< 14 July	16 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. In addition to the withdrawal, there is a consensus that the article should be improved rather than deleted, to be suitable enough for inclusion per the standards of Wikipedia. Unsourced content shouldn't be added back without reliable sources and such additions should be dealt with via the usual methods (revert, warning, block, etc). (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 10:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drill commands[edit]

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

Ugh, what a mess. In theory, this is probably a valid topic for an encyclopedia article, but this is the dog's breakfast. It's been tagged for better sourcing for ten years, and for OR for three. I just went through and looked at the four references that were in the text; I ended up eliminating all of them as useless. Two were to a blog which in turn cited us as its source. One was a link to a movie. The last was a reasonable looking source, but didn't address the statement in the text it was supposedly a source for; I moved it to external links. So, now it's 100% un-sourced. A massive pile of WP:OR. I suggest we delete this under WP:TNT and hopefully somebody will come along and write a useful, well-sourced, article to replace it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the unsourced material from the article, per the emerging discussion below, and withdraw my deletion nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ugh, what an awful nomination. The suggestion that this is original research is nonsense. Drill commands such as present arms are common knowledge for any well-informed person and are well documented in drill manuals such as this or that. WP:TNT is not policy so, instead, please see WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:CLEANUP. At the double! Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge is fine for some things, but it's not what you base an entire highly detailed article on. The sources that were added do nothing to verify the vast majority of what's in the article. One is a chapter in a book. The chapter is titled Teaching the Marching Percussion Section and appears to have nothing to do with military drill commands. Maybe somewhere else in the book, but certainly not the chapter cited. The second is the preface of a book that doesn't appear to have anything whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. The third, Styles of Command in Seventeeth-Century English Armies looks like it might indeed be a useful source, but unfortunately I don't have access to the full text so I can't tell for sure. It would help if you could provide some more detail about what this source says. In any case, the article goes into detail about drill commands in a dozen different languages; none of that is sourced in any way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Please refrain from making comments like Ugh, what an awful nomination. I've seen you make such comments before (at 08:04 [UTC] on 28 May 2018, for example, you wrote Talk of WP:TNT is a good cue for ARS action though I'm not sure we should encourage the use of such a disruptive essay., at 16:27 [UTC] on 9 February 2018 you wrote The nomination is absurd, and that's not even touching this out-of-nowhere insinuation that I was defaming a well-known scholar); they are not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prune vigorously, and cite the remaining core elements of this certainly notable topic. As Andrew D. rightly observes, there are plenty of military manuals that can be cited reliably. I doubt very much whether we should be trying to catalogue all drill commands of all armies (WP:NOTCAT); instead, the history and principles should be brought out. But that is a matter for editing, not AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. There is no problem here that cannot be fixed through editing. V and NOR only allow the deletion of unverifiable content. They do not allow the deletion of verifiable content that merely lacks citations. There are plenty of sources that verify the stuff in this article, such as this and the other sources that come up on searches for "drill commands", "words of command" and cognate expressions and searches like this. All you need to do is add the sources that plainly do exist in GBooks etc. I might have more sympathy for this nomination if the article were replete with errors, but none have been identified by the nominator. James500 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says, Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. If I removed everything which needs a source but doesn't have one, at this point we'd be left with one sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but blank per WP:TNT (and have that stated as the established community consensus to prevent disruptive edit-warring and reverts of the blanking like happened after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture) The nominator, User:RoySmith, is right in everything he says, but he is also an admin and so perhaps doesn't appreciate the value to the rest of us of having the unsourced, possibly-unverifiable, content visible in the page history in case any of it is worth keeping and can be sourced. The blanking should not be reverted without reliable sources that actually verify the content, and editors who attempt to do so should be warned, then blocked if they continue; deleting the page history to preemptively prevent such disruption is unnecessary and probably technically a violation of AGF as there doesn't appear to be any evidence that this would happen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not the article improvement workshop. Clear and obvious keep; drill is actually a competitive sport, believe it or not. I suggest splitting the article into individual national sections with a short "index" article might be a good play stylistically, if anyone is so motivated. Here's one source: Infantry Drill Regulations, US GPO, 1904. And if that's not enough, here's an entire WorldCat category for "su:United States. Army. Infantry Drill and tactics Handbooks, manuals, etc." Now, multiply that by other countries. You get the point... Carrite (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: What about blanking the unsourced content, which per Roy's comment above is policy-compliant? With your !vote and all the other un-nuanced "keeps" above, this AFD runs the risk of closing as Consensus is to KEEP, so don't even think about mass-blanking all the unsourced content or, worse, Consensus is to KEEP [and don't even think about mass-blanking all the unsourced content]. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the piece properly and nobody will scream. Drive-by blanking is a no-no. Carrite (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive...by...!? Are you joking? Did you read any of this discussion before !voting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and a definition is all that this is. --Bejnar (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: See RoySmith's and my comments above. There's non-DICDEF content in the page history (such as a bunch of stuff about monolinguality in the Irish armed forces that is definitely WP:TRUE but I doubt any of the state-sponsored primary sources alluded to by the other keep !votes will ever admit to) but it was all unsourced. Preserving it in the page history, as long as Carrite doesn't carry out the above implied threat of disruptively reinserting it, should do no harm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to TNT this one. Any effort should be made on a "Military drill" or "Drill (military)" article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the article already has been TNTed. To delete the page history just because someone might start edit-warring the unsourced content back in would be contrary to AGF; if there were a reason to do so (like Carrite's above comment being anything more than an implied threat) I could definitely agree (again, see the fustercluck that was caused by the bogus close at the "Korean influence" AFD), but I don't see one here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Z0: I've reverted your non-admin closure. There definitely is not "consensus to keep", and your choice of words indicated you had not read my comment but simply tallied up the !votes as expressed in the first word of each editor's comment. Plus, you really should wait the full 168 hours, not exactly 150 hours, before non-admin closing except in cases of speedy keep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator withdrew the nomination so that's why I closed it. @Hijiri 88: The editor whose username is Z0 10:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access Humboldt[edit]

