congress, and no notability as a dermatologist or as a installer of Christmas lights. None of his articles has been cited more than 67 times,--most fewer than 10 DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails GNG. The way this was created was obviously with some kind of undeclared COI. He apparently played piccolo in high school. So delete per WP:PROMO as well. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having intimate familiarity with a subject is not a rationale for deletion, nor is failure to declare personal acquaintance an example of Conflict of Interest. "Promotional" is only promotional if it is promoting something. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and if you can't see how promotional this is and has been since it was created, I cannot help you. You may not be aware but in the field of medicine, dermatology, plastic surgery, and for some reason orthopedic surgery, are probably the three most crassly commercial fields with respect to doctors out there hyping themselves and their practices, and this article is/was par for the course. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not notable as a medical practitioner or as a politician. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not yet there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in party primaries — he would have to have won a seat in the State Senate, not just be a failed candidate for one, to pass NPOL. But the only other potential claim of notability here, being selected as "Practitioner of the Year" by his medical colleagues, is sourced only to a primary source press release from the professional society and not to a WP:GNG-passing volume of media coverage for the distinction. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Jytdog. 22:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough non-routine coverage that isn't a primary source. Thus, he fails our general notability criteria. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 13:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unelected politician. I enjoyed reading the bit about being a professional christmas lights installer, it is plausible that in the future notability could be extended on these grounds if the coverage becomes larger than a single human-interest piece. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The nominator incorrectly described this individual, he lost in a run for the state senate nomination, not the US senate. State senate is a state legislative position, so he would not be notable unless he won the general election. The POV-pushing in the description of his run is why we cannot support having articles on every candidate for even national legislatures, let alone sub-national ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 23 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. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canva[edit]

Canva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. No indications of meeting the criteria for notability. While sources may be independent of the company, the articles themselves rely on company announcements and interviews, therefore PRIMARY sources and not intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed !vote by nominator; your nomination counts as your !vote per WP:AFDLIST. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a massive amount of independent reliable third-party coverage of this company. I don't believe the nominator has done WP:BEFORE. The state of the article does not represent the subject's notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is much to be found through a simple Google News search, honestly, I think even with the sources it has, it squeaks by as notable. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Canva.com's alexa ranking is 393 worldwide, and 280 in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.164.126 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well known alterative to Adobe's Creative Suite. Suggest this AfD be closed under WP:SNOWBALL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I disagree with the decision to relist again. Consensus seems fairly clear. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:11, 17 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Software[edit]

Intentional Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

notability not established for defunct company Ysangkok (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep Struck !vote made in error above, was not my intention. While most of the references in the article rely almost exclusively on interviews and quotations from the founder or company announcements (therefore failing the criteria for establishing notability since those references are not intellectually independent) This technologypreview article meets the criteria. It is an in-depth article and although it contains quotations and interviews with the founder and customers, it contains intellectually independent analysis and opinions and therefore qualifies. There are also a number of books such as Dreaming in Code by Scott Rosenberg (page 208) that also meet the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  People write about Intentional Software primarily because it is where Simonyi was. But in the link you gave, you can see that Intentional Software had nothing to publicly show, the WYSIWYG stuff was vaporware. Just like in Martin Fowler's article. I don't see the value in having an article about a company that was supposed to deliver something big, but never did. This could be a section in Simonyi's article. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear keep. At acquisition, a 15-yo company with over 50 staff, public papers about their methodology and approach, and plenty of national news mentions -- however vague. The acquisition by MSFT along w/ all staff is testament to notability, not a reason to erase. – SJ + 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion about anything else, but must point out that having over 50 staff comes nowhere near being an argument for notability. Your local supermarket probably has over 50 staff, but it is almost certainly not notable. There is nothing in either Wikipedia policy or common sense that says that a tech company is more notable than a retail company. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Microsoft has acquired 205 companies. Many of these blue links are just redirect to MSFT product name that was created with the acquired resources. But at least most of the blue linked companies resulted in an actual product. Unlike Intentional Software :P --Ysangkok (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:35, 18 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. Ok, first off I've opted to ignore all the SPAs, also because most of their arguments do not address any point about our definition of notability, or make unsupported assertions. I also think that some comments here ("self promoter") are unnecessary and jerkish for an AfD.

Now on the actual notability issue, there seems to be some disagreement on whether some sources suffice to establish GNG notability. With some - BBC and car crash news - the delete argument seems to be stronger but with others - The Christian Post - I don't see a clear cut consensus. Since the notability of the topic hinges on the sufficiency of these sources, a "no consensus" outcome seems appropriate. A previous AfD ended up deleting the topic, but "consensus can change" as they say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Andre Sawyer Jr.[edit]

