< 29 September	1 October >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Indika[edit]

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

S. Indika serves as a test case for Wikipedia's inherent notability policy. At each stage of analysis, Indika qualifies, if barely. At the end of the day, one is hard pressed to argue Indika is a notable figure, deserving of an article in an encyclopedia.

Indika played cricket. His team is Galle Cricket Club, whose status as a first-class cricket club is not established or referenced in its article. The infobox on the Galle page (without citation) tells us that the club has never won a tournament.

Indika played a single match in '88-89. We don't know Indika's first name, since 2008. The data is available from a single source, CricketArchive. It is unclear whether CricketArchive is a primary or secondary source. It does not disclose on any publicly accessible portion of the site from whence its data derives. That makes it a primary source.

Indika apparently qualifies for a WP article under WP:NCRIC. The article has been generally untended. For the last six months it has included an apparent bit of vandalism, which none of the .33 viewers per day has bothered to fix.

Under WP general standards for notability of a living person, Indika fails under WP:V; it has no inline citations. It appears cricketarchive is a primary source. One appearance fails WP:BLP1E. For a player whose first name is unknown, WP:NODEADLINE is being stretched; it appears NEVER.

Indika played in one match, for a team that itself appears unworthy of note. Indika's team has not won a championship since it was founded a hundred forty years ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played a single match with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in in 1988-89 thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per this discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is mentioned above, WP:BLP1E is not necessarily relevant (I did wonder about using it as an arguement myself in the past!) as it does state that
In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
Whilst I'm in a quoting mood, NSPORTS also states
conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion
so just because it passes WP:CRIN it does not mean that voting for delete in this case is violating NPOV.Spike 'em (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Spike 'emm -- It's not a global criterion, but consider whether the subject, in his one appearance, scored a duck (as in an egg-shaped zero). I could have achieved the same record. That's not a notable event -- not notable enough in my view to break the WP:BLP1E standard. Rhadow (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the discussion that Pharaoh of the Wizards links to is the most recent attempt to resolve precisely this sort of issue with NSPORTS and its perceived inclusivity. The subject here does not, as far as I can tell, meet the GNG. I'm sure that the CricInfo profile for the same player will be produced soon enough (it's here to save anyone looking). It adds nothing that is not in the CricketArchive profile. That leaves us with a position where the forenames and age of the subject are unknown and where we must assume they are probably still living. The information we do have is his surname, an initial and the fact that he probably appeared for Galle in a First-class match in the 1988/89 season.

Therefore we do not, in my view, have the "Significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" required to presume that the subject meets the WP:GNG. We simply don't know enough about the chap and have no indication, other than a sole appearance in a match judged to be First-class in status, of any notability. It is possible that suitable, in depth sources could be uncovered to show this. In which case I would have no problem with the article being re-created. I'd even be prepared to give a period of time for someone to find something, presumably in Sinhalese newspaper archives or in the archives of Galle CC, but, given the time frame in which he made his sole appearance I feel it is unlikely that such sources will be uncovered and therefore opt to delete, with the option of re-creating if they are - frankly, it's not as if there's much to recreate, is there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 15:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 22:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bandujeewa[edit]

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

This biography of a living person (probably) is insufficiently referenced since 2009. It fails WP:V; it has no inline citations. It appears cricketarchive is a primary source. One appearance fails WP:BLP1E. For a person whose first name is unknown, WP:NODEADLINE is being stretched; it appears NEVER. Rhadow (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one sources is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played a single match with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in in 1995-96 thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per this discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Not enough reliable sourcing to build an article. We don't even have enough to source his real name. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 15:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubb[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted music and trivial mention in various sources, except [10], [11], and [12] (an interview). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no coverage or reviews in independent, reliable sources of him so he fails both musical biographical standards and general notability standards. DrStrauss talk 14:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe . -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the NEC – Oct 24th 1989[edit]

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

Fails Nalbum and the general notability guideline. Fine with a WP:ATD/WP:CHEAP to Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe z' L3X1 (distænt write) 23:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the matter: why deletion?!?!? This article is sourced and useful!!! Ocean.child (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources merely back up the content in the article, to prove it is not a hoax. However, the article topic does not hold up to WP:NALBUM, Wikipedia's notability guideline for musical recordings. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Ocean.child (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at the Jerash Festival 2004 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Dounya Helwa – Live were similar situations. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep the article, or else merge to Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe per WP:CHEAP. "Live at the NEC – Oct 24th 1989" is not an unlikely search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe per WP:CHEAP as suggested above. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article as it is, period! Ocean.child (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocean.child: at the moment the three references from Discogs don't tell you anything more than you could find out just by picking up the record and reading the liner notes. In addition, Discogs are user-supplied information, so it doesn't come from any reliable sources. What's needed is something that demonstrates the notability of the record – reviews in print or online music magazines (not blogs or social media), chart history somewhere in the world, interviews in reliable sources (again, not blogs) with the band talking about the album... these are normally the kind of things that help demonstrate notability for an album article. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected as a sock-created article by Ponyo. No point in keeping this open any more. ansh 666 07:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clawdeen Wolf[edit]

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

This is a unsourced ~~broken article~~ about a main character in a doll frachise. Fine with a redirect to Monster High. z' L3X1 (distænt write) 23:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC) 16:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nom is providing an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. This media property has video and novels, and a simple BEFORE shows serious independent secondary sources discussing the character (one of the defining characters in the property) in at least three languages - not fan material or in-universe discussion, but actual analysis of social impact. This is not, per policy, the place to discuss the existing article: AfD is not cleanup. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Article is fancruft, and was created by a sock operator who has demonstrated poor judgment and low editing competence over the years. If she had created this from scratch again, it would have been speedied under WP:G5. That said, Redirect is how we normally deal with her. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the 3 HuffPost articles? L3X1 (distænt write) 16:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with the redirect, but the relevant argument is the sockpuppetry not notability. And I was referring above to the many mentions in books and academic articles not Huffpo. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to List of Monster High characters#Clawdeen Wolf this was re-created as an article by a LTA sockpuppet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graftieaux[edit]

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

This surname fails WP:NNAME as there are not at least two notable people with the name, nor is it otherwise notable per WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Then a redirect could point to Marcelle Dormoy.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to Marcelle Dormoy. I probably would have done that boldly if I found that in my BEFORE. (That’s what I get for using “intitle” to search...) -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fail WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is also a completely unreferenced article, so does not even meet the criterion in W:NNAME: "A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list." A redirect would be ok. SNOWCLOSE Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable surname. Unsourced article. It has had these problems since early 2015.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination basically withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Izno (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Network Q RAC Rally (video game)[edit]

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

Based on the popular sport of Wales Rally GB, but that notability is not transferable to video game which fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Plenty of reviews listed at Mobygames in contemporaneous magazines. It's contingent on how many of these magazines can actually be found to prove the coverage is significant, but I would err on the side of not deleting, per WP:DOUBT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per Zxcvbnm, keeping the article allows time for old magazine articles to be dug up from old internet archives to be cited and paraphrased into either a new section of the article or as external links, but I would agree that substantial information needs to be present. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote "weak keep" on your own AfD, that makes no sense. AfD is by definition for when you feel beyond a shadow of a doubt that an article should be deleted. In the future, please use PROD for these types of non controversial articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RISE (conference)[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable event. Significant RS coverage not found; article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. For a related AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collision Conference. This article is similar in concept and execution and should be likewise deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GNG. the 3 sources I found weren't in-depth enough and had me concerned regarding their reliability as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orang-U: An Ape Goes To College[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claims that the film was the first feature film to be released under a free culture license, but List of open-source films indicates that this film was preceded by other feature films with similar (even if not identical) licenses. No sources are provided to establish that Orang-U was the first film to be so licensed. Regardless of the license situation, the film seems to have to have received no significant attention after release; IMDb indicates that it has no user reviews, nor are any critics' reviews listed there, and the film has not even received ratings from 5 users yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; appears to include WP:ORIGINAL (unsourced claims regarding "first" film released under free license) and fail WP:NOTFILM. Uploading the film to Wikimedia Commons and promoting it (unsourced) on the page as "possible to watch the entire movie on Wikipedia" seems to violate WP:PROMO as well. There are not independent third party sources talking about how this film is available on Wikimedia Commons, and until there is, it's not notable or independently sourced enough to justify having a page. If it was, any film could literally get its own Wikipedia article just by uploading to Wikimedia Commons. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brittain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player with an undistinguished career in the minor leagues. Fails NHOCKEY just as in the previous AfD (and recreated by an editor subsequently community banned from new article creation), no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. For clarity to other editors, speedy delete per WP:G4 is not appropriate because the original AfD was in 2010 and the current article was created in 2013. However, this still fails WP:NHOCKEY. The new page and post-2010 content (and his post-2010 career) do not support notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 06:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndyCar Series (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is SPS. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic has widespread coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reviews from the BBC, Eurogamer, GameSpy, GameSpot, IGN, along with many other print magazines such as Edge, Official Xbox Magazine UK, Official Xbox Magazine US, Official PlayStation Magazine, GamesTM, PC Gamer UK, PC Gamer US, Game Informer. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The1337gamer. It's nearly five in the morning for me and the F1 race just ended, so I need some rest. When I'm reenergized, I can add a reception section with those reviews. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per The1337gamer._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented above. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Dahlström[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player with career in the Swedish minor leagues; AfDed in 2011 and promptly recreated by editor subsequently community banned from creating new articles due to such shenanigans. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Due to creator issues, maybe consider salting this title too? Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Creator withdrew their AfD nomination. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DethKarz[edit]

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

I believe this fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic has enough coverage from reliable secondary sources, particularly in print sources. GameSpot review, Game Revolution review, IGN review, Computer Gaming World mag review, Jeuxvideo review, Power Play mag review, PC Player mag review, PC Joker mag review, PC Games mag review. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The1337gamer's presented sources, clear failure of WP:BEFORE. Just because an article is a stub does not mean it's not notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The1337gamer and ZXCVBNM, with potential for cited links and paraphrased review information from outside coverage to be added, this article should now be kept for more editing time. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source list above. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newborn Woman (Vicki Lawrence album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No coverage in reliable third-party sources XFhumu^Talk 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, none of the sources shown are reliable and there are no "automatics" such as a major chart position or award to make this album notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage found to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron chariots[edit]

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

Particular contradictions in the bible do not satisfy WP:GNG - the only press coverage they receive is in apologetics, counter-apologetics, and debates. I think it would also be possible to merge this article into Internal consistency of the Bible, but that page currently does not contain specific examples of contradictions.

Alternatively, the website, Iron Chariots, is mentioned on Matt Dillahunty, and this page should instead redirect there - people probably come looking for that more than they come looking for direct quotations. Gacl906 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable intersection not given sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Possibly could be kept if broadened out to Chariots in the Bible. St Anselm (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the BLP mentioned in association with Iron Chariots, the source is a User: page on a Wiki. This is not a reliable source. I found the assertion two other places, but one was a wiki and one was from an announcement of a college philosophy club. If this article is deleted, it should not be redirected to the BLP. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redirect would be a bit misleading, and dabs can't have redlinks, so. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 09:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L. Dinaparna[edit]

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

This biography of a living person (probably) is insufficiently referenced. If a single reference to a paywall website is sufficient, then we should simply reference the website once, because WP adds no value. There is insufficient information on the page to determine notability; we don't even know the person's first name and haven't since 2009. I understand WP:NODEADLINE. In this case it seems to mean NEVER. Rhadow (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure there are still thousands of cricketing articles with just a link to Cricket Archive and no link to Cricinfo. This is an easily rectifiable problem by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket and I have now added a link to Cricinfo as well. Since this is the only issue raised by Rhadow, I suggest the sole complaint about WP's inclusion of the article is rendered null and void.