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

Local public access channel run by a high school. Does not meet WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Humboldt County, California where it is mentioned. ~ GB fan 23:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC) remove for now. ~ GB fan 11:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Humboldt County, California. No independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~likely~~ meets WP:BROADCAST - most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes and Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers, are not presumed non-notable just because they primarily serve a university or college student population" - there is an opportunity to improve the article further. Flat Out (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is for over-the-air stations. For WP:BROADCAST says " Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area."--Rusf10 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Comment - Improvements made to article onel5969 and GB fan please consider recent improvements to article. Flat Out (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a licensed FM radio station, and is therefore notable. The content is verifiable and violates no policies. The fact that it also distributes content in other formats is irrelevant. The fact that a radio station in an isolated rural community uses facilities at the local high school is also irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The radio station was just added to the article. It may be notable enough to have its own article, but that's not what this article is about.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article started as the cable station, it is now about a broader subject.Flat Out (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom (yes nom) and Cullen328. Even by the nom's own quote from WP:BROADCAST this passes that guideline as the 4,052 square mile Humboldt County is a very large regional area.--Oakshade (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, it doesn't serve the entire county, only select towns in that county. We're talking about maybe 50,000 people, land area has nothing to do with it. That's not the same as a public access station in a large city.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thes television and radio stations do serve the entire county (and the signal probably bleeds into nearby Del Norte County) as that is their mission. There is no population requirement in WP:BROADCAST, just that it serves "a major city or a large regional area" and this is a large regional area also serving many isolated communities of the region. --Oakshade (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, its a low-powered radio station so the signal does not travel far at all. To remove any doubt about this, here is a map of its coverage area [1]--Rusf10 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the signal research, but the analogue signal is actually more than that. [2] But it's not just terrestrial radio, but podcasts and streaming which serves the entire of Humboldt County and much of the Jefferson region.[3] --Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Khan Bahadur[edit]

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

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sher Khan (soldier)

As far as I can see this is the same person, with the same claims to notability, and the article is with the same level of sourcing quality as the one deleted in January. The article has been repeatedly recreated at various titles, and I'm bringing this up here only because the last G4 was declined. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Khan (soldier) for possible clues about notability. – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to participants in the previous discussion: Störm, Gaarmyvet, AustralianRupert, Necrothesp, K.e.coffman, Malcolmxl5 and Ansh666. – Uanfala (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just like before.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy delete. This is a recreation of a page that was deleted at AfD, then recreated and speedily deleted. Will be messaging admin that declined CSD. We need to salt this. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy delete - User recreated a deleted article and this user is notorious for disruptions. R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed they haven't been blocked yet. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24:, As am I, they seem to have committed every offense at least once; copyvio, vandalism (whether intentional or not), removing maintenance templates, adding OR, adding dubious sources, editing archives, etc.