Jared Andre Sawyer Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Found no sources using Google search, even on Google news. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 04:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Note that Nom searched "Jared Andre Sawyer Jr."; "Jared Sawyer Jr." gets hits on a gNews search, and more hits on a proquest news archives search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has over 3 million views on YouTube, about 300K followers on social media and a good number of reliable sources because a lot of people want to know more about him. - YouTube is the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativeworld76 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Creativeworld76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - He was a prodigy and seems as though he's still a major influencer. He's clearly a leader in conversation around religion, politics, and philosophy. comment added by Paooola.mahe (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Paooola.mahe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - After a google search, he was in a car accident that seemed to gain extensive media attention, including but not limited to BET, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Joy 105, and local Atlanta stations from just one post on his social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon729 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Leon729 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - Article topic was named 200 Most Influential authors of 2016 by Richtopia. Additionally, the article's content asserts importance and significance for the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross724 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Ross724 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete This is a vanity page. The sources are either vanity pieces or fluff. It's interesting that he caused controversy for being ordained at such a young age, but it has not garnered enough non-routine coverage to merit an article. YouTube views are not a criteria for notability. The brief mentions about the car accident are not enough to convince me that the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering why this newly created article appeared in my watch list and discovered that it was a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Sawyer Jr but it was moved after recreation. I'll ping those who commented on that AfD just in case: @SwisterTwister: @StAnselm: @Peterkingiron: @E.M.Gregory: @Aoba47: Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Walter Görlitz as I agree with their point of view. I stand by my previous comments in the previous AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep(struck as duplicate !vote) I'd think someone who has a supporting role in a feature film releasing next year with Taraji P. Henson is pretty notable. The movie page is disambiguated so right now. Additionally, there are some google references for his appearances in Tyler Perry films. He's apparently a familiar face and notable. Ross724 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Ross724 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - This is a vanity page, as described above. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Ignoring the likely meatpuppeting, this guy appears legitimately notable, even if a bit borderline at this time. The NAACP award and Christian Post articles are the two that anchor GNG compliance in my mind--others aren't as good of sources, but aren't solely vanity, either. The above delete !voters need to check the sources a bit more closely before just dismissing this as a vanity page: promotional language can be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, forget borderline, he made the BBC. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article merely has a picture of him as "another child preacher", the text doesn't discuss him at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is clearly promotional in nature, and it's likely WP:TOOSOON. This is a 20-year old, and it's unclear to me why/how he is notable: as an actor, an author, or a member of the clergy? References like [7] don't lead me to believe he meets WP:GNG at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has the most GNG coverage as a member of the clergy, which is international, mainstream, and has continued over years. I don't see RS'es covering his acting yet. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CLERGY is phrased in a way that doesn't really apply to BLPs, especially BLPs of people this young. I do agree this is a borderline case, but I still feel it's WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that he does not meet WP:CLERGY or have presumptive notability in any such manner. However, clergy members can meet GNG through routine means, and that seems to best apply here, as his coverage is clearly scattered: both the Christian Post and AJC articles cover him as a child preacher, now growing up into a college student. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Got significant publicity as a child preacher. He is now an undergrad at Morehouse College, in Atlanta and was recently injured in a traffic accident. Few accident victims get news coverage like Teen author, Morehouse student recovering after crash, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, [8]. That story revisits the child-star coverage and strongly supports notability. As do his film credits [9], although these small are not by themselves sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR. I am concerned about the fact that the article asserts that he is ministering at an importantGreater Piney Grove Baptist Church, but the Church's website does not list him on the staff page [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre' Sawyer Jr, this should have been G4 eligible, but it was created under a slightly different title. No, this kid is not notable. He is a young cleric who is trying to promote himself. The BBC is just a picture of him, and the Christian Post article is a fluff human interest piece (and no, I'm not arguing that because its a Christian publication: I have a pretty strong record in arguing for counting religious publications towards GNG in AfDs, this one is just literally nothing more than you'd expect to see on local TV). NAACP award isn't at the level required for ANYBIO. No reason to keep this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the Christian Post article [11] Tony refers to, a reported article in a WP:RS for sourcing a bio. One man's fluff is another man's reporting on a modern example of an issue that has roiled protestant waters for 500 years; and Christian waters since the year 1.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and that article is not an analysis of the complicated theological questions. Its a fluff piece about a kid. You didn't think that it alone raised him to the level of notability 10 months ago, and nothing has changed since then. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the policy or guideline that says an article about a preacher has to delve into his theology? It's a detailed piece by major topical press, and you're arguing it doesn't go into the minutiae of the topic sufficiently? Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm saying its not substantial coverage that we would accept in any BLP AfD as establishing notability, and that the response above was trying to portray it as a commentary of how this subject fits in to a centuries-long intellectual struggle within Protestantism, and one that has taken place over millennia within Christianity as a whole is not remotely accurate. Reliable sources run human interest pieces all the time, and we rarely ever count them towards notability, largely because they lack intellectual independence from the subject and are borderline primary, which are specifically excluded as couting towards notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Play fair, Tony. I described it as "reporting on a modern example of an issue that..." (then I got verbose, thinking I was being amusing, in my description.) It is a pretty ordinary feature story, reporting not only the issue of child preaching without ordination, but reporting on details of his life, career goals, college how attending, and the fact that his ordination was broadcast live by a local radio station over Facebook. My opinion on that question is yes, I think Jesus probably would have had a facebook page.09:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• The question of whether or not Jesus would have a Facebook page is irrelevant to whether or not a document that is largely based on primary sources that aren't intellectually independent meets the GNG. There is no policy based reason to think it does. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa. The Christian Post is a well-regarded, national publication. This is a reported article. There is no reason to suspect that either the reporter or the publication is connected to this young preacher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre' Sawyer Jr) and for lack of any additional notability since then. The SPA activity at this AfD is concerning as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your timeline is incorrect: this is last month, when the previous, lightly attended AfD was in November, 2016. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passing local coverage about a car crash does not establish notability by any means, and would be expected in many major cities in the American South its run-of-the-mill, nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, no, Atlanta is one of the biggest cities in the country and the AJC is is one of the country's major regional dailies. It truly does not run an article every time a local kid is in a car crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the last response I will post here, because I don't want to make it more difficult for other to participate in the conversation, but I think it is important to demonstrate how frequent car crash reporting is in the AJC: [12],[13], [14], [15], and there are about 6 more from the first page of Google just from this month. Yes, major regional dailies int he American South run car crash stories all the time. No, none of the people who are involved in them are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, there's a fundamental difference between the four links you posted, and the one on Sawyer: his link says something about who he is. None of the other four talk about colleges, ambition, cite previous interviews, or books published, or anything of the sort. That's what I would call qualitatively different reporting by the AJC on Sawyer vs. other car crash participants. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It wasn't immediately obvious from reading the text above, but it appears there have been two separate prior AfDs under different titles:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Sawyer Jr in May 2016 (no middle name)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre' Sawyer Jr in November, 2016 (no trailing period).
  • Additionally, it appears to still exist now reside at Jared Sawyer Jr, despite the prior where it was moved during this AfD. What a mess. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Thanks for pointing that out. If this closes as delete, I'd request the closing admin to salt all titles. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What would be the justification for that? It's been recreated with increasing evidence of notability. If you avoid reacting to the meatpuppetry punitively (AGF'ing that these are fans clueless about Wikipedia norms), you can see this young gentleman is at least borderline notable. I'll note that at least one of the previous AfD participants, E.M.Gregory, has changed his mind and is strongly supporting retention in this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll comment in reply since you asked for the salting justification: it actually has nothing to do with the meatpuppetry above, but with the repeated recreation of someone who isn't even near notable from my estimation, and I tend to be very critical of the way the average NPP person handles religious biographies. I try to be involved in most AfDs involving clerics of any religion: the average Wikipedia editor will often look at an article about a significant cleric and not know how to assess notability because they work off the fallacy that publications within a religious group can't be intellectually independent from the subject of a biography. What I'm seeing here wouldn't near clear the bar for inclusion for any BLP, and I don't think lowering the bar for clerics to count local car crash articles and pictures in the BBC does the encyclopedia any favours. Salting is justified if this is deleted because we've now wasted time in AfD three times over this person, and the title has been at four different names now. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The keep argument, as I see it, consists of:
  