Yes, all cricket articles need now to contain a link to Cricinfo, but this is a gradual and methodical task. Bobo . 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also, as per not knowing the cricketer's first name, there are once again hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of this on Wikipedia, and if this is being used as a reason for nominating the article for deletion, I suggest the same is done to the other articles which match this fact, in spite of meeting painfully simple-to-understand (although, as we've learnt, impossible, contradictory, and meaningless to implement) criteria. Bobo . 23:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Statistics for Sri Lankan cricketers with surnames beginning with A:

Total: 56
Link to both CA and CI: 18
One external link to either CA or CI (but not both): 35
No external links: 2
Cricketers we don't know the first name of: 6

Once again, just as with Tom Cranston and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), it is evident that all of these problems are either meaningless, inconsistent, or addressable. Bobo . 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single appararance that did not provide enough coverage for us to even know the full name of someone, especially within the last 30 years, is just not enough to show notability. If people think it is, than cricket notability has no connection with reality. Sports notability should be set at a level where the people are likely to have coverage at a general notability guideline level, when we do not know the full name or any other details, we lack this coverage. No widespread coverage of the person with little details either, so we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same tired old argument we have seen over and over again and it is just as invalid as ever. WP:GNG begins by saying: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and (2) it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy". The emphasis is mine. "Either...or..." means what it says and WP:NSPORTS is one of the SSGs listed. Cricket notability is represented at WP:NSPORTS by WP:NCRIC which is a summary of the full cricket specific guideline WP:CRIN. Like WP:NFOOTY, WP:NBASE and others, the key rule is that a player must have made at least ONE top-level appearance for notability. As for not knowing the full name, the man is Sri Lankan and coverage of that country's sport in English language publications is limited; GNG makes due allowance for this and it is why we have WP:NODEADLINE. This nomination is yet another complete waste of everybody's time. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. To be fair, it would help if articles like this were created according to WP:MOS, WP:CITE, etc. I've just carried out what amounts to a complete rewrite including the predictable old chore of placing the sources into inline citations where they belong – NOT in a bloody external link section as happens far too often. I hope the article looks better now. It has two reliable sources both cited inline and the text begins by saying that first name and date of birth are to be confirmed. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no point trying to argue with people who know nothing about cricket or Wikipedia guidelines on first-class cricketers who are not prepared to offer their own guidelines in return, Jack. The fact that nobody who has challenged our guidelines on cricket biography articles has been able to provide workable, consistent, NPOV alternative criteria is proof that they have practically no idea what they are talking about. Bobo . 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize Jack. I am partially to blame for the over-external linking - although as you can tell by my stats, there are a lot of Sri Lankan cricketers whose articles require external linking to CA and/or CI. Not that that will stop people nominating random articles for deletion because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT... Bobo . 11:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have sympathy with the nomination and the deletion vote above, but this player is from the pre-internet era, playing outside the English speaking world. I am not surprised at all that we have limited sources available. In this case I think the SNG; WP:NCRIC should hold sway and suggest notability. Harrias ^talk 09:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the above. Meets WP:CRIN. If he did not, then WP:CRIC would ensure deletion. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming the player is still alive, I am not sure how the article came to the conclusion that he is a "former" cricketer; he might still be playing club-level matches. This is a BLP concern and I would rather have no article than have one which gives false/assumed information. How do you expect to find "significant coverage in reliable sources" when the first name of the player is unknown? Information like "He scored 22 runs in the first innings in which he batted, and a single run in the second innings. He held two catches in the Singha first innings." is better presented in a list (like this one) than its own article which adds zero value to the encyclopedia. Dee 03 11:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add individual first-class players willy-nilly to a list without including articles about every single one based on the same consistent criteria is a painfully obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Would you please suggest which of these Western Australia cricketers you mention, for example, don't deserve articles? And would you please cite the criteria to which you work? Bobo . 12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I normally do not create an article for a cricketer until he has played a handful of matches (first-class/List A/Twenty20) because it gives enough matches to write a summary about his career which includes stuff like first hundred, first five-for, number of runs in the season, etc. Also, there would be a greater chance of finding non-statistical sources which talk about the player's personal life in detail as he has played a higher number of matches. I wouldn't comment on the Western Australia list as I am unfamiliar with how in-depth the coverage for domestic cricket in Australia is. Dee 03 12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many is "a handful"? "A handful" is not a statistically workable inclusion criterion... Bobo . 12:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use a number. Firstly I try to find non-statistical sources in which the player is not just a passing mention or part of routine coverage. After I have found the sources to establish GNG, I use statistical databases like Cricinfo where his career summary can be fleshed out from using scorecards and such. Dee 03 12:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the subject. You claim that this cricketer needs to have played a "handful of matches" and you refuse to specify how many this is. If you want us to work to your criteria, where you want us to randomly define a point at which to create a list, you're going to have to be slightly more precise in defining your criteria for "article-hood" and "list-hood"... Bobo . 13:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not changing the subject. You asked what criteria I use while creating my articles, I just answered. I never said I want you to work to my criteria. If you have issues with any of my articles, feel free to take them to AFD. Dee 03 13:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to specify a criterion by which to work, may I please suggest you don't criticize our already existing criteria without providing a statistically consistent and workable solution? How many matches do you think an individual should have played before being "allowed an article"? Bobo . 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was an AFD where we discuss whether this article should be kept or not, and not an RFC where we try to come up with some inclusion criteria. Dee 03 13:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. It's a simple question asking how many cricket matches you think constitutes a "handful". Bobo . 13:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider 10 or more first-class matches to be enough for the cricketer to have some secondary sources discussing about him. But this is from an Indian domestic cricket perspective. And again, I'm not suggesting we use this criteria for our project; although it would be good if we do, as it would save us from countless AFD debates about players with a single first-class appearance not meeting GNG. Dee 03 13:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I am looking forward to the day when you decide to nominate every first-class cricketer with fewer than ten first-class appearances for deletion. Until then, I have no interest in attempting to justify painfully easy to understand and easy to implement criteria. Bobo . 13:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't nominate them for deletion just because they have played fewer than 10 first-class matches but I would nominate them if they don't meet GNG. Some players with less than 10 first-class appearances satisfy GNG, and some with over 10 don't. I have created many articles for players with less than 10 first-class appearances but all of them meet GNG. Dee 03 13:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop contradicting yourself. And please don't respond to this, I am bored of trying to justify alteration of inclusion criteria to someone who has, on various occasions, decided to flout their own arbitrary inclusion criteria. If you wish to make a serious effort to alter notability criteria, please do so in the appropriate places. Here and now is not the time or place. Bobo . 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never suggested we change the notability criteria. I simply responded to YOUR question on how I create my articles to which I answered. I make sure the cricketer meets GNG and then look up statistical sites for career information. 10 first-class matches is usually (but not always) the number above which you can expect reliable secondary sources for the player. That is what I said above, not sure how I was contradicting myself. And yes, I no longer wish to take part in this discussion with you. Dee 03

13:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Words in your mouth? Please. You were the person who came up with the undefinable "handful of matches" nonsense. And the inclusion of the word "usually" in your last comment proves that even you don't believe in your woolly criteria. No further comment even needs to be made now. Bobo . 13:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says he is a FORMER FIRST-CLASS CRICKETER and makes no comment about what he might be doing at his local club this afternoon. And his first-class career span is confirmed in the ESPNcricinfo source. As for adding "zero value to the encyclopedia", what is the purpose of an encyclopaedia??? To provide encyclopaedic coverage of subjects like cricket which interest millions of people worldwide. Yes, that is subject to WP:Notability and this man meets WP:CRIN so he is included. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for finding "significant coverage in reliable sources", we need the assistance of a Sri Lankan editor because, as I have already explained, information in English language sources about Sri Lankan cricketers is limited. As and when one of our Sri Lankan colleagues has the time to check out this player in the Sri Lankan cricket media, which is extensive but written in Sinhalese, we may be able to establish his first name and perhaps his date of birth too. This does happen on WP. You will realise this when you have acquired more experience of how the site works. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinaparna is a former first-class cricketer in the same way as Barack Obama is a former United States President. He did it in the past. "He might" by itself implies original research outside of third-party sources which we are prohibited from including - even if they did exist. Bobo . 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama!? How is that point valid in this discussion? Going by that argument, is Mohammed Siraj also a former cricketer? His last first-class match came one week ago. As "he did it in the past", I'm sure you would call him a "former cricketer" too. Dee 03 12:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with this please do as I suggest below, add "is a former". Unless you object to this too? Because who knows, he might even appear next week... Bobo . 12:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before you get all aggressive on me, let me remind you that I just expressed my point of view which I'm entitled to even if it is different from yours. I am experienced enough to give an objective opinion on a cricket AFD, being a WP:CRIC member myself and having written hundreds of articles for the project. With respect to providing "encyclopaedic coverage of subjects like cricket which interest millions of people worldwide", this particular page got a total of 25 pageviews from 1 September to 29 September, which is less than 1 per day (not that it has anything to do with this AFD, but looks like Dinaparna isn't of interest to millions of people).

Lastly, when does a player become "former"? When he hasn't played for 1 year, 5 years or 10 years? What timeframe do the "more experienced" people around here use? Dee 03 12:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as instead of the phrase "is a former", you may use the phrase "was a". Past tense. Basic English grammar. Are you saying one of these is more correct than the other? If so please feel free to change it, but please know that we could change it back on the same basis as the one you have just questioned. Bobo . 12:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong, "is a former cricketer" implies that the person is alive but has stopped playing, whereas "was a" implies that the person is dead. Dee 03 12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Five minutes ago I was eating a chocolate bar. I haven't died... Bobo . 12:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you are again using the wrong argument. See Hugh Hefner which begins with "Hugh Marston Hefner (April 9, 1926 – September 27, 2017) was an American businessman, magazine publisher and playboy." and then see Glenn Beck which says "Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American talk show host, political commentator, and producer." Dee 03 12:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Hugh Hefner nor Glenn Beck have been first-class cricketers in the past... Anyhoo, if you truly believe this man is still playing club-level matches, would you please include this in the article with necessary citations? Bobo . 12:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Deepak Shodhan and Mohinder Amarnath. Dee 03 13:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if Deepak Shodhan was still playing club-level cricket given as he has been dead for 11 years... Bobo . 13:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Shodhan is dead and therefore we use "was a". Amarnath is alive and we use "is a former". The burden is not on me to prove that Dinaparna is still playing cricket, the burden is on you to prove that he is a former cricketer (as per the current wording in the article). Dee 03 13:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that we are still arguing this point when it has been addressed in the article... if you wish to fix every other cricket biography in this way, please do so. Bobo . 13:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unindenting: Please note that this user's only objection to the existence of this article is expressing whether this player is a "former cricketer". Nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of said article. Discussing whether this cricketer is dead or alive is an irrelevant point compared to the fact that this cricketer quite clearly meets WP:CRIN guidelines. Bobo . 13:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a player who seems to have just made it past the sport-specific notability guidelines where cricket is concerned. The lack of a verified first-name is realistically a non-issue given the points raised elsewhere (a pre-internet era player from a non-Anglophone country), particularly given that there are - at the risk of making an "otherstuff" argument - articles on baseballers who are known only by their surname and appear unlikely to have the first names fleshed out either. Concerns about the "value" being added or otherwise are also irrelevant as well as being highly subjective. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What do S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), L. Dinaparna, Tom Cranston, and R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer) have in common? Answer: They all survived absolutely fine as articles on Wikipedia which met easy to understand guidelines for eight years without anyone questioning why they should exist on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In those eight years, we have not altered our inclusion criteria (in such a way which would render these articles inadmissible). Is it really WP:CRIC which is the problem here? Bobo . 12:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO evedence of Notability on this article , it fail every criteria for WBIO :Samat lib (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - User:Samat lib is a confirmed sockpuppet as per this page. Bobo . 12:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And his statement is ludicrous. Re notability, passes WP:CRIN. Re WP:BIO, article cites TWO reputable sources. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why we need to be vigilant as per the whole WP:ONESOURCE argument - which this sockpuppet user does not even come close to referencing... Bobo . 12:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dee03. Some of your comments are in WP:AADD territory and I would point out to you that wrongly accusing other editors of breaching WP:BLP is itself a breach of WP:AGF. I have already told you, above, that the article says Dinaparna is a former first-class cricketer and it does not say anything about him being a former (local club level) cricketer. As for confirmation that he is a former first-class cricketer, I have already told you, above, that ESPNcricinfo confirms the SPAN (i.e., beginning to end) of his first-class career from 1992/93 to 1992/93. Therefore, that source has verified that he began and ended his first-class career in 1992/93 and so he is a former first-class cricketer. That is basic English usage and it is not something to be argued about here. As for your ten-match notability minimum, go to WT:CRIC and propose a revision of WP:CRIN. I would remind you that WP:CRIN complies with WP:NFOOTY, WP:BASE and other NSPORTS criteria that a single top-level appearance confers notability so you will find you are very much on your own in terms of consensus. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, sadly basic inclusion criteria has been rendered irrelevant by the apparent unacceptability of articles such as Cranston and Perera according to those who wish to debate it. This is no longer about basic inclusion criteria, this is about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bobo . 13:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Bobo. The arguments do not carry much logic and misuse the written criteria by trying to misrepresent what they actually do say. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this had anything to do with logic, the basic logic that every single first-class cricketer is on the same level as the other and is therefore worthy of an article wouldn't have to be thrashed to death... yet nobody has ever wished to dispute this logic in favour of their own arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria. I have no doubt that even the people who mindlessly vote delete on these articles without knowing a thing about the subject would agree with this. Bobo . 13:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing beyond routine coverage: the chap existed, he played in one match for which we have a scoreboard. We have nothing else to suggest any form of notability. As such he does not, in my view, meet the GNG. I was under the impression that recent conversations had come to the conclusion that it is the GNG that such articles need to meet and not the notability criteria of a sports project. I can see little or no hope that this person will have sufficient in-depth sources about them to meet the GNG and so I see no alternative other than to delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a member of WP:CRIC so are you saying you don't agree with WP:CRIN which DOES not only "suggest" but actually define notability? Anyone who has played in a senior match is notable and the same is true of anyone who has played in a senior football, baseball, other sports match too. You are going against WP:CONSENSUS, especially as your precious (and woolly) WP:GNG itself begins by saying: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (including NSPORTS)". This whole "deletionist" mentality is based on one thing and one thing only: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's based on my reading of the GNG and other notability guidelines and, in particular, on the recent discussions surrounding NSPORTS that have taken place. My view is clear and is based on policy. It required no response from anyone and should have been accepted as my reasoned opinion rather than challenged because it is contrary to that held by some others. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine coverage" is a woolly, pointless term which allows anyone who uses it to chicken out of an opinion based on the fact that there is zero definition of this term. GNG is utterly undefinable nonsense and completely contradicts guidelines in other places in the encyclopedia. Imagine a day when every single cricket biography exists except for this, S. Perera, Tom Cranston, and no others, simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT... this makes a mockery of these guidelines, which are painfully easy to understand, implement, and follow. Bobo . 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not present a view of my position which is so prejudiced. My view is clear and is based on policy. It required no response from anyone and should have been accepted as my reasoned opinion rather than challenged because it is contrary to that held by some others. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain which policy you are basing your view on. You say there is "nothing else to suggest any form of notability" but the man meets both NSPORTS and GNG as I have highlighted above. What other "policy" is there? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you are talking to Jack or me when you say that, BST, but, "a view which is so prejudiced"? Simply because we are pointing out that the term which is used is undefinable, contradictory, and almost completely inapplicable? That is the fault of not a single one of us. Frankly if you are working against the project based on completely undefinable criteria without being willing to offer alternative bright-line criteria is disruptive. Bobo . 22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not the place for this discussion which serves only to disrupt the AfD and make it impossible for an admin to close it in any way other than no consensus Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like a six-year-old, you started it. To offer up undefinable terms like "routine coverage" in the face of multiple citations of evidence based on completely independent sources is working against the encyclopedia in every way possible. Adding articles on every single first-class cricketer regardless of the number of first-class appearances or the perceived "involvement" of the player is the only way to achieve full NPOV, and to suggest otherwise with no evidence of secondary sources which contradict the ones already quoted, is disruptive. As I stated below, sports guidelines are insultingly easy to follow. Bobo . 22:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question, please, as it is relevant to this AfD. What policy? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 36 hours, Jack. Somehow, I doubt BST has a suitable rationale other than "I don't like it", and "please take these discussions elsewhere". This is what we've been doing for the last 13 years - this is how we come up with these criteria, and this is why these criteria have been stuck by for as long as we have been around. Bobo . 11:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sports guidelines are almost insultingly easy to follow and ensure that every single cricketer who has made a single major cricketing appearance (which in modern-day terms is painfully easy to define) is equally worthy of an article. To suggest otherwise is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. If we want to redefine notability guidelines, with the help of community consensus, a single AfD page is not the place to do it.