I think we should also take a look at these other articles created by the user for deletion.(Bostan Khan (soldier), Hussain Khan, Sadduzai, Khai Gala, Ethnic groups in Azad Kashmir, Nawab Jassi Khan, Shams Khan (Sudhan)) Most of them don't seem too notable, have poor sourcing, and some have no valid English sources. The ones on the military figures are sourced similarly to this very article, which seems to indicate they too should be deleted for the same reasoning as this one.

Now that I realise this, the user seems to show WP:OWNERSHIP and is on a crusade to get Nawab Jassi Khan "protected from vandalism." They requested protection once at AFP (linking to my profile in their signature for some reason) and when it was declined they added it three separate times to the rolling archive. R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R9tgokunks: Sigh. If only the ANI would have done something when I reported them for repeatedly removing CSD tags, but noooo. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator's other articles are bundled for AfD here. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not substantially different from the last article about the same topic. Equally, notability has not been established per WP:GNG, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please will the reviewing admin consider blocking the creator - the number of problems being caused by the account is phenomenal and not all of them are referred to on their talk page, eg: undiscussed and inappropriate page moves as recently as the last 24 hours. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I would echo the disruptive nature of editing by the page creator. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article creator Astore Malik (talk · contribs), is now permanently banned from editing. R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge and redirect to the regiment that he established. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Super Comic Convention[edit]

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

Now-defunct comic-con that fails WP:EVENT. Uncertain future and no coverage since September 2017. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not temporary, and there's enough sources to meet GNG. Just needs updating to reflect current status. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Killer Moff - defunct/running is irrelevant, Meets GNG as evidenced by the articles sources alone. –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is notable even if it is defunct. The sources are pretty good. BleedingCool is a good one in particular. Gameinfirmary (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Collective[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill company article written like an advertisement and with unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 21:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry to say, self-serving promotional article for a company that has little sales. No information outside self-promotional pieces listed. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent sourcing. Does not meet GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Horribly promotional writing. Google currently brings up nothing, apart from a dead website. The last facebook post seems to have been on 1 September 2015, when a kickstarter failed to reach required funding so I suspect better sources will not be forthcoming. Curdle (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I/o Ventures[edit]

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

Delete A promotional article on a run-of-the-mill startup funding firm. A WP:BEFORE check turns up the usual company profiles, interviews with connected sources, inclusion on lists and mentions in passing. In other words, nothing that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements. also references are not reliable sources. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 23:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven @ 11:00[edit]

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

No sources, possible original research and tagged as potentially not notable. » Shadowowl | talk 19:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Jeh (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is currently a bunch of speculation, followed by an unnecessary list of US newscasts with this branding. I don't see a need to redirect to Late-night news. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements. only Youtubu links available in the article. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 23:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Soir de Tunisie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Old nomination text : Unsourced article with a spammy youtube link. If you decline afd's without reason, improve then, instead of being too much wanting to fuck someone over. EDIT : And it does not meet WP:NNEWSPAPER. » Shadowowl | talk 19:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. I've found coverage of a similarly-named paper in Algeria, but nothing on this one apart from its own website. The Arabic Wikipedia article is also of no help in demonstrating notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Just based on the nominators reasoning: “….instead of being too much wanting to ’’fuck someone over and too lazy to improve the article. EDIT ". No call, what so ever, for this type of nomination. SHAME SHAME SHAME. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT vote striked by Shadowowl

Shoes, why weren't you there when some editor incorrectly removed some of my nominations at random? Seriously, I was angered by some user removing nominations while doing bloody nothing to fix them. He didn't even thought it was needed to inform me on my talk. No need for shame-calling and WP:POINT voting, and I have striked your vote. -- » Shadowowl | talk 21:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do not ever ~~Strike~~ out an other editors comment without their permission, unless they violate Wikipedia Policy. Only and last warning till I take higher. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then replace your keep vote to a comment vote as it is a pure WP:POINT vote. It has nothing to do with the article. I apologize for editing your comment, but I still feel that my strike is justified and I will put it back if you refuse to make it a comment vote, as it has nothing to do with the content. -- » Shadowowl | talk 22:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Versus distracting from this AFD with side issues. Please read my response on your talk|Your Talk Page

What would happen if you nominated some articles for deletion, and I randomly speedy-kept them without a reason. Would you be happy about that? -- » Shadowowl | talk 22:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs that you found it necessary to “Delete” my comments on your talk page. I found it necessary to post here.