1. article in the Christian Post, Teen Called to Preach at Age 5 Sparks Debate ABout Needing a Degree to Preach God's Word, Christian Post
2. 2017 article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Teen Author, Morehouse Student Recovering After Crach, [16]
3. 2009 article in the Baltimore Afro-American about speakers at a scholarship presentation at a Howard University School of Divinity scholarship award ceremony, relevant text reads "The guest speaker will be the Rev. Jared Sawyer Jr., who is 11 years old and is a spiritual phenomenon... Jared, a native of Decatur, Ga., and the son of Sebrina and Jared Sawyer Sr., is like any 11 year old youngster who loves to play sports and hang out with his friends. More than that, he loves to read and study the Bible. Another difference between him and his peers is that on Sunday mornings, he goes to the pulpit. "I was called to preach by the voice of God at age 6," Jared said. He was licensed as a preacher at Centerhill Baptist Church in Decatur where he began singing the gospel at age 2 and reading the Bible at age 3. Jared, now a resident of Atlanta, studies God's word and writes his own weekly sermons. Many of them , encourage young people to live for the Lord. He truly loves the Lord and is serious about delivering His word through his powerful sermons. He preaches every Sunday in front of hundreds of worshippers and asks them to forget his age and listen to his delivery of God's word."[17]
4. Too Much Truth: Minister Jared Sawyer Jr. 21 July, 2016 interviewed by Derrick Boazman [18] on CBS local (there's more similar, but I'm out of time.) 4. He is mentioned in a 2012 BBC article, "The curious allure of child preachers" [19].
5. Others stuff includes news hits on announcements of his appearances to speak/preach in various places.
6. Plus brief coverage, often just announcements, of activities undertaken by his Jared Sawyer, Jr/ Ministries. This includes stuff like organizing youth in Atlanta to plant trees along roads on Martin Luther King Day, putting on a one day "Teens Against Violence," seminar, and similar.
7. In addition, he has had some very small film roles [20] that do not appreciably contribute to notability. And books that garnered no significant coverage in RS.
Summing up, there is no doubt that he is a self promoter, not only on WP, but also, for example, on his imdb bio (which describes him as a best-selling author.) I did this summary for myself, and didn't complete the list (out of time) but looking at it, I do think that there's is enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I ducked in here due to what looks like at a glance either sockpuppetry or a voting campaign up top of this debate. I believe the subject's age at ordination, while still a minor, and the published controversy surrounding this gets us most of the way to passing GNG and the other unrelated sourcing already showing in the footnotes takes us the rest of the way home. Don't care about christianity, the economics of churches, and whether or not this subject is a "self-promotor" — the bottom line is that the subject passes GNG based on multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject in independently published sources of presumed accuracy. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Emir of Wikipedia has moved the article since the start of this AfD. I have moved the article back and recreated the title with an apostrophe after the middle name as a redirect. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was just a result of a request at WP:RM/TR. I take no side in this AfD. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 22 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) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert S. Feinberg[edit]