Apparently the problem we have come up against in the past is "reliable sources", plural. Once again, this is easy to fix by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket, and to continuously add articles to AfD is, frankly, disruptive. Bobo . 21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add that the two sources cited in Dinaparna's article, CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo, are entirely reliable and are independent of each other and the subject. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Played one match, so it's a WP:BIO1E situation as well. No material to build a functional bio article; see WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of reliable source coverage which has been made plainly available in the external links and the references. If you are unaware that this source is reliable and trusted then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the sources given, the way in which they are constructed and compiled, and the fact that they are used by both casuals and professionals all over the world.

There is probably a great deal of information we can add, however we need to have access to local sources, many of which will not be printed in English or available in such a widespread manner. Bobo . 10:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for quoting WP:WHYN, you have been around for 2 years, me and Jack have been around for 13 years. With the greatest of respect, I think we'll have a more rounded view of how procedures such as this work. Bobo . 10:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay... looks like we're going to lose this article. This is beginning to make myself, Jack, and others who are genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, incredibly angry that our work over the last 13 years is being ripped apart by those who are more interested in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT?

Please consider the rationale for sending this article for deletion - "insufficiently referenced" and, essentially, WP:ONESOURCE, and notice that neither of these criteria is true. This AfD discussion therefore, once again, goes far beyond the incredibly simple-to-understand criteria we work by, and is, frankly, based on entirely spurious means. These problems could be fixed in the blink of an eye by a simple clean-up message. I personally feel this renders the AfD invalid - notwithstanding, once again (doesn't this seem a tad suspicious?) input by confirmed sockpuppets. Bobo . 10:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hmm, has anyone ever actually checked out Rhadow's userpage? A page-long spiel about apparent sockpuppetry which does almost nothing to make anyone believe Rhadow is anything but a sockpuppet... Bobo . 11:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bobo, for all my faults, sockpuppetry is not one. I have been investigated twice. Go ahead, do it again. I will not react the way I did the first time. I have said what needs to be said about DUCK allegations. I bear no malice to any individual editor. You have done a great job over many years. My concern is that the value of WP is diluted without a reasonable -- and comparable -- bar for each article. We have a family of articles about cricketers who never attracted the attention of any press, appeared only once in play for teams that themselves never distinguished themselves, and have scant evidence. I am personally not convinced that CricketArchive and cricinfo are independent, but I won't argue that. I will argue that cricket and dart-throwing should not have special rules carved out for those sports only. Rhadow (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't entirely answer my question but okay. As for a "reasonable and comparable bar for each article", that is what we have had for the last 13 years and it has done us no harm until now... but thanks for changing the subject anyway. Seems odd that anyone who is apparently "innocent" would have to defend themselves to such an extent. Bobo . 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played just 1 ~~List A~~ first class Match with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in 1992-1993 thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per this discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you judge his contribution to be "insignificant"? That is not the issue. The fact that it happened is the point. As for that precious little discussion which people keep pointing out, that is a messy discussion which has been mostly discredited, and shown to be irrelevant to the situation, and full of disgusting levels of incivility. Bobo . 13:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a very experienced user and admin if you disagree with a community discussion you will have to go to WP:RFC to try to change consensus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's not one List A match, it's one first-class match, as shown in the source. Please ensure factual accuracy before you criticize presence of an article based on your own random WP:IDONTLIKEIT justifications. Bobo . 13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. It is likely there are sources in Sri Lanka that would confirm broader notability if that is necessary (though I don't really see why we ask "experts" on specific topics to come up with sector-specific notability guidelines if we're constantly going to squash their expertise with the weight of opinion of people who aren't experts). Has anyone asked WP:Sri Lanka for assistance on this? Many of our projects and contributions on the English WP already have inbuilt bias towards UK/US/Antipodean topics because we can access sources for those relatively simply; just because this one is difficult doesn't mean that we should give up on it. Who does it benefit to delete it? Would it make the encyclopedia more "encyclopedic"? Johnlp (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole problem, John, is putting the situation to people who profess themselves to be Wikipedia experts but who are unable to follow simple, clearly defined Wikipedia guidelines. This is nothing but disruptive to the project. Bobo . 13:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I refuse to accept that Cricinfo and CricketArchive player profiles can be considered reliable on their own. Till last year, Cricinfo's player profile of Arun Sharma listed him as a Test cricketer. I was surprised to find out that Mr. Sharma does not have an article on Wikipedia, before doing some Googling to discover that he is NOT a Test cricketer. They did fix the profile several weeks after I dropped them a mail asking for correction. And here we have an article on some L. Dinaparna which is entirely carved out of his player profile from these two websites both of which have been found to have such glaring mistakes. I am not saying Cricinfo and CricketArchive are unreliable; they are the best we've got. But to create an article using only the statistical profiles found on these two websites is unacceptable. I mean there is no shred of evidence elsewhere that this Dinaparna guy actually existed and played one match of cricket. Dee 03 15:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I also don't understand is why some WP:CRIC members are so hell bent on retaining articles of these one match wonders when there are hundreds of cricketers such as this gentleman who have played over a hundred first-class matches, meet GNG and don't have an article. PS: I'll be creating articles for both Sharma and Chadha later today. Dee 03 15:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that Arun Sharma's profile had him listed as a Test cricketer? Secondary sources only please. As for why we have an article on Dinaparna based on secondary sources, that is precisely the answer. Secondary sources. If our secondary sources claimed otherwise, we would gladly admit our mistakes.

Why do we wish to have some articles and yet choose not to have others? To be painfully honest, since you are !voting delete on an article which you know perfectly well reaches guidelines, it's not really your job to be asking that question... Bobo . 15:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have 84 redlinks on my first-class players links page for players who have played for Haryana. If you are willing to create articles on any of these, please do, otherwise deciding to complain when you decide WP:IDONTLIKEIT is hypocrisy. Bobo . 15:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you didn't WP:AGF there. Anyway, I took the trouble of going through the web archives and found the evidence: see this scorecard of a 1988 Test match between India and the West Indies. The sixth batsman in the Indian lineup is Arun Sharma. The page was cached on 15 May 2016, five days before the date of the diff I provided earlier. If you click on Arun Sharma's link to open his profile, you'll be landing on a cached version from 8 July 2016 which doesn't show that he is a Test player. But at that time (May 2016), his profile showed that he had played one Test (the same Test match the web archive link of which I have provided above). Dee 03 18:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhoo, coming back to your original point, I asked this question on a previous AfD and the answer to the question "how do we rely on one source when we have two available to us" is simple. It was made clear to me in a previous AfD that there were far too many cricketers - even Test cricketers - with only one external link (to either of Cricket Archive or Cricinfo - the question of sources here is irrelevant). The fact that we are inconsistent here is partially a fault of the project and the fact that there are so many of us working on the project who work systematically in different ways. What we have learnt, especially in regard to the WP:ONESOURCE argument, is that it is of paramount importance that we make sure we add both as sources. Why didn't I do so for this article, or the thousands of others which also meet WP:CRIN? Force of habit. If that is wrong based on a practice I followed eight years ago, then I am sorry. Bobo . 18:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Existence does not prove notability, nor does it necessitate an article. The general notability guideline is quite obviously failed here. I expect a certain admin participating here does not continue their bludeoning behavior. It is very unbecoming, especially considering their role.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest if you describe it as "bludgeoning", then that is not particularly WP:CIVIL... just saying. Also, am I right in saying you were once blocked for canvassing? Seems a tad hypocritical that you are criticizing me for one thing while you are guilty of another... Bobo . 17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo192 you do realize what you are doing constitutes as a personal attack, correct? There is nothing uncivil about me describing bludgeoning behavior when it is obviously occurring here. Also, my past history is completely irrelevant to this discussion and is just a failed attempt by you to slight me. I suggest you knock it off.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you in any way, I stated facts. Please don't criticize me if you are unwilling to accept your past behaviour... I have no interest in discussing this further. Bobo . 17:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. You weren't adding anything constructive so there would be no benefit to further discussing your behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have consistenly held that even a single appearance atthe highest level of a sport is sufficient for notability , and that seems to be the case here. I have no personal interest in this sybject, but I do have an interest in there being some degree of consistency in our decisions. The correct interpretation of "presumed" in WP is the same as in the RW--it will be considered to be th ecase unless there is evidence to show otherwise. Presumed notability eansthe subject meeting the presumption isn otable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the media coverage I don't think we should object to re-creation of the article as a redirect to 2017 Northern India riots or Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. A Train^talk 09:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honeypreet Insan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May not meet WP:NBIO. Worked on some movies of her father Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Was previously nominated at AfD and deleted with rationales WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:TOOSOON. May perhaps have acquired some notability more recently. —Paleo Neonate – 21:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 21:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing has occured in the last year to suggest she is now notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at below links to have a glimpse of what has occured in last year and how much press she's geting. Regards. --Anamdas (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can tell, Singh's wink-wink adopted middle-aged daughter is wanted by Indian police, accused of inciting the 2017 Northern India riots. So what's the argument for notability? Is she notable for being an accused criminal, or for being an actor in narcissistic religious propaganda films? I suppose an argument could be made that since the whole manhunt thing is generating a good deal of press [13][14][15], she might meet the GNG, although I'm still a little unclear on what she should be notable for. Per WP:CRIME, is she known only for the crime accusation? Given how poorly Singh's films are generally received (NDTV gave MSG-2 a half star[16]) I doubt anyone would otherwise be clamoring to write news articles about Honeypreet's acting career. But if she's somewhat known for her acting, is that enough to skirt WP:CRIME? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per Cyphoid.I don't think she deserves an independent articke due to the covg. being generated about her on the run, a prob. co-conspirator in the Haryana riots et al.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Godric on Leave: I was hoping Anamdas could provide a counter argument, which is why I commented rather than !voting. I think the GNG is probably met, given that multiple sources have focused articles on her specifically, but I'm just not clear on what she's notable for in this case. Notorious fugitive? We know how sensationalism and outrage are so intriguing to the media. Is it enough for an article is what I'm curious about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ToooooSoon. When she is caught and convicted then we'll see. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Anna Christian Waters[edit]

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

Seems to be just another "routine" disappearance. The sources are all connected with her family in some way or another - their website, an appeal 30 years later, a self-published book etc. It is routine news with no lasting significance (except to her family and friends, of course). The article did claim that she was a kidnap victim but there is no viable support for this and I removed it as being potentially a BLP violation. Sitush (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No this article is about a known case which recieved plenty of attention at the time. Per sources. Good sourcing which proves the points on the article. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the good sources? - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage still does not rise above news level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is a book - [17], and some coverage - e.g. [18] [19] - but it doesn't seem enough. If someone does a WP:HEY and brings period newspaper coverage that establishes notability - I am amendable to changing my mind. With what I see in the article and available online - this doesn't pass.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the nom, the book is written by a family friend and was self-published. It is useless for our purposes. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage still does not rise above news level coverage : ; @(talk) you have said it . exactly . Samat lib (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are either routine or primary, neither of which help us gauge WP:SIGCOV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above, article relies heavily on self-published book and website. Does not appear to have sufficient non-primary sources to establish encyclopedic notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Choosing to stay out of the debate due to my bias, but would like to point out that the nominator did remove a portion of the article before nominating it due to it being unsourced (which could most definitely be researched and built further upon).--GouramiWatcher^Talk 23:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I declared that in my nomination. As I recall (it is late here), the allegations came from the family and had no independent support. I can't imagine the severity of distress that events such as the article describe would cause to those who have an emotional involvement but their feelings do not outweigh considerations of Wikipedia policy, including WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Network and Management Laboratory[edit]

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

This is pure advertisement. There are no RS telling the lab is notable. There are other labs with the same name. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note this edit. The page was a subject of proposed deletion, but someone apparently from the lab reverted the Prod. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one seems more clear-cut than the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Becker Westphall (2nd nomination). Per WP:ORGCRIT, we need published sources, by people independent of this lab, that provide significant depth of coverage of the lab. If such sources exist, they certainly haven't been included in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As statet by others. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is unsourced, but even with sources, article content as written doesn't suggest encyclopedic notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CoverWallet (Business Insurance)[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Trade association awards such as "Best Insurtech Solution at the 2017 Benzinga Global Fintech Awards" generally do not suggest notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the independent sources are significantly about this company and none of the ones that are significant are independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparent basis for notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Probable WP:HOAX. No prejudice against recreation, assuming WP:V and WP:N can be demonstrated with WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul suffectus)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the reasons stated below:

Hoax. The short and sweet part of this argument: I have consulted the standard references about people living at this time in the Roman Empire -- Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Géza Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter der Antoninen, & Paul Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander -- & have found no Claudius Pulcher that matches either of these two people. (There are only two Claudii Pulchri known to have lived during the Roman Empire: one who is mentioned in a legal decision of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, but is not thought to have anything to do with the Republican family, as these articles assert; the other, who lived in the 1st century AD, is known only from an inscription where he took credit for repairing one of the city gates of Ostia, & might be a suffect consul. It's obvious neither are the people of these articles.) The person who created these articles cites a book written by Christian Settipani, but as that work runs almost 600 pages & no page number has been provided in either article, I strongly suspect Settipani's book will not confirm anything in either article; in other words, Settipani is being used deceptively to mask this deception.