==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Soir de Tunisie (2nd nomination)==

Hello Shadowowl. Understanding that you may be new to Wikipedia, I have not reported this incident to any Admininistrators. However, one of the Golden Rule’s of Wikipedia is that all edits by any EDITOR is presumed to be in Assumed To Be In Good Faith unless that editor makes inflammatory – derogatory or false claims. And even than, you not have the authority or permission to ~~Strike~~ their remarks! You can Rollback – Revert and even have the user BLOCKED. But you do not have the right to ~~STRIKE~~ their edit. Hopefully this is just a “Learning” experience, and hope to see you around contributing to the efforts. Regards. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NNEWSPAPER. Since it appears to be transitioning out of the newspaper business, it is unlikely to ever meet that notability guideline. Ifnord (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. The state of sourcing in articles is typically not a valid rationale for deletion as per WP:NEXIST. Articles that lack sources or are unsourced do not automatically qualify for deletion. However, an exception to this exists regarding entirely unreferenced biographies of living persons, which qualify for BLP prod. No prejudice against a speedy renomination that provides a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuppathu Raja[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was speedy-kept without a reason. Old nomination text : Only has 1 source, for the soundtrack. All the other information is unsourced » Shadowowl | talk 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. The state of sourcing in articles is typically not a valid rationale for deletion as per WP:NEXIST. Articles that lack sources or are unsourced do not automatically qualify for deletion. However, an exception to this exists regarding entirely unreferenced biographies of living persons, which qualify for BLP prod. No prejudice against a speedy renomination that provides a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Soul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-afd'ing, was speedy closed as keep but nothing has changed to the references. This one has only utter garbage ones and practically counts as unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 19:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. ansh 666 07:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Leib HaKohain[edit]

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

Promotional religious tone, advocacy and appraisal: the entire page is a brochure from Donmeh West, HaKohain's now-defunct website. It totally lacks any sign of neutrality, verifiability, and is substantially a poor quality original research entirely based on his website, primarily containing contentious and unsourced material, before it was taken down. Both his biography and the Donmeh West's article were written by the same user. No evidence of notability, cited only to a poetry website and a press release.--GenoV84 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:

GenoV84, I have fixed your nomination. Please replace the Why the page should be deleted text given above with your actual reason for nominating these two pages. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
Support the deletion of both pages. The Donmeh West is just a defunct website, since the "founder" of the sect passed away. But the article about the person is clearly self-promotion, since he was not a recognized rabbi by any institurtion, and did not have any recognized academic degrees. Having been interviewed once by an Israeli newspaper, where the intervies was published only in Hebrew is no claim to notability on Wikipedia. Besides being clear-self promotion, the two pages are also clear attempts at religious advocacy and recruitment. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Donmeh West; Neutral on Yakov Leib HaKohain The article about Donmeh West does not meet the notability standard, nor can anything else be found in a Google search. In terms of Yakov Leib HaKohain, the Maariv article is a substantial one in a reliable and verifiable source that supports a claim of notability for his syncretic beliefs. There might be other sources, but the various spellings and the likelihood that they may not be in English raises some justifiable reasons to consider not deleting the article. Issues with the content and tone of the article for Yakov Leib HaKohain should be addressed via editing and discussion. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 neighbourhoods in Moncton. (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 10:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old North End, Moncton[edit]

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

It is highly unlikely that Moncton has an "Old North End", as no sources can be found other than this article's existence that would point to it being a thing. Even if someone did mention it, it is indistinguishable from any other part of Moncton. Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the New West End, Moncton and New North End, Moncton seem just as bad; perhaps they should all redirect to List of neighbourhoods in Moncton even if sourcing is found. Without sourcing they should be deleted. Some of the neighbourhoods, such as Sunny Brae, New Brunswick appear on Google Maps, but I haven't found any other sources for this info yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, presumably to List of neighbourhoods in Moncton, is consistent with discussion so far. --Doncram (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The editor whose username is Z0 10:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thread (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is a Hellenic Film Academy Awards "Best Picture" nominated film even considered for AfD? It's why I created it. With no surprise it took only seconds to find very in-depth coverage of this heavily critically acclaimed film. [4][5][6][7][8]. Those were just some of the many. It doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was adhered to in the slightest and it's also looking like a case of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Norminator withdraw nomination (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open Space Technology[edit]