Herbert S. Feinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure advertisement for a dermatologist with no encyclopedic notability The likely situation here is that this was written by an undeclared paid editor, because nobody else would write an article where the lead paragraph lists the procedures they do, just like advertisements for dermatologist in the subway. . As for notability, he wrote one book, now in only 120 libraries which is trivial for popular medicine. Only one published paper, cited only twice. The third party references are the usual PR. (if I were a paid editor, I would never even have accepted this job) DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Written as WP:PROMO fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG--EC Racing (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dermatologists are only a little below plastic surgeons as being overly self promoting doctors. OK, way below plastic surgeons, but in either case we have nothing beyond promotional sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 23 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darby O'Gill (band)[edit]

Darby O'Gill (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A notability tag has been stamped on this article for years. While that in itself is not a reason to delete, during that span the only source that has any in-depth material on the group is their own website. For that, the band clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete as failing WP:NMUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 15:40, 14 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo Sang-woo[edit]

Yoo Sang-woo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is nothing more than a filmography list for an actress who, after a search for sources is not notable per actress notability standards. The corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia is merely an extended filmography with similarly poor sourcing. DrStrauss talk 20:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Because we don't know what is that name's real/official romanization. For this, see the WP:NCKO and Romanization of Korean. --Garam (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search for "유상우 성우" (her name plus "voice actor" in Korean) on Naver News finds no significant coverage. Even if we don't know how she prefers to romanise her name, it doesn't matter; it's wildly unlikely that there would be more coverage about a voice actress in English than the language in which she actually performs. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naver cannot use the reliable source. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not using Naver as a source, I am using Naver News search engine, which searches reliable sources such as Chosun Ilbo, The Hankyoreh, The Dong-A Ilbo, etc. If you search for a modern South Korean person and find no articles there, it's reasonable to conclude that the person lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The voice actress is not popular job. And she is also narrative voice actor of KTV etc. So we cannot found information in news. But she's name is mentioned by Database (as MBC radio program Simsimtapa's main guest of sub-program) of Korea Creative Content Agency, member of Korea Broadcasting Actors Union and etc. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:33, 21 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrea Yeo[edit]

Alexandrea Yeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Little evidence of biographical notability. A Google search reveals fewer than 1,000 results, most of which are self-published or affiliated with no coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete leading contestants in reality TV shows are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Could not find any coverage. Anoptimistix (talk) 11:42, 17 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yctc[edit]

Yctc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails corporate notability guidelines. A Google search reveals only Bloomberg-esque directory entries and the only third party review is this which is full of puffery. DrStrauss talk 20:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Also, the fact that the subject company is only marginally different from other pipe suppliers qualify it for WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:51, 16 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Hospital[edit]

Surya Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A recreated article which was previously deleted through PRoD. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Obvious conflict of interest. Also requesting creation lock (salting). —usernamekiran(talk) 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no indication of corporate notability or in-depth coverage. I endorse the creation protection request due to the conflict of interest and repeated re-creation. Unsourced comments like super-speciality do not belong in Wikipedia articles, the promotionalism in that article is borderline G11 material. Poorly sourced, again, source search turns up nothing to convey notability. DrStrauss talk 20:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note that it is silly to complain about a PROD-deleted article being recreated; there was no previous AFD so no proper discussion. This source in the article, of Hindustan Times, is enough to convince me it is a legitimate and notable hospital. --doncram 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Hello again. An establishment doesnt become notable only because it has been once mentioned in a source (which looks like paid news by the way). Also, it still fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been speedy deleted under G11 -unambiguous advertising. Ajf773 (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what happened exactly in the edit history, but the article exists again now. If it was speedy-deleted as Ajf773 says happened, that was improper, because an AFD was in progress. And it would have been proper for someone to restore the article / reverse the speedy. Again, it seems to me like a significant hospital; I voted "Keep" above. If the current article is promotional that should be dealt with by editing. --doncram 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- yes the hospital exists, but its mere existence is not a guarantee of having an article in an encyclopedia. The coverage is shallow and incidental, or promotional in tone, as linked above. In addition, the SPA / IP activity has been concerning. For example, the IP changed the header of this AfD to Surya Hospitals: diff. It was a bizarre change; my guess is that it was perhaps a move to go around the deletion process (??) I cannot come with a different explanation. The same IP has extensively edited the article: Special:Contributions/219.91.152.73. On the balance of things, it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 19 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Linzer and Denny Randell[edit]

Sandy Linzer and Denny Randell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe that this partnership isn't really WP:NOTABILITY, and discussion on this is better served in the individual articles, especially considering that most of the songs SL and DR wrote were also written with Bob Crewe as well. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the original author of this article (back in 2008, when neither of the subjects had their own Wikipedia article) and haven't looked at it in a few years. Both Linzer and Randell have their own articles now, and all relevant content appears to have been moved. I concur with deleting this article. Engineer Bob (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with the nominator and the article author above – both individuals are notable in their own right, not just as a writing team, and as separate articles now exist for both Linzer and Randell, this "joint article" is now redundant. It can't be turned into a redirect for two separate articles. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Koskikallio[edit]