The long & ugly part of this argument ("Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate.") Some of you may remember an editor of the username G.-M. Cupertino, who was banned for (amongst other things) abusive behavior, who abusively socked for a while under different user names (including Dgarq) until he finally went away. This person has left us reminders of his time here: about 100 biographical articles of varying reliability written to support his theories/fantasies of family lineages. I'm guessing the reason he cites Settipani is due to the latter's investigation into Descent from antiquity, which I confess seems to me to be borderline fringe theory; & if it is not, this banned editor's work makes it appear to be very fringey. His work has the following tells: subject is a person unfamiliar to even serious students of the period, yet provide birth & death dates; the articles are written in the style of a genealogical or prosopographical entry; little information about the person, but extensive detail about ancestors & descendents to the point of genealogical cruft (to use deprecated jargon); & a citation at the end of Settipani's book, Continuité gentilice et continuité sénatoriale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à l'époque impériale without any page numbers -- & rarely any other work.

I've compiled a list of some of the questionable articles he's created -- the subject area of biographies of the Roman Empire is infested with them -- & because sometimes the article is about a real person (& because I'm an inclusionist at heart, but this mess is making me rethink that stance), I plan to vet them when I can find the time. (I don't own a copy of the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, & in some cases I'd like to also verify against the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, which means I need to schedule trips to the library.)

If this mess were simply limited to en.wikipedia, that would be the end of the matter. (And I'd have something to keep However, G.-M. Cupertino has been a busy boy & has also been socking on fr.wikipedia & bg.wikipedia, where identical articles appear. And because we have mirrors of this hoax beyond en.wikipedia, there are bogus entries in Wikidata. This makes me physically sick, because now it will be even more difficult to purge Wikipedia completely of his misinformation. (As an aside, do we have any contacts with either project? If someone in fr.wikipedia could comb through Settipani's book & provide complete source info for their articles, it would make it much easier to purge the rest of his misinformation.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. llywrch (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm copying a comment I left back at WP:Classical Greece and Rome, since it's about the same thing I would say here. The gist of my comment is that I suspect the articles aren't hoaxes, but that they're about individuals whose existence is largely inferred rather than proven, or who probably existed but are known almost entirely because of their connection to known persons. In this respect they're a bit like figures in better-regarded sources, like Birley, who are sometimes connected by shadowy individuals about whom little other than the name is known, and whose relationship is uncertain, but Settipani seems to build such individuals into houses of cards that give the illusion of well-established and unimpeachable biography and genealogy. Here's what I posted:

"I can't really read French (well, I can read it... I just have no idea what most of it says!), but I'm reasonably sure that they're not deliberate hoaxes, but actually found in Settipani. However, I suspect they're individuals whose existence is merely inferred from various sources, such as filiations or other indications that someone was the son, grandson, father, or grandfather of someone else. For example, "this woman and her sister were of consular rank and descended from the family of so-and-so, who had been consul two generations earlier, therefore their father must have been consul at some time, and he would have been the son of the earlier consul and named after his father. His wife's name must have been so-and-so, because that's how this name borne by one of the daughters and her descendants probably came into the family". Without seeing Settipani's sources, I can only guess what they really say, but chances are these are individuals who "probably" existed, or of whom traces exist, possibly even the name of someone who might be the same person (or maybe some other member of the same family who happened to live at the same time). They're probably not worth articles of their own, but might be worth mentioning in the articles of the notable (and reasonably certain) individuals who seem to be connected by them. But I don't think they're actually hoaxes. P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)" P Aculeius (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this person existed, and even less that they meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he existed and was likely consul, then as a nominal head of government he clearly meets notability criteria. The question is whether there's sufficient evidence to conclude that he existed, or to mention a credible theory that he did in existing articles. P Aculeius (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Giving the benefit of the doubt and accepting that the articles aren't the product of an intentional fabrication, I have other concerns. The source isn't available online. There are also a bazillion Romans who shared an exact or very similar name. There's no in-line citations, therefore I'd say they fail WP:RELIABLE. With that in mind, I am further concerned about WP:NOR and without any sources, there's no way to tell. Also, @P Aculeius:, is Settipani legit? His own article is... je ne sais pas... etrange ;-) Anyway, I hate deleting articles. I really hope that someone can find some support for them. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, appealing to normal WP policy, the fact that the sources aren't cited in-line doesn't make them unreliable. The problem is real for the reason you give; but the solution is to attempt to improve the references (assuming they support the statements in the article), not to delete the article. Of course, if they don't support the statements in the article, and no other sources can be found, then the articles should go. The question isn't really whether Settipani is a reliable source; that discussion has actually been had, and it seems that, at least in a broad sense, he is, although much of his work is dense, difficult for non-specialists to parse, and of course, speculative. Which means that in some cases, he needs to be cited as hypothesis, or theory, not as proven fact. That may sound unusual, but perfectly good classical writers like Syme or Birley will posit "probable" relationships too, where the facts are too thin to be absolutely certain.

As for whether Settipani is qualitatively different, that depends very much on your point of view. You might say that he's not really a scholar in the vein of the aforementioned experts, since his specialty is tracing ancient genealogies using available sources. On the other hand, the fact that he specializes in doing so, gathering in vast quantities of data for no other purpose, might make him even better at spotting and refining relationships than other sources. I say might, because it's also possible that he leans so far out on limbs that a high percentage of his guesses are not especially reliable, and would likely be disproven as additional data comes to light. From my perspective, the more troubling fact is that his work seems to be agenda-driven; i.e. the need to establish descent from antiquity might tend to make him "discover" links where none exist, based largely on wishful thinking and improbable associations. As a genealogist, I encounter the results of such reasoning regularly, and it can be maddening when you find completely unreliable ancestries glommed onto your known ancestors. But unfortunately, we can't read French and don't have direct access to Settipani, so we aren't in much of a position to evaluate his conclusions; even his reviewers found it difficult to evaluate them because their own specialties weren't such as to allow them to test his reliability. So for the time being, I would suggest that it's not clearly unreliable work, and may potentially be somewhat reliable, but needs to be treated very carefully. These articles demonstrate why, as it's not clear where in Settipani the information is supposed to come from, or exactly what he says. P Aculeius (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius:, the problem is not with Settipani's work but that a banned user, who created a number of articles I have found to be (at best) questionable, cited him. And in a slap-dash way, making the citation unreliable, not the source. If you examine the articles themselves, you'll see these are not about inferred people, but ones the article strongly implies firm evidence exists proving they had lived. Further, the article creator supplies information that is rarely available about historical persons of this period, such as dates of birth, names of spouses, & names of children. On the other hand, the only non-genealogical fact offered for either is that they were suffect consuls "in an unknown year". Yes, there is evidence of a large number of suffect consuls whose year holding the fasces is not precisely known -- we have an article listing a few hundred of them -- yet in those cases, we either have just a name, or know something about their lives unrelated to their family connections. (For example, while retelling an anecdote, a historian will describe someone as an "ex-consul".) So the fact that we know so much about how they fit into a genealogical chain is suspicious. Even more suspicious is that both are claimed to be ancestors of the third-century Emperor Pupienus, & provides a link between him & the ancient patrician house of the Claudii.

But I just stumbled across something that ought to make everyone suspect a hoax here. Settipani has posted a list of corrections & additions to the book G.-M. Cupertino so often cites here. (Yes, it's in French, but Bing & Google will translate useful chunks of text from it for you.) In the corrections/additions to pp. 391f, he mentions an Appius Claudius Pulcher, suffect consul of the second century. What I find decisive is that while there is a person with this name in Settipani's book, he is not the Appius Claudius Pulcher of the article. Settipani assigns to this Claudius Pulcher three children not in the Wikipedia article:

Appia Claudia Sabin[ill]a, a daughter;
Appius Claudius Lateranus, cos. designate end of the second century;
Appius Claudius Martialis, governor of Thrace 166-169.

I have no comment about the familial relationships Settipani asserts, but that is not relevant here. I can, however, confirm both of the men he asserts are Claudius Pulcher's sons exist in the prosopographies I mention above. The daughter is another issue, but he has put parentheses around the name indicating her existence is conjectural, & women of the 2nd century are difficult to identify in any case. Compare this to the Wikipedia article. That Appius Claudius Pulcher is said to have a wife named Sextia & two daughters (whose full names are provided, another unusual detail), one of whom just happens to be the mother of emperor Pupienus. (FWIW, Pupienus appears nowhere in the stemma Settipani sets forth for the children of his Claudius Pulcher.) Settipani's Claudius Pulcher must be identical with the one in the Wikipedia article because G.-M. Cupertino told us that was where he found the information for the article. So G.-M. Cupertino either got the details from Settipani very wrong -- maybe he's not competent with French -- or he made up these facts about the person. In short, while the facts in Settipani's book can be verified against other sources, as would be expected in a reliable source, about the only thing in the article that can be verified might be the name of the person. Perhaps he even invented the name of the suffect consul. At this point I'm sick of digging into this rat hole, & feel I've made my case. This banned user used an uncommon book -- according to Worldcat, the nearest copy to me is in the University library of Berkeley, over 500 miles away -- to give his many hoaxes an air of plausibility. We should not trust any article he has written where he offers Settipani as his source like this, & they should be deleted as their information is shown either contradicted or not confirmed by other reliable sources. -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know. I'm reluctant to conclude that he just made it all up without a source, and equally reluctant to delete an article for which sources might eventually be found, even if they refute part of the information, such as estimated dates of birth, which I suppose an overzealous editor might have introduced. It just doesn't make sense to me that someone would go to all this trouble to create articles about non-existent people, with no obvious advantage to himself or anyone else. I mean, if they were silly articles or in some way were a swipe at Wikipedia or Wikipedia policy, maybe. But nobody would ever notice these articles or see anything troubling about them; it's taken years for someone to suggest that they could be a hoax. I know it's possible, but I just have a hard time believing it. Am I being too trusting? Perhaps. Would like to know exactly what could reasonably be inferred by Settipani or anyone else. P Aculeius (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. I don't understand why people would add a hoax to Wikipedia, beyond the thrill of getting away with something. But in this case, I suspect his motivation was to push the idea of Descent from antiquity, but instead of doing the research to find lineages that stretch from today back to antiquity -- what Settipani did, I can tell this from reading that pdf I found -- he made them up. He found a period of history not many Wikipedians monitor & put articles there, all to bridge the relatively well-documented Principate & the Late Roman Empire. But he's not the only one to put hoaxes in Wikipedia; I've seen them revealed over the years. For examples, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, & Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast, a couple of pages to read for entertainment, not sorrow. As for trusting what people write... Well, trust but verify. That's what I do. -- llywrch (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This article doesn't even contain much content and its accuracy is disputed, but even if the content was genuine I don't see how this person is notable enough to warrant an article. It literally only lists the person's job title and relationship to other people (~~and some of those pages are also subject to AfD for similar reasons~~ some of which are redirects to other pages, or even a recursive redirect to this article, which confused me at first), and being related to someone notable does not make you notable per WP:BIORELATED. Put aside the debate on whether this is a hoax, because this article should be deleted either way. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is not at issue here. Quoting my earlier post, "If he existed and was likely consul, then as a nominal head of government he clearly meets notability criteria. The question is whether there's sufficient evidence to conclude that he existed, or to mention a credible theory that he did in existing articles." I'm not saying this is a valid article; just that if the facts asserted are true, then the subject is notable by definition. P Aculeius (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question of being a hoax ties back to notability. P Aculeius is mostly correct about the role of suffect consul here. By the time of the Roman Empire, a suffect consul was not a "head of government", but more of an honorific position. Yet it was a very important honorific position, & having held it put the person near the top of the social order. (BTW, I'd argue that anyone who was a suffect consul at any time in Roman history is therefore notable.) It is this importance that one would expect confirmation outside of one suspiciously-used source that either person were suffect consuls. It's a case analogous to finding an article about a medieval pope no one else seems to know about, & his existence is based on a book no one else has apparently read: one would have to be very credulous not to suspect a hoax. -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Grind[edit]

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

Some mentions and notices, mostly based on PR, but no substantial independent sources. The Forbes article is by a "subscriber" and is marked "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." -- it reads like a press release--and its author admits an affiliation in the last paragraph--he's director of one of its chapters. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The same old WP:PROMO story: the independent sources aren't significant and the significant sources aren't independent. I can find no evidence this passes WP:CORPDEPTH, Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per noma nd Eggishorn. Promo, fails GNG, lack of in-depth sourcing. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Canfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Eight years ago, back when the first AfD on this thoroughly NN hockey player was promulgated, it went to "no consensus" based on the then-prevalent interpretation of WP:ATHLETE as giving a free pass to anyone who'd ever played any sport at any professional level whatsoever ... which taken to its (il)logical limits would give a free pass to 16-year-old amateurs receiving a $50/week stipend to play Canadian junior league hockey. That, or to the subject of this AfD, whose hockey career consisted of six games in the low minors as an emergency backup goalie. Happily, notability standards have come to their senses, and so short of a hoax article, I can safely say that few articles at AfD will ever fail NHOCKEY so profoundly as this one. Likewise, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 19:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing career fails WP:NHOCKEY (only played minor league in 4 years out of 7, getting "called up" to minor league ECHL is not notable), and then he coached a junior league team that only existed for 3 years. There is no support for notability under current guidelines at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiteSpeed Web Server[edit]