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

Concerns w WP:PROMO and WP:NOTABILITY. This article about a meeting-organization technique is largely based on promotional pages. Little or no in-depth coverage in WP:RS, though brief mentions are common. If kept, needs major rewrite.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing this Afd nomination as article has been improved, see below. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep but revise. I just don't buy that this is non-notable. A "Open Space Technology" -site:openspaceworld.com -site:openspaceworld.org -wiki - Google News Search brings back nearly a thousand results. A "Open Space Technology" - Google Scholar search brings back over 3,300 results. It is absurd to claim that this is non-notable. Just because an article is in drastic need of improvement & judicious removal of anything promotion are not criteria for deletion given the subject's notability. Peaceray (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator) or revise to show notability and remove promotion. I did check Google results before filing AfD, but ran out of patience after many pages of brief mentions and promotion by non-independent sources. Rewriting the article will be a big job and needs to be done almost from scratch. In its current state, it is WP:PROMO and does not belong in Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC) see below.[reply]

HouseOfChange: did you look at the Google Scholar results? At least half of the results of the first 30 clearly have Open Space Technology as their focus.
Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#What is deletion for? states".. try fixing the POV first." Currently, there have been 228 editors of this article. I cannot believe that the majority of those editors have been placing PROMO into the article. Deleting this article because some of it is PROMO would be a disservice to those editors. I do not believe that this is a case for WP:NUKEIT, which, BTW, is an essay & neither a policy nor a guideline.

-- Peaceray (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Major case of copy pasta going on. I've taged with WP:G12 along with the sources I found.~~Turns out many of those are copying Wikipedia. But the article seem to follow the format of http://www.chriscorrigan.com/openspace/whatisos.html --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of phrase seem to be lifted from https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wCSuCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT200&lpg=PT200&dq=%22the+individual+groups+go+to+work.%22&source=bl&ots=izhnPc4t5v&sig=gHsrv_8l6bnqenmzZ2lPn2xHdbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS94DruqPcAhUKI8AKHYWJAJIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20individual%20groups%20go%20to%20work.%22&f=false as well as these:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Open Space Technology#Fixed or not a copvio to see the progress on removing copyvio. At least five of the cited sources are no longer a problem. Peaceray (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio problems have been resolved with all nine of the sources listed. Peaceray (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am impressed by and grateful for the hard work of Peaceray and Tyw7 to fix copyvio problems. Maybe some of their text changes can be exported to the Wikiversity article for OST, where it would be much more suited. The article's promotional tone, and the lack of critical or even neutral material from independent sources, remains a problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to withdraw my nomination of this article for AfD. Peaceray, Tyw7, and I have done hours of work to improve it, removing copyvio and promotion while adding information from independent RS. This is now an informative article suited to Wikipedia. More detailed info about procedures, etc. are in Wikiversity also. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Stallwood[edit]

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

No cited sources. No substantial coverage apparent in Google News Archive search. Not much engagement from other scholars on their books (eg.). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Daask (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Especially the "he has over 40 years expeirence" that is the wording for a resume. The fact that the article lacks sources is another problem, but the format is just plain off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John - Clearly written by her or someone close to her, Anyway no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 20:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references in a Bio qualifies for proposed deletion. There is no coverage either. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTRESUME, this is almost a word for word copy from his webpage here so WP:COPYVIO may also apply? his book Growl has not made much impact (in 25 libraries), although there are reviews out there ie. The Vegan - here, Journal for Critical Animal Studies - here, so the book might just squeak over WP:NBOOK but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is such a mess because an ip (presumably with a coi) hijacked it on 3 October, copypasting their version straight over the top. If you roll it back to 22 June 2016, its a fairly neat stub with 3 refs. I would try and revert back, but I'm not sure what that would do to the deletion notice. Anyway,I found a few more sources, none great but..University of Caterbury bio, Local newspaper review of the Growl book Interview with Vegetarian magazine. Curdle (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Newslinger (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CBC Music Top 20[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable sources independent of CBC Music. The only reference cited in the article is CBC Radio itself, and news searches only return a few brief mentions from other sources. Newslinger (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thank you, Bearcat, for pointing out my mistakes. Newslinger (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not the case that the only reference cited in the article is CBC Radio itself — the source is Cashbox, a notable music magazine that is both reliable and independent of the CBC itself. And furthermore, national network distribution is a clean pass of WP:NMEDIA for a radio show. Yes, this needs more referencing than it has before it can be considered a good article, but it already has a strong enough notability claim and an independent reference for the purposes of being keepable as a stub. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SKCRIT#1 (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wang[edit]