Olga Koskikallio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article's only reference is to IMDb and a search for sources reveals little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that suggests that Koskikallio passes the notability guideline for actresses or the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 15:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No references, no convincing claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a Finnish Wikipedia article on her: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Temonen -Lopifalko (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Finnish Wikipedia has different notability standards from the English Wikipedia. DrStrauss talk 17:32, 18 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. A redirect can be done independently of this debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total Dhamaal[edit]

Total Dhamaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cites no sources, scant content. No evidence of notability. Lineslarge (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not IMDb. The article asserts no notability on the film, failing both film notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. I have found very little significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, no major reviews, no indication that it's not just run of the mill. DrStrauss talk 15:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Would have voted delete were it not for my fear of @MichaelQSchmidt: turning up to vote for keep. Anyway this fails WP:NFF as principal photography has not yet begun. Jupitus Smart 15:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Thanks. Here I am... but not a keep, something else NOT a flat deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: An article NEVER has to say "this topic is notable", as that unspoken statement is to be inferred from actuality avaialability of sources, not their use... and while yes, one can look at what was brought here to AFD and certainly agree that it is unsourced (correctable via WP:HANDLE) and if one actually looks for them first, one might then be able to determine if the multiple sources speaking toward the topic of this production meets WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG to then see that the topic is sneaking up on WP:NFF.[21], [22], et al. And thus, with actual attention to sources speaking about this topic, it is fair to state that various aspects of the production are getting coverage in a more than "trivial" manner. IE: Times of India (1), Hindustan Times (1), First Post, and NDTV, Financial Times Times of India (2), Hindustan Times (2), Bollywood News, and many more

That clarified, the issue is that it has not yet begin filming, but Hindustani Times(3) does imply that it will start later this year. So for now, as per suggested by policy and guideline, I urge a redirect to a sourced mention in the article of the film's director Indra Kumar and in the prequels at Dhamaal (film series). The article can always be returned and improved after filming is confirmed and, if anyone wishes a nowiki'd copy to work on while we wait, I'd say let him do so. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has significant coverage:

• "Total Dhamaal to star Ajay Devgn: Director Indra Kumar confirms Shivaay star's on board". First Post. 5 June 2017.
• Iyeri, Meena (5 June 2017). "Ajay Devgn to play the lead in 'Total Dhamaal'". The Times of India.
• Goyal, Samarth (3 June 2017). "Sanjay Dutt pulls out of Total Dhamaal; doesn't want his kids to see him in adult comedies". Hindustan Times.
• "Sanjay Dutt quits film Total Dhamal due to its 'adult comedy'". The Indian Express.

• The article can be expanded quite easily. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Having further read what Schmidt wrote, I think his redirect option is in order. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has significant coverage by Times of India (1) and many others, passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. WP:NTEMP says once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. This article topic has lot of significant coverage mostly by reliable Indian news media. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Anoptimistix: While yes, the GNG IS met though the numerous sources in multiple languages speaking in detail about various aspects of the film's production. BUT under the guide WP:NFF and essay TOO SOON, we await confirmation of filming (in any language) first. UNTIL that time this topic may be spoken of elsewhere. Once filming has been confirmed, I'd be happy to restore the article or a better draft. 06:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Umair Aj (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Umair Aj: Sorry, but as shown above, while topic WP:GNG is met, the issue is really about the failure of WP:NFF, and how under WP:ATD we have alternatives. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:08, 24 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Kovacs (fashion designer)[edit]

Agnes Kovacs (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to meet WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage in reliable sources. That a facebook mention by a fashion blog merits an article in a Hungarian celbrity news website does not mean the subject is encyclopedic material. Mduvekot (talk) 16:19, 22 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Timbrook[edit]

Corbin Timbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor actor. IMDB says he's "best known" for being ninth-billed on 1990's Ski Patrol. References are passing mentions and actor listings. Calton | Talk 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Neptune's Trident has a long history of promoting J.C. Maçek III, who is the producer of [Cargo]. Timbrook appears in (you guessed it) [Cargo]. I have mentioned Neptune's Trident at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard twice (here and here). In the most recent case, Neptune's Trident created an article about a publisher just before they announced picking up Macek's book. I think the inference is obvious and it is past time to deal with this. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for possible WP:COI and WP:GNG--EC Racing (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 23 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 ViuTVsix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Re-Viu[edit]

Weekly Re-Viu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sign of notability. All three references have no mention of "Weekly Re-Viu". Wcam (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ViuTVsix, the channel that airs the show. menaechmi (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ViuTVsix. No independent notability. Coverage by other news sources don't even seem to mention this programme by name even though they do talk about Reuters' involvement in producing the show. The relevant discussion on zh.wp has resulted in the same outcome for the same reason. Deryck C. 10:29, 21 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. ansh666 05:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ångel (musician)[edit]

Ångel (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Subject lacks coverage on independent secondary sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:11, 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) 11:12, 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) 11:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. According to the article, he only has self-released albums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:25, 17 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Cargo) (2017 film)[edit]

(Cargo) (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Newly released, run-of-the-mill film. No indication of awards, notability, impact, or even short-term importance. Calton | Talk 14:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, film is notable and features a soundtrack by Tangerine Dream's Thorsten Quaeschning. I'm the creator of the article. The film has received significant coverage from internet film and horror websites. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage"? It's mostly what amount to press releases announcing that a trailer's been released.