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

Claims to be the 4th most popular web server, but I can't actually find any WP:RS which talk about it. You would think that a web server which supposedly drives 2.9% of the sites on the internet would have tons of stuff written about it. The fact that I can find so little leads me to believe that the reported statistics are dubious. My guess is that most of the sites which use this are parked domains and things like that (but that's just speculation). Lots of mentions in hosting provider how-to documents, but that's not what we need. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenLiteSpeed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete – I feel pretty stupid since I've been attempting to maintain this article without actually looking into detail about its notability, but in any case... the software appears to be used almost exclusively by large, commercial web hosting services, and as such there are very little WP:RS that even mention it; any articles about LSWS are apparently published by companies who use the software themselves, or are otherwise connected. So yes, the statistics are likely biased or fudged. Oh well. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hello, my name is Dmitri Tikhonov -- I am a programmer employed by LiteSpeed Technologies, the maker of the LiteSpeed Web Server. Obviously, I would like to see to it that this page not be deleted. In reply to the original criticism, the 2.9% figure comes from W3Techs, which is used as WP:RS in many Wikipedia articles. The position that W3Tech statistics are fudged has to be proved. Other than W3Techs, LiteSpeed Web Server is mentioned in NetCraft web server surveys from February and May of this year. Would you call NetCraft numbers biased? In regards to LiteSpeed Web Server usage: yes, we proudly serve the needs of our customers -- large, commercial web hosting providers. It does not make our software product less legitimate than Apache, Nginx, or IIS. I would like to be given an opportunity to improve this Wikipedia page to adhere to standards so that it is not deleted. I can look for, and include in the page, more -- or different -- WP:RS if that is what it takes. LiteSpeed Web Server is the fruit of many years of labor, of ingenuity and sweat of hardworking people. Please be fair to them. Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite concerned here about the conflict of interest you pose, if you are willing to be a major contributor to the article. Please read the policy guideline here: WP:COI. Also, nobody is being unfair to the creators of the software. I am a software engineer myself, and I frequently work on software which I know does not meet the notability standard for Wikipedia. It's not about the quality of the article or the quality of the software in question. Please read the general notability guideline here: WP:GNG. As for the topic of the LightSpeed Technologies organization, there is a specific notability guideline for organizations here: WP:ORG. Please do not be offended that this article is being considered for deletion. Cheers, -- Pingumeister^(talk) 09:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (Also, for what it's worth, if you could actually find multiple WP:RS (and have them verified by other editors, due to your COI), it would make a strong case to keep the article. However, multiple people have tried and failed to find such sources.) -- Pingumeister^(talk) 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that I am biased; I do not try to hide it. I can promise to do my best to be objective when editing the article. However, I examined several pages similar to LiteSpeed Web Server and I see that when most of a Wikipedia article about a software product (a web server in particular) is written by the person(s) or company behind the product, it is flagged as a problem. This puts me in an interesting position: if I modify the article to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines, I would be violating another set of Wikipedia guidelines... Would you, Pingumeister, be willing to make appropriate improvements, given the new references I provided below? You have already been maintaining this page (thank you!), could you perhaps continue? If not, how do you think I should proceed? Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the stats, I didn't mean to imply that they were fraudulent. Perhaps my use of, dubious, was a poor choice of word. What I was trying to say was that usage stats alone do not meet our notability requirements. What we're looking for is coverage in third-party sources which talk about the program. That's what I'm not seeing. The gold standard would be articles in wide-circulation, general-interest publications (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc). Coverage in that tier isn't required, but, I'm not even finding coverage in the more specialized industry publications. It's those kinds of third-party reliable sources that we're looking for. I also work in the software world, and had never heard of this until I stumbled onto this article. The fact that I had never heard of it doesn't really mean anything, but it is what got me started doing a little research. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can certainly confirm that the software exists, I have to agree that I can't find anything to indicate notability under the general notability guidelines. Avram (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I made this a separate comment because this is a large entry; if this is bad form, I can merge it under my original comment above.) I spent some time looking for reliable sources that would demonstrate LiteSpeed Web Server's notability and I found what I think are good references:

A book on system administration by a major publisher recommends considering using LiteSpeed Web Server as one of Apache alternatives that are faster than Apache and use less memory. (The other alternatives listed are lighttpd and Zeus.)^[1]

I want to keep this article. I really do. A piece of software which runs 2.9% of the websites on the internet should be notable. But, our definition of notable is that there's good second-party sources which have written about it in depth. And, as much as I respect O'Reilly as a publisher, and as much as I want this to be notable, I just can't bring myself to accept that a reference like this counts for anything. It consists entirely of:

Once you reach the limits of your web server software, consider alternatives. In many cases, web servers such as lighttpd (http://www.lighttpd.net), Zeus (http://www. zeustech.net), and litespeed (http://litespeedtech.com) are faster than Apache and use less memory.

That's it. In a 162 page book, it's mentioned once, as part of a list. That meets WP:V, but not WP:N. Also, it's disingenuous to say they recommend using LiteSpeed, and mention the other two as other alternatives, when the other two are listed first and second, and LightSpeed is listed last. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is disingenuous to say that what I say is disingenuous after misquoting me -- this is not what I wrote. The way I paraphrased the original text is fair. The reason I put LiteSpeed Web Server first in my list is because this is the topic we are discussing. I did not know I could just quote sources verbatim here: I chose to be on the safe side. Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A research paper presented three months ago at a conference of a major technical professional organization counts LiteSpeed Web Server in the list of six popular HTTP/2 implementations (the other five are Apache, H2O, nghttpd, Nginx, and Tengine). In this paper, the LiteSpeed implementation of HTTP/2 compares favorably to the others in several ways.^[2]

Unfortunately, I only have access to the abstract of that paper, not the full text. I assume from your comments that you have the full text. Could you give us a better idea of what the paper says regarding LiteSpeed? Perhaps some quotes? Could you tell us how, specifically, this paper evaluates these various servers and in what ways the paper says that it compares favorably to the others? The more specific and detailed you can be, the easier it will be for other people to evaluate this source. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper evaluates HTTP/2 servers in terms of features, adherence to the protocol, and performance. Here are examples where LiteSpeed compares favorably:

Quote: Table IV lists seven servers that have been adopted by more than 1,000 sites in each experiment. We can see that Litespeed, Nginx and GSE are the most widely used web servers in both two (sic) experiments... This places LiteSpeed in the top (3 out of 7) HTTP/2 servers by share.
Quote: By sending unexpected WINDOW UPDATE frame, we find that Nginx and Tengine will ignore the zero window update whereas Litespeed and H2O will send back RST STREAM frame if the window is for stream as suggested by RFC 7540. LiteSpeed follows the spec, comparing favorably to those implementations that do not.
Quote: For LiteSpeed, 80% servers have HPACK compression ratios less than 0.3, indicating effective compression. Accompanying Figures 4 and 5 show LiteSpeed and GSE (that's Google server) have significantly better compression than the other three web servers in the test. Not all seven web servers were included in the test. This places LiteSpeed in the top tier (2 out of 7) along with GSE.

Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another research paper from 2017 presented by at a different conference of another major organization by a team from Communication and Distributed Systems department of the largest technical university in Germany include LiteSpeed Web Server in the list of web servers that dominate H2-capable set of web server software (others being Nginx, IdeaWebServer, Apache, and IIS). ^[3]

That's absurd. Here's the entirety of what that paper says about LiteSpeed:

Last, we briefly comment on server software driving the H2-capable web as identified by the server field in the response header. Grouped by IP over all datasets, few server software dominate: Nginx 51.0%, IdeaWebServer 18.5%, LiteSpeed 9.2%, Apache 4.3%, and Microsoft IIS 5.4% for all probed IPs, respectively.

That's it. Doesn't say anything about LiteSpeed other than to mention that it exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is about HTTP/2 Server Push -- an empirical study. Without actual server implementations, there is no push; there is no study; there is no paper. The only paragraph to comment on the web servers lists LiteSpeed alongside the others, stating that it is these servers that dominate HTTP/2 landscape. I posit that this is significant. Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things I would like to point out:

LiteSpeed is definitely being both noted and noticed.
Majority of the other web servers in the lists above -- Apache, H2O, IdeaWebServer, IIS, lighttpd, nghttpd, Nginx, Tengine, and Zeus -- have dedicated Wikipedia pages. (Those that do not have dedicated pages are either relative new (H2O, Tengine) or obscure for English-speaking audience (IdeaWebServer).)

Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:MILL, as nothing indicates why the "4th most popular web server available today" is markedly different from any other web server. Also contains language that violates WP:PROMO.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: I have changed my mind, since I believe the works cited by Dmitri tikhonov (talk · contribs) hold up and I have added them to the article. The fact that academics are referring to the software, and that it is mentioned in major books (e.g. those published by O'Reilly) about server administration, means it passes WP:MILL. It definitely requires further editing to remove WP:PROMO language, and could be shortened since some information relies too heavily on dubious sources, but the core of the article is fine, given these new sources, in my opinion. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 11:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - at least one editor has indicated above that independent sources support notability. The developer above must be careful to comply with WP:COI, but if others are willing to verify these sources and use them to clean up the article, then I'd support keeping it. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable software product; sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Tom., Adelstein (2007). Linux system administration. Lubanovic, Bill. (1st ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly. ISBN 9780596009526. OCLC 71808193.
^ Jiang, M.; Luo, X.; Miu, T.; Hu, S.; Rao, W. (June 2017). "Are HTTP/2 Servers Ready Yet?". 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS): 1661–1671. doi:10.1109/icdcs.2017.279. ISBN 978-1-5386-1792-2.
^ Torsten Zimmermann, Jan Rüth, Benedikt Wolters, Oliver Hohlfeld (2017). "How HTTP/2 Pushes the Web: An Empirical Study of HTTP/2 Server Push" (PDF).((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be improvable. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Institute of Digital Marketing[edit]

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

This seems to be a private training institute, one of the many such centres which can be found in Delhi. I don't see any reason for this to be notable. It doesn't seem to be affiliated to any recognised university nor is there any evidence of being certified. The major newspapers do not have any information either. I think we can delete this article. DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete an unambiguous advertising. the content is 100% promo with external links to the courses offered, a hallmark of such promotional articls. Created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Anilasnora. This is a likely sock,due to the pattern of editing, consisting of 10 innocuous initial edits and then article creation. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of library associations#North America. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian library associations[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every single library association that exists at all in Canada, regardless of notability or lack thereof -- it even includes separate entries for local chapters of national organizations, local health and prison and other specialty libraries of no discernible public interest, international organizations which merely include Canada in their service area, and on and so forth. Very few of the organizations listed here have articles at all, and even some of the ones that do may not actually qualify for them -- on a random spotcheck of two articles, one was referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. And I suspect the real reason for this article was to create a search engine: until I cleaned it up for WP:ELNO compliance just now, every entry also included a direct offsite link to the organization's own web page, which is not what Wikipedia lists are for. There's no need for us to maintain a list that consists almost entirely of permanent redlinks, especially when the relatively few notable entries are already included in List of library associations anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. For the few blue-link list entries a few of them could do with an AfD as well. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept as a separate page, redirect to List of library associations#North America, as an obvious search term whose content is covered at that larger page. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_library_associations#North_America, to avoid duplication of content. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This deletion has no bearing on the potential notability of the historical Barony of Caux, or this title's suitability to be redirected somewhere. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Caux[edit]

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

Not, of itself, worth an encyclopedia entry. Should possibly be merged to micronation, along with several others. Anmccaff (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a micronation is usually an indication of non-notability. This article does not establish that this micronation has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to qualify as notable per the WP:GNG. (I don't consider two pages in a Lonely Planet book about micronations to meet that criterion, and the "barony"'s own web site certainly isn't independent; no other sources have been provided.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough independent references. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand to include the historical Barony of Caux (based in Pays de Caux, Normandy, and Caus Castle, Shropshire). The micronation claims to be a restitution of that medieval barony. As for micronations in general, some certainly warrant their own articles if they have gained enough notoriety (certainly, for example, Sealand or Molossia), but the Barony of Caux seems to have just one legitimate book reference and a handful of scholarly references. The medieval Barony of Caux is better documented.

Note: I created this article in 2011 with the thought that those micronations featured in the Lonely Planet book were notable in comparison with others listed in the book but not featured in detail. I may have been too generous. Goustien (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently referenced. Absolutely do not conflate a modern micro-nation with a historical entity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mardan Hall[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. This is a hostel for students--no indication whatsoever of independent notability; I don't even see the point of a redirect. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as GNG fail. While there are references, all are ineligible to be considered sources. The first two are map sites, which serve no other purpose than where they are on a map and other nearby hostels. The third is a UET internal page, which once again fails to show notability. The fourth and last link is to a seemingly unrelated travel blog about a nearby tomb, with no reference to the hostel at all. With no good sources, the article therefore is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia.