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

Falls WP:PROF Shrike (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in fact speedy keep. I am rather surprised by this nomination and the nominator's claim that the subject does not pass WP:PROF. The subject has held named chair/named professor appointments at two major universities (Univ of New Mexico and UC San Diego), so already passes WP:PROF#C5 on those grounds. The Awards section lists several significant awards (I added regs for some of them), and elected society fellowships (I added a ref for one of them), so passes WP:PROF#C3 too. Google Scholar gives him the h-index of 152:[9]. Together with the awards, that's certainly enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. Probably passes some other criteria of WP:PROF as well (e.g. WP:PROF#C8) as the editor-in-chief of an important journal). Nsk92 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:PROF #C1, #C2, #C3, #C5, #C8, and probably also (for the books) WP:AUTHOR. And a trout to the nominator for making such an inane and badly informed nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as clearly above. A double trout for the nominator for making such an inadequate and time wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think a redirect is the best way to go, but if anyone thinks it would help, feel free to recreate it as one. ansh 666 07:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SV Angel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 14:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excepting a few paltry TechCrunches, fails GNG. Dpnom. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only good references only mention the subject in passing, not enough to satisfy the listed notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ron Conway, with whom the firm is associated, as a likely search term. czar 18:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parag Telang[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Note that none of the references are actually about him. TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look into the references each one has his name on it. All the references talk about his contribution to sex-reassignment. He is known and famous surgeon for sex-reassignment surgeries. --Weekeevkeditor (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norms fails WP:GNG & written like CV of the Parag Telang Act345 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is look like a CV. He is know person for his contribution to sex-reassignment. Weekeevkeditor (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like a CV or promotional piece but that's not the criteria for deleting the article. To meet the notability guidelines, the subject must have good, verifiable references. It's not a comment on whether or not he's a good surgeon, just that he's not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Ajay[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article is full of weasel words and poor notability establishment. Fails WP:NACTOR. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two films do not fulfill WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Accidental nomination withdrawn. I was going to nominate 2004 Teli Katha massacre for deletion but I misclicked this article and soon got distracted into other things. My Lord (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Lal Chowk fire[edit]

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

An incident from 1993, barely promoted by propaganda websites let alone independent reliable sources. My Lord (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per third party reliable sources from what I can see. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Washington Post, Human Rights Watch, India Today (with alternative claims from the above), Independent (UK), PUCL, book source, etc, Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Kite. This nomination is bordering on tendentious. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Faizan Campaign[edit]

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

Some popularity in social media which is considerably outdated. If Amnesty International was interested in this incident then there had to be more sources than these WP:NOTNEWS. My Lord (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The News search for the title failed to give any notable result. Absolutely Zero useful result on books. Failed WP:NEVENT and recommending delete per WP:NOTNEWS (Disclosure: I have been a significant contributor to the article)--DBigXray 13:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:NEVENT .He was arrested on February 23 2011 for stone pelting, Amnesty issued an appeal and on 30th March they submit a report to Chidambaram and he is released on 5th April there is no long campaign for him .Now if the subject was a minor at the time of the incident there would be BLP concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. There are enough sources in the article including one to a book. 39.57.242.20 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources you provided on article are exactly WP:NOTNEWS,[10] a couple of them being unreliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Nowhere near enough coverage to justify an article. --RaviC (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENTS, this appears to be an event that neither demonstrates precedent nor is it a catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Ifnord (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 procedural close per WP:DENY as Sadly nom is blocked. Without Prejudice to renomination. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of black flags[edit]