And define "notable": you've been using the empty phrase "film/subject/actor is notable" in AFD discussion after AFD discussion of your articles without ever backing up that statement. --Calton | Talk 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't even have a date of release, and passing mentions issue per Calton. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Neptune's Trident has a long history of promoting J.C. Maçek III, who is the producer of this film. I have mentioned Neptune's Trident at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard twice (here and here). In the most recent case, Neptune's Trident created an article about a publisher just before they announced picking up Macek's book. I think the inference is obvious and it is past time to deal with this. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 17 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) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kampung Pasir Putih[edit]

Kampung Pasir Putih (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just a small village in Pasir Gudang and no reference. angys (Talk Talk) 13:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Obviously it needs improvement, but enough is available to confirm this as coming under WP:GEOLAND, for example recent news stories ("Freak storm hits Kampung Pasir Putih" in 2016, "Compensation for fishermen" in 2017 following an oil leak), mention in a book on the environment [23] and in a Lonely Planet guide. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable per WP:GEOLAND. AusLondonder (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all villages are notable per WP:GEOLAND regardless of sources. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:55, 20 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) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Ahner[edit]

Chuck Ahner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable politician who lost his only congressional election CelenaSkaggs (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Candidates for office are not automatically eligible for articles just for being candidates — since he didn't win the election, to be considered notable enough for an article he would have to demonstrate that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of the candidacy itself (namely, his career in business.) But this cites no reliable sources at all — the only "reference" present in it at all is his own self-published campaign website. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just not seeing any passage of WP:GNG or any other measure here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unelected politician. My personal sentiments are that we should be including all major party candidates for national office, whether they win or not, but consensus is clear that I'm in a small minority on the matter. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failed candidates for congress are not notable for this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel A. Epstein[edit]

Daniel A. Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable business person. References are not articles about him, but rather general articles about his company. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim of notability; article is largely a personal resume. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:26, 17 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) 22:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Rovati[edit]

Alessandra Rovati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable CelenaSkaggs (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence subject is a notable food writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG, no references, and external links point to a primary site revolving around the topic. ToThAc (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:06, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Martinelli (journalist)[edit]

Daniele Martinelli (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable, no references CelenaSkaggs (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of either significant contents or sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encryption of Things[edit]

Encryption of Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Essay: original research, advocacy, problem-solving. personal opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The author's own original research and opinion, rather than presenting the views of reliable sources neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 16 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) 11:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of No Such Thing as a Fish episodes[edit]

List of No Such Thing as a Fish episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No 3rd party references this seems to be little more than a page to host links to the podcasts I fail to see any encyclopedic value to it. Prod was removed on the basis that there are no 3rd party sources, which kind of proves my point Jac16888 ^Talk 18:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ajf773 (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Ajf773. Far too much detail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 24 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) 19:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SunTec Business Solutions[edit]

SunTec Business Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Run-of-the-mill software business. Neither the references listed nor a Google search show in-depth coverage to meet corporate notability. Providing "solutions" is not notable (although that language could be trimmed out if the company were notable). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article has a history of promotional editing. Two of the contributors to this article have been blocked, one as a spam account and one for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH.  FITINDIA  17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only 1 possibly independent ref, the brief article from Hindu Business Line. The two financialexpress.com articles is PR written by Businesswire India - other pieces by this source show it is solely a writer of company PR stories. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with changes - I originally started this article many many years ago. But now it looks like a page entirely filled with promotional material. I would suggest to keep the article by reducing its size considerably. I shall try and edit the promotional material out. Shall try to add more authentic references too. If that appears fine, it is best to keep the article. -- Xrie (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the article, and have added additional references. Appreciate if all could take a look at the latest version. -- Xrie (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a news search shows some promising hits, such as this New Indian Express article about the CEO winning an award. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any chance you could link to the promising hits you've come across? Because the New Indian Express reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as the company is only mentioned in passing as part of the title of the CEO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's this Times of India piece, and this one in The Hindi (which are the top two from a Google News search) - I'll also add my general caveat that Indian topics do not generally have the same level of online source coverage as those in the UK and US. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ritchie333. I've already commented on both the timesofindia piece below. It fails as a reliable source since there is no attributed journalist and also the article states "This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to" at the bottom. The thehindu.com piece fails the criteria for establishing notability at multiple levels. There is no original opinion and analysis in the piece and therefore not intellectually independent and is a PRIMARY source, relies entirely on quotations from a company exec and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and has no attributed journalist so fails as a reliable source. The criteria for establishing notability are different from those for relying on claims made in articles. For example, while a published interview (with no independent opinion or analysis) will always fail the criteria for establishing notability, the same reference may be used as a reference to support a claim. If you've any more references, post them here and if we can find two that meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm very happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find additional authentic references to add to this piece. Therefore, in view of the general guidelines of Wikipedia, I agree that the subject of the article is no longer notable (based on authentic third-party online references). I checked for references and facts from published works, and could not find any. Therefore, I would like to vote Delete on the relisted post. -- Xrie (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are not enought references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and as such, topic fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. This thehindubusinessline reference fails WP:ORGIND fails WP:ORGIND AND WP:CORPDEPTH since it is entirely based on an interview with the CEO with no independent opinion or analysis. The next thehindubusinessline reference fails WP:ORGIND as is a company announcement and/or fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is based on quotations from the CEO. This financialexpress article in relation to the company's inclusion in a list of 100 fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on company PR. Finally, this indiatimes reference fails as a reliable source since there is no attributed journalist and the article states "This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to" at the bottom. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I originally created this article several years ago, I am unable to find additional authentic references to add to this piece. Therefore, in view of the general guidelines of Wikipedia, I agree that the subject of the article is no longer notable (based on authentic third-party online references). I checked for references and facts from published works, and could not find any. Therefore, I would like to vote Delete on the relisted post. -- Xrie (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My searches are finding the routine announcement coverage which befits a company going about its business, but, as with others above, nothing better than the brief Hindu Business Line interview. Without in-depth critical coverage this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshikawa Tomizo[edit]