Also, a quick footnote: The place is a dormitory for a Pakistani university. I personally find it strange that there is not a page for this on the Punjabi or Arabic Wikipedias, when logic dictates there should be. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Xeelee Sequence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xeelee technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Totally unreferenced (the 4 "references" are links to other Wikipedia articles). No notability outside the Baxter's fictional universe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. Nothing has changed from the last AfD, and I don't see any useful sources on Google. Usually, if a topic has been covered in reliable sources, there's at least something digitized on Google Books. This is more applicable to Wikia than us. Also, the article may need to be semi-protected this time. Since it was closed as "merge" in the previous discussion, deleting it could make attribution difficult (per Wikipedia:Merge and delete). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as before. I don't see any RS dealing specifically the fictional technology, not even much secondary stuff outside ot Goodreads, etc. Even a redirect would not be compelling, except that it is needed to preserve attribution from the previous merge. --Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and semi-protect per nominator and Ninja._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; I'd agree with semi-protecting it too. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the first nomination statement is reasonable, the second, "No notability outside the Baxter's fictional universe." is not a reason for deletion or redirection. Notability is governed by the number and depth of independent reliable sources, and so ultimately, nothing is notable outside the sphere in which it is notable. No objection to the redirect on the basis of the first statement, however. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per WP:ISNOT: "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where is that quote from? WP:NOT doesn't include it. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the quote is actually from Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#What_Wikipedia_is_not. --Mark viking (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Burke (artist)[edit]

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

I've found no indication this subject meets notability guidelines per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article creator isn't even attempting to hide his WP:COI. Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for personal promotion, nor is it the place to push awareness for a cause.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:PROMO, and article creator/main contributor has clear WP:COI as subject of article. The only sources on the hemophilia angle are either first-party (authored by article subject) or a single story (sourced from two different websites, but with the same author and content) that quotes the subject to add a human interest angle to the end of a story. Only claimed affiliation with Blue Man Group is being their "friend", which does not establish notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sorry, but I can't find any guideline or practice thst says that regional shopping centres are inherently notable. Other people here are contesting the claim, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Centre Mall[edit]

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

Article about a shopping mall, referenced only to its own self-published lease-information brochure for potential tenants and not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. As always, our notability standards for shopping malls do not extend an automatic inclusion freebie to every mall that exists in every town or city -- we only include malls that can be properly sourced as passing a specific notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A regional shopping center is an industry standard. Enclosed regional shopping centers are generally notable, and there is no reason to think this is an exception. Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping malls are not exempted from having to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH just because they happen to meet certain arbitrary standards of regionalness or industrystandardness — it's "source it properly" or bust, with exactly zero options located anywhere between those two endpoints. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and appears to violate WP:PROMO (or at least WP:ORGIND). See also WP:ORGSIG ("No company or organization is considered inherently notable"). Shelbystripes (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IN our experience here, eshopping centers of this size have not usually been considered notable DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkle (actress)[edit]

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

Biography, sourced only to IMDb with no evidence of any reliable source coverage shown at all, of an actress whose only credited roles were bit parts. As always, every actress does not automatically get an article just because she existed -- she must be reliably sourced as passing an WP:NACTOR criterion, but this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability and fails WP:NACTOR. I ran an online search to look for reliable sources on this actress and didn't find anything that supported notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Minor chuckle that a company called "Influence & Co" couldn't influence up more than two users to discuss it. A Train^talk 09:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Influence and Co.[edit]

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

promotional article on small company. I changed the unlikely claims to what the sources actually said--in any case, they're notices, not substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Promotional, fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IranPoll[edit]

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

Article is primarily a list of clients, with a promotional slant. Over 170 different URLs are used in 267 references. The subject's own website is referenced 13 times. If the client list and promotional material like "decidedly accurate and within the margin of error for all candidates" (sourced to the company's own website) were removed, nothing encyclopedic would remain. Mduvekot (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete and utter spam, no indications of notability, no intellectually in-depth references on the company, fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ,Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Article has been improved with additional content and sources added since the first week listed, after which it drew two !keep votes. Also, one of the delete !votes did not seem have understood what the subject of the article was. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PyMC3[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Still seems non-notable with not enough to justify its existence.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the PeerJ reference? Looks like peer reviewed journal with some impact factor. If authors of that paper are independent on PyMC3 (which seems to be the case), it would be quite strong RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The authors of that paper are the three main contributors to the project, so not independent. It does not read like a normal academic paper, more a paper written to promote their work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clear case then... Pavlor (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a corporation, but software package that is widely used based on referencing in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A literature search turned up enough documented examples of people using it that it clears the bar for scientific software. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A chapter devoted to PyMC3 (2nd ref in article) and all the sources added by XOR'easter and others since show multiple independent RS describing the package and its impact in the Bayesian community. It is enough for to satisfy WP:GNG and keep the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it easily passes WP:GNG after looking at sources retrieved by Google books and scholar. Page itself does not really seem promotional to me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 30 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. ansh 666 05:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punknews.org[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, orginisation has limited coverage WP:RS with only one time mentions --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find this article from Billboard. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one WP:RS article significantly about this news site, instead of quoting it or passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak.Appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT 1 and 2. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As people have pointed out, "notability is not inherited" (WP:NOTINHERITED), merely being associated with someobody notable does not imply notability itself. And nobody here is showing that WP:BIO is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Beer[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single-line mentions and a "paid notice" obit. Fails to provide support for WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Comment: reddogsix's initial recommendation is now outdated due to updates to entry, which include more details and more links to still other notable people.

Comment - Nothing of substance has changed since the nomination except perhaps the addition of unrelated fluff. reddogsix (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: The online citations used to compile this entry on Walter Beer demonstrate close connection to and strong support for Alger Hiss, a major figure in 20th Century American history. Beer studied with Hiss at Harvard Law. Beer's law firm provided at least three lawyers who defended Hiss at various points in time during his 50-year battle to assert his innocence. Please read the Alger Hiss entry before any consideration for deletion of Walter Beer stub. --Aboudaqn (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Simply put notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - the stub currently only gives a bare curriculum vita of the subject - he was born, he went to law school, started a law firm etc. It mentions, in passing, the Alger Hiss case, but doesnt go into detail about what his involvement was. Lets wait and see if we can get any RS about what he did to be notable.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So your !vote is to keep a non-notable article? reddogsix (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that this is a "stub." --Aboudaqn (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that if this article can be improved with RS to show notability then it should be kept. If no notability can be established then it should be deleted.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alger Hiss hired Beer ... "as general counsel to pass on contracts and other corporate problems".[20] Whoopee. That's about it, so GNG and BIO are definitely not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Have added new details, which help underscore Beer's importance. Considerations: "Beer" is the lead name of the firm. Beer and his partners and attorneys worked for years to keep Hiss afloat. Just because Beer himself is (per current references) the least helpful contributor in terms of any kind of direct legal contribution does not lessen the fact that its Beer (via his firm Beer) that works so hard for Hiss – and in so many aspects of his life, whether (1) in Hiss's lifelong fight to regain his reputation (Rosenwald, Lane), (2) in personal affairs (Buttenwieser), or (3) in his subsequent professional career (Beer). Of all these people, Beer is the one who knew him from Harvard days back in the late 1920s: he is the glue. For anyone interested in this case, it sure would be great to "click" on "Walter Beer" and find his role – IMHO, "notable" as in very much worth noting and knowing. --Aboudaqn (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - How does any of this support WP:N? There is no evidence he was directly involved in the Hiss case. You seem to be stuck on the thinking that Wikipedia WP:N is the same as "real-world" notability. Not so... reddogsix (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- New Lede This new addition to the lede might complete the "keep" argument: "he [Beer] and many of his associated lawyers defended Alger Hiss in criminal, corporate, and personal matters." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn (talk • contribs)
  - Comment - Hardly, there is no evidence provided that he defended Hiss. You are using a circular argument that since the article says that, it must be true. Not so. reddogsix (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. The keep arguments are not grounded in policy. PhilKnight (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Business process management. If at some point someone decides there's enough to write an article which isn't essentially duplicating the content of the merge target, feel free to do so, but for now I don't think that will be the case. ansh 666 05:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Process management[edit]

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

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy on Content Forking. The contents presented in this article is treating the same subject as business process management.

Another consideration can be making a redirect to the page business process management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleBlueDot1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content to Business process management and then redirect, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has existed since 2003. Process management is a wider concept than BPM because processes occur in other fields besides business. There are plenty of books which refer to it by this title and so it is notable by this name. Per our editing policy, we should retain the page for further development and improvement. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then redirect The long existence of the page has not yielded any distinct or useful content. The contents of this page are defining the same area as Business process management. The first line on this page refers to business processes. The publications referring to it by this title are referring to business process management, including the most widely cited publications on Google Books and Scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleBlueDot1 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 2 concepts are sufficiently tied to be merged. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Tanguay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player properly AfDed in 2009 for failing NHOCKEY (which he still does) and the GNG (which he still does). Recreated by an editor under a community ban from creating articles for shenanigans like this. Ravenswing 16:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. If recreated and banned editor, maybe salt the title? Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player toiling in the minors and in second tier-European leagues. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. IF this is repeatedly recreated, maybe salt this one? Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Salting is not necessary I believe because; he passed the first AFD, then was deleted in second AFD, however was recreated in 2012 when he then passed the outdated standards of NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Barnett[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found on Google search, and so does not satisfy biographical notability. Interviews are not independent secondary sources. Referring to someone as a "serial entrepreneur", while common in Wikipedia, is still marketing gibberish. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable inventor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Non notable, fails WP:NOTABILITY. No coverage in sources. RRD (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Found this, this, this and this these appear to be reliable sources. He has also worked with notables such as Rafe Furst See here which should suffice for notability.--XFhumu^Talk 20:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to Crowdfunder. The only sources provided are really talking about Crowdfunder and just Barnett's capacity as its CEO. There's no need or justification for a separate article on him. Also, working with someone notable doesn't make you notable, so "working with Rafe Furst" doesn't seem relevant. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I would suggest putting more effort into a deletion nomination if you hope to attract any participation. A Train^talk 19:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the Sake of Mahdi[edit]

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 06:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credorax[edit]

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

I don think cited sources are RS, but i could be wrong. Saqib (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the expected public relations the company is responsible for, but there's no signs of the necessary improvements therefore we delete it under one of the several applying criteria. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casengo[edit]

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

Delete Fails criteria for notability GNG and WP:NCORP. References fails the criteria for establishing notability, are not intellectually independent and are entirely based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no different than what their marketing strategies are but this isn't the webhost for it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hocoma[edit]

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

The article was WP:PRODded, deleted, went through WP:REFUND where I put it after a new editor asked for it at the Help Desk, and here we are. I must say I agree with the PROD rationale of "fails WP:ORGDEPTH". FWIW I found this mention in the Swiss press (my German is not great, but it looks like a passing mention anyways). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References fail criteria for establishing notability WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Reference above from bazonline.ch fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention-in-passing with no in-depth details provided. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original PROD nom and as per nom here. Domdeparis (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Winkler (ice hockey)[edit]

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

NN hockey player, never played at a fully professional level, nor in any competition that would meet the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY. (The previous AfD had claims that he once played for a team that played at the highest tier in Norwegian hockey, which even if true would not satisfy any criterion of NHOCKEY, and at the time the subject played for it, it was in the Norwegian minor leagues.) Fails NHOCKEY, no coverage that meets the GNG save for routine sports and ONEEVENT coverage explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 16:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep based on the appearences for the national team against top opposition, but am willing to listen to arguments contrary to that. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The only international levels of play which accord presumptive notability, according to NHOCKEY, are playing for the national team at the Olympic Games, or for the senior World Championships in the topmost pool. No tournament play below that suffices, and that tournament's own article states "It is a second-tier equivalent to tournaments of the Euro Hockey Tour" between teams that do not compete in the top-most tier of the Worlds. Ravenswing 18:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and I cannot find enough for GNG. As for @Geschichte:'s point, he never made an adult men's team for any championship, and his three games with the men's team were against France ('top oppostion'), Slovenia (Division I that year, not at the top level), and a Russian 'B' team. I really don't see how that qualifies.18abruce (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY, I see nothing else that supports notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Buttar[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guideline WP:BIO. Person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. KalHolmann (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Nigro (ice hockey)[edit]

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

NN hockey player with undistinguished career in the minors and second-tier European leagues. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable per WP:NHOCKEY. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater Casino[edit]