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

One of the many Hadiths with different interpretations. To me, this is not more than WP:QUOTEFARM. My Lord (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG it can expanded in the contemporary contest about Islamic groups using black flags and also in the historical contest Google scholar shows over 1900 articles and over 180000 results .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell which specific sources you saw that help passing GNG? Is there any article for Black flags related to this subject yet? I only see Black Standard#Jihadist black flag. My Lord (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Black Standard#Origin? Peter James (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Star Channel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominator's rationale Wikipedia is not a program guide and collection of trivial content. A list of program made by Star Channel with external citation, may be notable to keep, but not an unsourced list of TV program that bought and broadcasted by the TV channel. Matthew_hk t c 11:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, fail WP:GNG, typical WP:Listcruft (violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.) Matthew_hk t c 11:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 11:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's about time we set a precedent for television programming list articles that they need to be well sourced and strictly kept to original programming, and just like the majority of them, this one isn't. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure where precedent rests with this article/list type, but I don't see the encyclopedic value in this sort of listing. We're an encyclopedia for general audiences, not an almanac that associates each television series with the channels that have hosted it. Feel free to export this stuff to another wiki, but especially if there are no secondary sources that assert the general importance of these kinds of listings, I see no reason why we should keep them. czar 19:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

InfoVaticana[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass notability criteria for either organisations or for websites. Other than an interview in El Mundo, the article does not list third-party sources that would mention this website. Its apparent claims to notability lie in the fact that some of the website's contributors are notable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree that the current article is much too heavily sourced to its subject, the article in El Mundo appears to push this topic over the notability threshold. Barely. But there you have it. A loose noose (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We normally require multiple sources for a standalone article to pass WP:N. Additionally, sources should be independent from the subject, which an interview with the founder is not (even if published in mainstream media). See also WP:SECONDARY. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a good deal of secondary coverage of this website in WP:RS, added a couple of bits to the article. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as reliable sources references have been added to the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collectors market index[edit]

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

Non-notable term. An exact Google search for the term has a total of 13 results (almost all Wiki mirrors). The included list is nothing more than excessive promotional listcruft based on self-published sources. GermanJoe (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The exact article title might not come up much, and one can argue about changing the name, but in my opinion there is a notable subject here. The Handbook of Alternative Assets: Making Money from Art, Rare Books, Coins and Banknotes, Forestry, Gold and Precious Metals, Stamps, Wine and Other Alternative Assets discusses many of these indices. SG100 Stamp Price Index, GB30 Rarities Index, Commonwealth Rarities 30 Index, Liv-ex 100 Index, Liv-ex Fine Wine Investable Index, and Liv-Ex Claret Chip Index all get at least a paragraph and in some cases more. Other indices, perhaps in a narrower range, are discussed in many other collectibles books. I do think, however, that the list needs a clearer inclusion criterion and could probably use some trimming after that is established. SpinningSpark 17:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is not commonly used we shouldn't have an article or list about it. Google Search is not infallible, but for a common business term there should be atleast a few reliable sources using said term. Granted the linked source briefly summarizes a few of the better-known indexes, but this information could be better used to expand the main articles about the respective notable index organizations, instead of cobbling together such an artificial list. Currently all entries are exclusively based on self-published information, and several of them plagiarize the organizations' own descriptions. Several of the overly-detailed entries (i.e. Colecty) seem barely noteworthy and show no reliable sources at all on Google. The excessive listing of every minor sub-index without substantial content or independent sources also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY or the respective list inclusion guidelines.

In short: I am not against saving some of the noteworthy content based on independent sources of course, but in its current form the article is near-impossible to salvage without a clear definition of its scope and a complete rewrite. GermanJoe (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkanmi[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 mentions and lack substance. Has won a few awards, but they appear to be minor in nature. reddogsix (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non notable, fails GNG. 2Joules (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is on Spotify, which means some international success has been achieved. Passes WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please indicate how being on Spotify is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Also being on Spotify does not indicated any international success. reddogsix (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG. I've added more sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nigerian performers may be underrepresented in the English Wikipedia because of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, so I am reluctant to dismiss the awards as unimportant. It would be helpful if someone could check the Nigerian music charts for the period during which she has been active to see whether any of her singles charted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources as well as the awards and nominations are enough to show that she qualifies under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new improvement by Megalibrarygirl. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep- Meets GNG and most likely MUSICBIO due to awards and nominations. AFD is not for clean up. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously passes WP:GNG, article has also been improved substantially during AfD Mahveotm (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HorliX[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no coverage from reliable soruces. Article is promotional in nature. Newslinger (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OsiriX, and maybe expand HorliX's entry under the "Derivatives of OsiriX" section. Not notable by itself. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given complete lack of notability a redirect isn't appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not actually notable, so a redirect and expansion doesn't seem correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McNally (darts player)[edit]