Yoshikawa Tomizo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Few sources give any significant coverage on him. DrStrauss talk 18:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the sources here in fact satisfy WP:ANYBIO and the claims in the article are significant claims; as by WP:BEFORE, attempts must be made when relevant and, in this case, that involves offline searches, especially since my linked search shows pre-Internet sources. WP:BEFORE also says that there are alternatives to Deletion in the chances of such offline sources. I'll also add that I found this this significant albeit non-English source; the nomination cites no attempts at searching beyond English, since the subject wasn't American or English at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: here we are again, SwisterTwister citing WP:BEFORE and not at the list of sources he's cited. Who'd have thought it? The Google Books link shows nothing but passing mentions. In fact, the majority of the sources are about an army deserter of the same name. Read all of those sources on that list and you'll find no significant coverage. And the specific source you've mentioned is a list of photographers and says nothing about him in-depth. Google Translate might be of some use in future. DrStrauss talk 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply: SwisterTwister, you talk of "the sources here". Which sources? (I see a lot of mentions of people who happen to be called Yoshikawa Tomizo, and of Yoshikawas and Tomizos; I see very little about this Yoshikawa.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If you have some offline sources, please do tell us what they are, we don't have magic powers and I have no reason to suspect there might be any. It's fairly obvious that this fails WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a source in the article. Have you read and understood it? If not then how can you have no reason to suspect that there might be any sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @86.17.222.157: Google Translate is a good place to start. DrStrauss talk 19:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you direct that comment at me? It's a good place to start for those who question whether it is a valid source, or those following WP:BEFORE to look for other sources to determine whether this is a deletion candidate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @86.17.222.157: you asked if Aguyintobooks had read and understood the source. And nope, it isn't valid if you're wanting to assert notability because it simply doesn't. Have you read and understood it? DrStrauss talk 20:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I have not read the source because I don't have immediate access to it, so I haven't said whether or not it confers notability, but you and Aguyintobooks have both said or implied that it does not confer notability, a determination that can only be made if you have read and understood it. Why can't you answer the simple question of whether you have done so? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes is the answer you're looking for. DrStrauss talk 12:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that's great. As regards your suggestion to use Google Translate, did you find a digital version of that book that can be put into Google Translate? I have been unable to find one. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have immediate access to the source. The book's in front of me as I type this. Yoshikawa is described as a portrait photographer. (Actually I think I have a book of his somewhere, but I can't be bothered to look for it right now.) It points out that he won an award in 1965, and that he was chairman of Tokyo Shashin Kenkyūkai (東京写真研究会; literally, the Tokyo Photography Study Group) the following year. If you poll http://digitalmuseum.rekibun.or.jp/syabi/app/collection/search and ask for 吉川 富三 as the 作家名 (creator), you'll see that the Tokyo Photographic Art Museum has forty prints by him. (I only glanced quickly. Some of the forty may not be prints.) He also has an entry in a dryer and more inclusive reference book, 日本の写真家 (which, like the former book, has an English alternative title -- Biographic Dictionary of Japanese Photography -- but is in Japanese only. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. being iincluded in a standard reference work has always been considered proof of notability . But the article does need expansion to show it. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think it has DGG. Independent, reliable sources are what we need, not passing mentions. We judge things as they are and not as they could be, if it isn't expanded to show his notability it should be deleted. DrStrauss talk 19:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is the reverse of our notability guidelines. We don't judge articles for notability, but article subjects. I would still like to know where you found a digital version of the book cited in the article so that I can check it for myself, as I would like to emulate Hoary and you in doing, via Google Translate. Or were you lying when you said that you had read and understood it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Renowned" is stretching it. "Known; and where known, respected" would be more like it. He gets a page in the cited book because something by him was, back when the book was being prepared, in the collection of the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography. Hundreds of others are there too; and hundreds of near-identical substubs were automatically generated from these (every one of them claiming that the photographer was "renowned"). ¶ I think he meets the notability guidelines. But is there any chance that anyone will want to develop this useless substub into an article worth looking at? I've done a few of these already and really can't be bothered to do any more; I don't remember seeing any interest among WP editors in writing up 20th century Japanese photographers who don't happen to be famous/trendy outside Japan. ¶ For a list of these undeveloped/underdeveloped, computer-generated things on Japanese photographers, click here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: re DGG and Hoary's remarks, the award isn't significant enough to pass WP:CREATIVE and other things existing isn't a rationale for another thing's existence. DrStrauss talk 12:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither DGG nor Hoary made either of those claims. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to thank Hoary for clarifying the nature of the reference. If something can be shown from the stub to be notable, and it is the type of subject that would be appropriate to an encyclopedia, there is no reason for deletion of a stub. I can't work with Japanese photographers unless there happen to be good English references, but many people here can. If someone comes along who has seen the name but knows nothing further, at least there's a useful identification. Looking back to 2001 and thereabouts, the entire encyclopedia grew from stubs. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A few minutes ago, when less sleepy than I was yesterday, I looked again, and found that yes, the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography possesses forty prints of/by Yoshikawa. For all its irritations (exhibitions of insipid work, insipidly curated exhibitions, etc), this museum is by far the most important museum/gallery of photography in Japan. (It certainly has a splendid library. And the other museums of note tend to be dedicated to a single photographer.) It's not a portrait gallery, so a portrait in its possession is there less for the person portrayed than for the photography/portraiture. Forty is a non-trivial number, and their storage imposes a non-trivial burden on the museum. I infer that a museum of note regards Yoshikawa as notable. Therefore, we should as well. ¶ DGG is right: many people here could work on this article. If they wanted to do so, that is. Beyond the trendy -- Araki, Kawauchi, Moriyama, Shiga, Sugimoto, Yokota, perhaps a few others -- few Japanese photographers are currently of interest to more than one or two editors; but who knows, this might change. ¶ I'm alarmed by DrStrauss's recommendations above of Google Translate. Translating from Japanese into what it calls English, Google Translate very often gets particular lexical items right, but typically is confused by grammar. It typically serves up a semi-comprehensible mishmash that might make some kind of sense if you apply guesswork, but a sense that could well be quite different from what was actually meant. It's highly irresponsible to put in an encyclopedia material derived via the combination of Google Translate and guesswork. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hoary: I never said put GT material in. I told another user that it's a good place to get a rough translation to ascertain notability. DrStrauss talk 17:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But, even if Google Translate provided a perfect translation, how could I use it to translate a printed book? How, for the third time of asking, did you manage to do that? Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, he also appears in a number of volumes of The Complete History of Japanese Photography. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well spotted. And if you're in Japan, it's very easy to get hold of these three volumes. NB they're in Japanese, and only in Japanese. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so i wont be adding them to my artbook collection (drat!) Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could enjoy the pictures, though, Coolabahapple. Plus the spines might look attractive on your shelves. (Confession: I've always wanted to have a book or two with a spine in Georgian or Burmese.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above sourcing, slash WP:NPOSSIBLE. The English Wikipedia has become the default reference work for the world, full stop. It is unlikely that one of our regulars would have the language skills necessary to develop this, but given the above sourcing and comments, it is very much possible that someone with the language skills and who lives in the correct geographic location could develop this. It matters because if we want to be taken seriously as a reference work and maintain the reputation that we have worked so hard to attain, we need to make it so that people can find notable subjects from their region of the globe. Even if it is a horrible sub-stub, keeping an article on it is important and factors in to Wikipedia's growth as a reliable source of information about art and culture of regions that are currently underrepresented. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of availbale sources in reptuable pubclications. Google books link cited above turns up nothing. Notability is not established by sources presented or by a web search.198.58.170.90 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the source that was already cited in the article before it was nominated and the further sources found by Hoary and Coolabahapple above. I don't see anything at all disreputable about those publications. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that there is no reason to delete this stub, and that non-online sources are valid references. Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 21 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, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Donor Zone[edit]

Safe Donor Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Zero reviews on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even a casual observation of old bald people reveals this fact, how is this supposed to have been discovered recently? A Guy into Books (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter P. Unger. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete pure marketing. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:37, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamate Gakusha[edit]

Yamate Gakusha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Woeful failure of the general notability guideline. None of its claims have inline citations and its biggest claim to fame is that it can hold 16 students. A Google search reveals little in the way of independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the place. DrStrauss talk 20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that someone made an article about their university digs... Delete. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no references, and nothing to prove that it isn't a hoax. (I'm, of course, not saying that it IS a hoax, just that it seems likely.) ToThAc (talk) 20:54, 24 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) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IT Professionals Day[edit]

IT Professionals Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I PRODed this not realizing that it had been proposed for deletion in the past and contested (missed in edit history). Rereviewed the sourcing, and while there is some coverage, a lot of it is press release churn or coverage on non-RS blogs. I don't think this passes WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  Nothing in Google books, it is not established, and indistinguishable from an effort of one company.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Unscintillating. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 17 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, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Up[edit]

Warm Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tried to seek outside information to increase notability, but as article stands now, it fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, doesn't seem notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and retarget as a redirect to practice (learning method). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Mag[edit]

Y-Mag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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