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

Fails at WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Currently not sourced. Routine coverage in local news agencies can be traced at google news. Few notable people are associated with this hotel but notability can not be inherited. However, I was not able to find the sources to verify these claims of association. Speedy has been declined, so it's here. Hitro talk 22:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note- Clicking on above google news link may emit multiple results. Please make sure to search for Idaho-based Clearwater Casino. Hitro talk 22:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No references. No reliable sources to be found. 600 slot machines and fifty rooms is unremarkable. Rhadow (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:directory listing for an entirely unremarkable, 50-room casino. No sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But it may behove to expand the article with sources so that it doesn't look like a dictionary definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cage (enclosure)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This isn't an encyclopedic article; it's been tagged as unsourced since 2007. The last AfD in 2005 closed as keep with many believing (falsely) that it was a stub with potential for expansion, which clearly hasn't happened in the past 12 years. Wiktionary already has a definition for this word and sufficient encyclopedia articles on specific types of cages don't require an article about a cage as a type of enclosure. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - The subject definitely is notable, and it isn't totally unsourced. Thus, the article would not fall under WP:TNT or WP:GNG. So, it should be kept. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (SNOW) Does anyone seriously think sources can't be found? Not a dict def, similar non-dictdef articles on things are Box etc. Nom overlooks it being a WP:DABCONCEPT at the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which solves issues with it, and with the WP:PTM in the dab. Dabconcepts shouldn't be deleted just because they're difficult (per guideline) or not done yet. Widefox; talk 16:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've RMed to move this to the primary topic so it becomes the broadconcept. It turns out that this was suggested at the first AfD but never done. Widefox; talk 21:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. This "article" is a DICDEF plus a list, and the list of various cages already appears on the cage disambiguation page. — AjaxSmack 02:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reason why you think this is a dictdef? User talk:AjaxSmack the previous WP:Articles for deletion/Cage (enclosure) consensus was that this can be expanded and moved to the primary topic. I've started the latter and expanded the see also to broaden the scope for the broadconcept. We have Box Door Handle etc, "a thing" per WP not Wikt in WP:NOTDIC. A poor stub/start != dict entry per se. The fact that this is a crap article is also not a reason to delete WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. There's 36 other language ones too, at least fr and de can be translated to improve this today. Widefox; talk 08:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, the nom is weak and there's simple questions unanswered - 1. it is sourced, 2. the topic is a "thing" per the other examples box etc 3. did you see the French or German versions, there's 36 other languages versions! ++ The previous Keep AfD was when a stub, now it's not even a stub and sourcing passes WP:GNG, the nom needs explaining in terms of the similar "things" we cover. Widefox; talk 15:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cage" is for the word cage. "Cage (enclosure)" is for the concept of a cage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept at Cage (enclosure) is a clear WP:primary topic so should move to Cage (compared to the rest of the topics at the dab). The dab moves to Cage (disambiguation). The dab is only for ambiguous titles for navigation, rather than for the word (but yes should have a wikt link). Previously the dab was a WP:PTM mess with the primary topic lost in the entries. That served readers badly at the current location (and hindered expansion), which got worse when adding different examples of cages all of which are WP:PTM. With cage as a WP:DABCONCEPT this works per If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. . This involves broadening the scope of the broadconcept. Widefox; talk 20:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per RileyBugz and Widefox. It's admittedly brief but is not un-sourced, and is in the same family as thousands of other Wikipedia articles on common physical objects: handle, seesaw, lintel, boat, etc. Could easily be improved, and should be the primary topic for the term. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please also respond to the redirect that is part of this deletion: Animal enclosure > Cage (enclosure) at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Animal_enclosure. --RAN (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absolutely. A cage can best be thought of as a fundamental tool. A rich direction for expansion currently missing from this article is an explanation of when in human history the cage was invented in various cultures and civilizations, and how it has changed over time. What is the earliest archaeological evidence for construction and use of cages? This is conceptually similar to the article I created at Container (after having been advised that such an article would be impossible to write, because the concept is too abstract). Now it has an entire WikiProject supporting it. bd2412 T 00:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. I had a quick look for such history. Widefox; talk 07:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, as a basic topic we must have an article on, though the page clearly needs some work. This should be WP:SNOW closed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 02:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: People who cite WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT#DICT actually need to read them, with understanding. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I echo the sentiments above. This topic goes beyond a mere DICDEF. Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412, Huwmanbeing, Widefox, SMcCandlish and others. This is definitely well beyond DICTDEF, it's a basic concept. The article needs expansion and more content, but definitely is needed. The idea of making it WP:PRIMARY at the title of the dab page is worth considering as well, but that's a different discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 15:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 80 items listed at Google Books contain the phrase "cage construction materials" indicating that this is a topic worthy of notice. Plus general arguments laid out by Widefox, et al. The fact that it exist in so many other languages' Wikipedias is very persuasive, though I take this with a grain of salt as they tend to be poorly referenced by our standards. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because sources are out there. I'm in a hurry today, but tomorrow I should be able to find and add some. A note, a lot of people who keep guinea pigs build their own cages for them and books on pigs therefore can be RS on cages. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helaine Olen[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, she is not just an author; she writes for Slate (among the others) and has her own podcasts. That seems good enough. -- Taku (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate indicia of notability, meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. alphalfalfa^(talk) 17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have created an article on Olen's book, Pound Foolish as it has lots of reviews and so meets WP:NBOOK, with it being found in over 650 libraries and The Index Card, that also has a wikiarticle, in around 650 libraries, so being pretty well known and each with plenty of reviews means Olen meets WP:NAUTHOR and is a keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Roy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player with a long career in the European minor leagues, but nothing that meets any of the criteria of NHOCKEY. No evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does he not meet any of the criteria that would allow a hockey player at his level of play to qualify for an article, I can't find any discernible reason why he would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the singer would require disambiguation — even if this were to be kept they'd still have to be flipped the other way so that the singer (more notable by about a million miles) had the plain title. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY -- I also agree that Jonathan Roy (singer) should be moved to this page as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A sudden spell of inclement weather has come over this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada International Film Festival[edit]

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

Previously held in a small casino in Vancouver, now the official website states that "we have transitioned to an awards based, online film and screenplay competition. Films are not physically screened for the public." I've long thought about to bringing this to Afd but now I feel the matter is more urgent. This has never been a notable Canadian film festival. It has never received any serious coverage by Canadian film media. The article links to a 2013 Indiewire piece on just how dubious these ventures are, founded by "Las Vegas businessman Rick Weisner" and now owned by "Las Vegas venture capitalist Monty Lapica." I daresay there may be more articles on Weisner/Lapica fests but my priority is the Canadian one. Canada has many notable, worthy film fests. This is not one of them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and to quote from the article's conclusion, "Every time a filmmaker trumpets the award he has won from an ethically suspect festival, he furthers the online illusion that this festival is legitimate." This is the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake and Jasper: A Ferret Tale, where a now-blocked user has been using the existence of a Wikipedia article about this festival as the basis for his claims. I think it's important that Wikipedia stops supporting the "illusion" of notability for this event. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All but one of the sources are promotional puff pieces (ie - press releases) stating the award nominees or winners. The only article about the festival itself is one that questions its validity. I did find a few books that mention the festival in passing, but these are all published in vanity presses (primarily Trafford Publishing), and in any event, do not discuss the festival, only the winners and nominees. There are so few results that search engines also list entries matching "Canada's international film festival", which do not refer to this festival. Mind matrix 17:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all that's already been said. It is non-notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as advertised. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly non-notable, as described above. The only alternative is to "improve" it by adding information on the controversy and possibly fraudulent nature of the film festival, but I don't want to endorse something becoming notable by abusing Wikipedia enough to become notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. This ill advised article brought to you by the same editor that spammed 60,000 ill advised redirects on wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping Out Studios[edit]

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

Not notable Lambtron (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage of this dance studio in reliable sources. Thus, we cannot verify the information in the article, and, by extension, the article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Horvath[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player with undistinguished ephemeral career in the mid-minors, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet NHOCKEY and not finding coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence of anything approaching notability. Just another non-notable minor league player. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. If it's been recreated, though, I wonder if some kind of redirect would remove the tempting red link. That or salt the title? Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the original discussion was a keep so it wasn't recreated. The standards for inclusion have changed in 9 years however. -DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagbe[edit]

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

Source search suggests he fails WP:CREATIVE and the article is full of promotional material. DrStrauss talk 14:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Liberia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Two sources given in the article are one-paragraph mentions on 154- and 350-page textbooks and the third is a blog post that fails verification. No other evidence of WP:GNG and no indication that this subject qualifies under WP:NPROF. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like there is no indication that the TVSHOW notability standard is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John en Shirley[edit]

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

Non-notable sitcom. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. — Za wl 14:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a spin-off of longest popular Philippine sitcom John en Marsha during the Marcos era and generally passes WP:TVSHOW. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it pass WP:TVSHOW? PhilKnight (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. After the applied searching by other editors who found plenty of other sources. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Cottle[edit]

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

Sourced entirely from an obituary. WP:BIO and WP:BLP1 not satisfied. Dysklyver 14:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in the Independent certainly goes a long way towards notability. Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries also passes WP:PROF#C3. – Joe (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You cannot have BLP concerns over dead people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand that obituaries of Basil Cottle were also published elsewhere, including The Guardian and The Times. Can anyone find copies? Whilst his life may have been of limited fame, his published works make him very notable. In some cases his works provide the most authoritative and important sources on their subjects. Reference to his works are made in other entries in Wikipedia. The quality of such references is enhanced by background information on the author. Charlemaniac (talk) 19:18, 30 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. czar 05:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Demos and Freestyles Volume 1[edit]

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

None of the selections from this "rare" demo series are detailed in significant coverage. Their lack of chart success and recognition also certainly WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches find the usual non-RS coverage for all three, e.g., Discogs, Spotify, lyrics sites, etc. No significant coverage and no evidence of passing WP:NALBUM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing WP:NALBUM and for lack of SIGCOV. Basically, fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samajvadi Kranti Party[edit]

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

De-prodded by page creator. Virtually no coverage (Google source search, fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 14:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there had appeared google hits for SKP for the party of Beni Prasad Verma, which was represented in UP Vidhan Sabha. Nevertheless, this party was actually know as Samajwadi Kranti Dal. --Soman (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Google hits which still fall short of satisfying the relevant notability standards. DrStrauss talk 15:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet the standards of notability for a political party. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 09:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natachata[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines. The only independent, reliable coverage I can find is a passing mention in a BBC article. No indication of significance in the field. DrStrauss talk 14:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only a passing mention which is not so much for having its own article. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 09:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.A.M.B.[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Little coverage in independent, reliable media. DrStrauss talk 14:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of false positives, including North American Mission Board and National Association of Mortgage Brokers, etc. Can't find any evidence of this group passing WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Infanger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Created by an editor placed under a community ban from new article creation for defying notability criteria, this is typical of his efforts: recreating an article for a subject AfDed in 2007. Then as now, this NN player with an ephemeral career in the mid-minors fails NHOCKEY going away (the article, following another typical stunt from Dolovis, falsely claims that the subject made the league All-Star Team in 1999, instead simply being one of a few dozen players to play in the all-star game), no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 13:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY, per above. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 09:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thrashing Like a Maniac[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. Has little coverage, fails NALBUMS and GNG. — Za wl 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability under WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG evident in either the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 09:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Stone (ice hockey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player with an ephemeral career in the low-minors. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. However the rudimentary standards then in place influenced the 2007 AfD, having played roller hockey at any level satisfies no current notability guideline. Ravenswing 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Not then, not now. Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

45 San Miguel Avenue[edit]

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

Non-notable office building. De-prodded without improvement or rationale. Nothing in the article hints at notability, and other than trivial and routine mentions, no in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't possibly be able to pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, lacks sources, no indication there's anything worth saving here. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable office building with no claims of notability.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 09:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merciless Death[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A long time ago in an AfD far, far away this article was speedily deleted. For whatever reason, the lack of secondary coverage and failure to meet the guidelines set for musicians/bands encouraged someone not only to recreate the page but also write about their albums as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:02, 30 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. Sandstein 07:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Plate[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all. Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 13:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 30 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) 09:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaydex[edit]

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

Unremarkable artiste described as "upcoming", "fast rising", etc in press release. A Google search gave news on release of music video, sponsored press releases and one article talking about his wealth. Nothing to suggest pass of WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO Darreg (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable subject who fails WP:ANYBIO. Article creator is a suspected sock of Papiko73 and Skop94 with similar style of article creation (draft then move to mainspace). —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suspicion. Its not so much about the socking, I am more concerned that we likely have an editor continuously socking to create articles for non-notable upcoming Nigerian musicians. This is likely a case of paid editing, because I don't understand the motivation for contributing to nn upcoming artistes. I will be on the watch-out henceforth. Darreg (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: subject of article does not satisfy nor qualify for a stand-alone article on the encylopedia as the subject of the article fails primary notabiliy guidelines and policies. Example : WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and furthermore; Darreg, to add to your thesis, it is my understanding that of recent most individuals have started to realize that creating pages for others or themselves is relatively easy, and not as "hard" nor is it a prerogative of only staffs employed at Wikipedia as erroneously believed in times past, hence the hike we all are currently experiencing as regards the creation of pages of non-notable persons. it would get worse as this knowledge becomes more widely known. Celestina007 (talk) 11:27, 03 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis :)? I thought its only Phd holders that write thesis, point understood though! 11:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Darreg (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Seeing as the claim of notability has not been refuted or contested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dohar (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable folk band, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage of independent sources that are reliable. — Za wl 10:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Not notable at all. Ajf773 (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Follows WP:NMUSIC. It is notable as it meets the following criteria:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Che12PM 07:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che12Guevara (talk • contribs)

So explain HOW the criteria is met, don't just state that it is met without proof. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773:

Dohar has been the subject of newspaper articles from Anandabazar Patrika, leading Bengali daily and other newspapers.(Please see the article.)
Has received non-trivial coverage from newspapers of Bangladesh and UAE.(Please see the article.)
Has released two or more albums on major record labels like Sony Music, Saregama, HMV, etc. Che12Guevara 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blind (app)[edit]

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

An app, which is in no way relevant or well-known, but has enough credibility to survive a CSD tag. Nominating for deletion as a non-notable product failing WP:GNG. Dysklyver 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The said app is repeatedly covered in reliable news sources.

The app is verifies that users actually work in the said tech (or airline etc.) company. Then it allows for anonymous chats and surveys. Which give a very important inside information about the views of tech employees.

The cases where the Blind app has been used in the news are numerous. I will list some below.

There are various other mentions. But, I think the point can be made already. Besides, I have started the entry. There is a lot to do on it. But this is another issue altogether. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]
^ [7]
^ [8]
^ [9]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in Forbes, TechCrunch, and Mashable as found by YechezkelZilber are all independent, reliable sources and should be added to the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added. You are welcome to improve in case you feel like it Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like this article reproduced in their draft space, drop me a line. A Train^talk 09:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheye Banks[edit]

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

Lacks WP:INDEPTH coverage for a biographical article. Fails WP:GNG. Darreg (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

an upcoming OAP that has never worked for a major radio station and fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Has worked only at Kiss FM (differs from overseas station of same name) and Unilag FM, the former is a very new station, while the latter is a university station that lacks mainstream following. Additionally, 100% of all the articles created by the author of this article is under the same non-notable management team (TSC management), which is suspicious per WP:COI. Subject has never won a notable or semi-notable award, Nigeria Broadcasters Merit Awards is the only semi-notable award in the article by my interpretation of WP standard, winning it may count for something, but being nominated once for it counts for absolutely nothing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft Almost as if the one who proposed this article be deleted didn't as per WP:BEFORE do a good research before taking this action, he has once been cautioned about this (when he nominated a standard article of mine for deletion, This article was eventually "saved" From my own research, his Name (Sheye Banks) is mentioned & even attached with peacock titles but the problem is the reliability of those sources mentioning his name. I think he possesses some influence over articles written about him.

but yes! definitely there seems to be some degree of coverage of our subject of discussion by the local media & I believe rather than delete It , it should be moved to draft. Remember that Wikipedia is always in progress. A move to draft is best, as it gives the page editor more time to develop the article to Wikipedia standard. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 19September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see the subject getting notable in the nearest future, so no point moving to draft. I noticed same editor who created Chris Rio, made this one too. Promotional purpose only. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, as a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft. I think that if the promotional language was removed and some better sources found this article could be sustained, and that there is enough of a claim to notability here that this should be given a chance for improvement. It can always be deleted later. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He will never be notable till Jesus comes, except something as unlikely as Trump winning an election happens in his career. Darreg (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President Trump might not agree with you. I appreciate your reply but my view remains unchanged. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my !vote earlier was a move to draft, but from closer look and observation I say the page be deleted and recreated at a later time when subject of the article may have gathered more coverage. Please let us learn to avoid being WP:UNCIVIL as per our choice of words towards other editors and the subject of their articles. let us work with decorum. Furthermore let certain editors study closely WP:NOTHERE and WP:PEACOCK hence they risk damaging a potentially good article. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15 40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, and no consensus to delete anyway. A Train^talk 09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mumtaz Sukhera[edit]

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

no notable career. only one non-independent source cited. Saqib (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criteria by satisfying Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalent. If you do a google news search here you will 20 news articles. It does need to be improved, but should be kept. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the nomination. --Saqib (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: WP:SOLDIER is just an essay and nothing more than that so why to withdraw? Discussion should go on. Greenbörg (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbörg: The subject seems to have been namechecked by Pakistani RS [21] which I somehow failed to notice before nominating this bio for deletion but now I am of the view that the subject could be somewhat notable. Therefore I decided to withdraw, however if you think the subject doesn't merit a standalone bio, you can always re-nom it for deletion. --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by virtue of the fact that he was surgeon general of the Pakistan Army, which is a top post in the Pakistan Army Medical Corps. Mar4d (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:GNG. I agree with Saqib that there is no coverage in WP:RS. We are not database site. Show what he achieved, any major award? so he might be notable. Greenbörg (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jabir Khan Jabir[edit]

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

cited sources are not RS. fails to meet WP:SINGER. Saqib (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does fail GNG non notable singer.182.65.88.95 (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton Musical Song Narratives[edit]

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

Contested PROD. WP:NOTWEBHOST violation: Wikipedia is not a place to host your own synopsis of the songs in Hamilton. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NOT. Dysklyver 07:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad NOT fail.Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. I'm also guessing this is also a copyright violation but can't find the source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to host your own summary of the songs in a musical. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:No Original Research. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whatever this is (and I am not sure), it is not an encyclopedia article. It is not a likely search term, so no need for a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT. Lepricavark (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwal Feroze[edit]

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

Tamgha-i-Imtiaz is not enough for stand-alone article. No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apart from the sources already provided in the article that have entire paragraphs on him. The fact that he's a recipient of a civilian award and is a PhD. Here's: The Nation & Express Tribune - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss about the newly-found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would appear that he is notable with the new sources. Dysklyver 08:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously passes notability criteria. Prominent writer, having received multiple national awards (see [22]). The AfD underscores the persistent problem of systematic bias at Wikipedia, if it had been a US author honoured by US presidential medal the treatment had most likely been different. --Soman (talk) 10:15, 30 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. John from Idegon (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rouse High School[edit]

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

Article makes no claim of notability. What sources I could find were local routine coverage and mere mentions. Since schools have no innate presumption of notability, the fact that the subject fails GNG indicates deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Au contraire. I don't like boring articles, but the guidance is this: "Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability." Rouse exists.[23] There are sixteen articles about other high schools in the county. Fine. I'll keep my powder dry for a fight I believe in. I don't believe enough in this one. I'm fine with this direction. Rhadow (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you, like many others, have fallen victim to circular reasoning. While I understand the political issues behind deleting articles about schools the community has decided that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Chris Troutman (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a pubic high school in Texas with thousands of students. Back before high schools were routinely kept in AFD because of the presumption of notabiliy (not a claim of inherent notability, like for tiny hamlets or every sports person who played one minute in the major leagues, and not a regurgitation of common outcomes, so forget the "circular reasoning " sophistry) I had occasion to search for reliable sources to support general notability and notability per WP:ORG. In each case for a large US public high school, suitable refs could be found, but not necessarily instantly and without paywall and online. Many large regions of the US have no newspaper available online, and it is not practical to dash to some college library in the state the school is located in to verify that such high schools get significant coverage in the state's major newspapers. Found that the Austin American-Statesman had coverage of a knife attack on an art teacher in a classroom ( they still will let students use Xacto knives in class.) Then there was a male student charged withraping a female student in a closet in the same art department. A teacher/coach was charged with sexually assaulting a student. As the school added upperclassmen to the initial freshman class, the violleyball program was covered for moving into a more demanding conference or bracket. The program similarly received praise. That was all the articles I could view in the Austin paper without subscribing. There were several more links to stories abut programs and non-routine occurrences at the school, such as coverage of the arts proram, Will try and check other Texas newspapers when time permits. Edison (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of these mere mentions by local media coverage, as I explained in my nomination. I don't find that coverage enough for GNG. Please be careful with attempted accusations about sophistry, especially when you mispell the term and fail to refute the point. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Although the coverage is sort of routine, the sources are local and seem to be reliable. Since they are local, they should be able to verify this much better. Also, there are references to a governmental website, and governmental agencies are pretty reliable. These two things combine to make me think that we can verify the information presented, which is the whole point of our notability criteria. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. 'Circular reasoning' does not change the precedent of a process that has been firmly established through literally thousands of AfD closures over many years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Special:PermaLink/767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability, secondary schools are not presumed notable. Any arguments of editors supporting "keep" based only on the fact that this is a secondary school and precedence must be heeded to may/must be discarded as not based in policy as a consequence of the recent broad assessment of consensus.The editors are advised to instead vet whether the afore-discovered covg. is significant enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- if a high school is not inherently notable, then why are railroad stops and tram stations offered a pass on requirements for references? Rhadow (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a high school. However badly closed was an RFC about high schools, it remains simply best to keep articles on secondary schools. Even the RFC closure was not clear, anyhow. --do ncr am 02:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, reliable source coverage is evident here of a nature and quantity sufficient to meet Wikipedia's standards. This is a large public high school in Texas, part of a sizeable and growing school district in the Austin metropolitan area.[24] The school has several thousand students, competes in sports and other interschool activities, and receives coverage in the metropolitan media and other sources, sources of the sort accepted by the RfC and longtime practice as evidence of notability. E.g. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] [33] Typical of how U.S. school districts are covered in Wikipedia, we have an article for each of the Leander Independent School District's high schools, including this one; deletion here would simply cut a hole in the current coverage of the school district, a notable governmental entity, without in any way improving the encyclopedia. Whatever the RfC was intended to accomplish with respect to tiny parochial schools and the countless unverifiable commercial education institutions of South Asia, it did not authorize or recommend the removal of articles about large, independently verifiable public high schools like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network[edit]

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

An IP address contested this deletion on my talk page, so I de-PRODed as a courtesy and am bringing it here. My reasoning in the PROD still stands: the sourcing is either connected or promotional, making it not count towards notability per WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Gnews hits it does have is in citations of the orgs CEO, which certainly doesn't count towards notability for the organization itself, since it is not significant coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Searching journals and different publications, I found this organization's staff published in places like the Arab Studies Quarterly [34] and The Hill (newspaper)[35], cited in a report prepared for the United States Department of Defense on Israeli–Palestinian_conflict [36] and in a number of academic journals: Scandinavian Journal of Management[37], International Journal on Human Rights[38], Journal of Peace Research[39], The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs[40], and I see they've done an event with the Foundation for Middle East Peace[41] as well (I am US-based so familiar with this organization). --Hanthalawi (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (before I decide). Give these folks credit for doing something with nothing. The article is breathy; I volunteer to fix that if it's a keep. They (yes the boss) are getting quoted in the world press, for example al-Jazeera[42]. And the ECFR too[43]. Rhadow (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ my searches discovered no WP:SIGCOV. There some listings, like this: [44] NGO Monitor report, which lists a 2017 budget of $187,000. Similar ProPublica listing (used as source) here [45] comes in a few dollars less. That's pretty small potatoes. Other sources on the page are either mere mentions or mere listings, or are not WP:RS (i.e. Electronic Intifada, an interesting source because I was about to suggest that it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, but Electronic Intifada article dates to 2010. It looks like it was one of those ideas that never really amounted to much.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, rechecking myself I just ran another search on "Al-Shabaka" without the rest ot this title. Constantly cited by Aljazeera, Ma'an News Agency, Democracy Now!, & politically similar media. It still needs some WP:SIGCOV, but I'm out of time for now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article is no longer breathless praise. Don't put Aljazeera in the same bucket as Electronic Intifada and Ma'an News Agency. It makes me happy that they survive without a well-paid executive director. Don't let the small budget fool you. Part of this discussion is a matter of style: the Al Shabaka speakers choose to be quoted individually, with a mention that they represent Al-Shabaka in some way. This is different from releases from other think tanks, where the institution gets the attribution, and a secondary mention of the author. Rhadow (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, which would make it a primary source interview, which means it doesn't count towards WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree. Al Shabaka needs an organizational profile published in a reliable source to establish GNG. There doesn't seem to be one. An interested editor would keep a copy of this article and republish it when he or she finds one. Rhadow (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing more searching, Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV, failure to meet WP:CORPDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment--To determine whether the covg. is significant in nature.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only instances I can find of it being used in a WP:RS are when someone representing them is quoted. Their official website is used as a source multiple times and it clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. - Galatz ^Talk 13:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's relatively difficult to find the usual sort of sourcing for organizations like this, and w can realistically give some weight to the extent of its presence inits professional sphere. I accept Rhadow's evaluation of this. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Provisional IRA dead[edit]

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

There is a long-standing tradition, especially on Troubles-related articles, of not including lists of the dead on Wikipedia. The policy cited in support of not including such lists is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Discussions have taken place on many previous occasions, on various different articles, including, e.g., here, here, here, and here. A common theme of such discussions is that whatever about listing or naming people in prose within specific articles, articles devoted to the dead are definitely not to be included. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strongly in agreement with the nom, despite the possibility that some of the deaths are notable, lists such as this should be avoided per WP:NOT. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a collection of blue links, this has valid navigational purpose. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, not seeing how that trumps policy, but in any case, List of members of the Irish Republican Army and Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members both already exist and are both far more comprehensive. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Category is fuller than the article is an editing matter. That it exists at all indicates that this list does indeed have a valid navigational function. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an inherently POV-pushing list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the nominator's convincing comment on the precedent of which I was unaware. Ironically, the oxygen of publicity may be about to run out. But yeah, it fails both stand-alone list guidelines and Wikipedia is not a memorial. DrStrauss talk 14:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because of the nature of this list, it does not conform to our neutral point of view policy. For people in the IRA, there are much better and more comprehensive categories and lists that discuss the subject. Thus, this list should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annavarapu Ramaswamy[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article, tone and notability. First, it consists almost entirely of peacock language written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. Second, there isn't a lot of independent in-depth coverage of the subject, although there is plenty of primary or vanity coverage. The first problem can be solved by stripping out most of the article, which would not leave much, and not enough to sustain musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep but copyedit to remove peacock language. Add references to solid sourcces.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability in music or NMUSIC.Platogrew (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Platogrew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an entirely promotional article on an subject of questionable notability (if any). WP:TNT / WP:PROMO delete; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article and the subject is a violinist over 90 years in age and was performing actively a few decades ago.Clearly lack indepth references about the subject .Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sirmâst (yogurt and crushed garlic sauce)[edit]

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

Possibly a made-up sauce and there is no context in the article. DJAustin (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i created this article about this sauce because it's famous in Iran and other countries of the region. It was surprising for someone like me who knows Iran well enough to find some other sauces (like tzatziki or mast o khiar...) but not sirmâst. Farawahar (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently, the article has no verifiable references, and Google search brings up nothing. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 13:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as per nom and Zhangj1079. No references, no Google search results. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment no reliable sources about it. random blogs say it goes well with Kibbah, but the name is suspect, it is the hindi word for soft. Dysklyver 16:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Griffin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notablity requirements outlined in WP:NACTOR. Minor roles and/or non-notable films/shows. No substantial independent coverage. Peacock (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the multiple significant roles in notable productions test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching is made more difficult because of athers with the same name. Her best bet for NACTOR may be from stage shows. Such as Piranha Heights (review not positive for her). But I couldn't find enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly moved to draft space: Draft:Florence Mary Bird. The draft will remain there until it is improved and submitted for review through the usual channels, or until is deleted for lack of improvement. bd2412 T 22:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Mary Bird[edit]

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

written like a resume/advert, dubious notability FASTILY 00:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Being well written doesn't mean that its spam.

"Mythological Portrait of Mothra" does it for me. Tony OU812 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just not seeing any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is amazing, really well presented and reads well. However there are almost no reliable sources and it has clearly was made by a close person. Dysklyver 13:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since a lot of work obviously went into this, it's worth reiterating WP has a policy on when to create separate articles: when the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The above editors are saying that the article lacks reliable, secondary sources. As written, I agree czar 05:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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