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

There is no notability guideline for darts players. He's failed to qualify for any major tournaments in his career. Also fails WP:GNG as I couldn't find any significant sources about him online. Dougal18 (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highest world ranking ever was #354 and that's certainly not enough to show notability. There is no sufficient independent coverage to support a claim that WP:GNG is met. Only once has he made the round of 128 in a major tournament and he lost his next match. Career earnings of less than 7,000 British pounds indicates this can't be his main way of making a living. Papaursa (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. Michig (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2010[edit]

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

Each season we had a summary of that season on its own page. For Eastern Pacific and Atlantic, we even had a timeline. I think those summaries are already enough and I don't think we have to add info to another separated page. If info is needed, then add back to the corresponding articles. B dash (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @B dash:, Yeah we do have season articles, but we dont have anything that highlights events that took place across the entire world. This is unique in the fact that it highlights storms that were threatening land around the world. Not to mention it has a timeline of every tropical cyclone that took place (at least though September) in the world. I also would like to mention that in the future that this article would have the total amount of fatalities and damages around the world from tropical cyclones in 2010. This article has potential for development and further exploration. Something like this simply does not exist and we should keep it. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 11:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It has been a long held ambition of certain members of the tropical cyclone project to have an overview article of the tropics during the year. I also personally feel that it is an interesting idea to have this article, as we can then go a bit more in depth to the various factors that contribute to tropical cyclone formation etc then we can in the season articles. I would assume that it would take after the tropis section in the BAMS State of the Climate in XXXX reports. It would also provide a usefull venue going forward for any miscellanious tropical or subtropical cyclones that we dont know how to deal with. However, I do not feel that each and every system needs to be included in the month by month wrap up. Maybe just the most signifcant and even then only a few sentences for each system.Jason Rees (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems like the wrong venue, as the issue is how to organize content across multiple articles, which is a matter of editorial judgment, rather than an issue with whether Wikipedia should have this content at all. And this doesn't seem to be a question of this being a duplicate of another article, but rather a global summary of others. As best as I can tell, at least... Please always link to the articles that you believe relate or overlap with this one so people reading the discussion don't have to hunt it down or guess what other articles you are talking about. Right now I simply don't see a deletion argument or issue, but rather a broad question about development and organization that should have been raised on a Wikiproject or article talk page first (and if that had been done already, again, please link to it). postdlf (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I barely had time to develop the article before this deletion notice was put on it. There wasn't any discussion nor did I feel it would be such an issue as this was a low priority stub when I started work on it yesterday. People are more than welcome to chime in when it comes to developing the article. Nobody had said anything to me before today. As for your request to put article links, I am working on that. I simply didn't have enough time to do that yesterday. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were actually directed towards the nominator, including the request that he link to whatever other articles he thinks are "enough" on this topic. postdlf (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Focus on the named storms, list how many per basin and by each month. List records, damage, deaths, whatnot. The article has been around for a while, and it’s never really been developed properly. I vote keep to give it a chance to flesh out the article, and hopefully bring that type of article to the present. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An overview of all tropical cyclones in a given year is useful and good to have. This is also a very suitable place to explain how events like El Nino, La Nina etc affect global tropical cyclone activity. Would suggest putting ((Under construction)) to show that the article is still being developed. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sole principle that there's information that we can include here that doesn't belong in season articles and therefore warrant WP coverage. Just because until this week an article of this type has never passed the planning stages doesn't warrant deletion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that NACADEMIC is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Grossman[edit]

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

The subject is not notable; all sources are from the subject's own institution (MIT), and are not independent. No additional, independent sources were found on google, google books, and google news searches. Edit-llama (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the holder of a named chair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The named chair itself isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology article, so the person wouldn't be notable just by holding that chair. Newslinger (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reviewed WP:NACADEMIC regarding the named chair. Article needs significant expansion. Newslinger (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #1 (has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline) and #5 (has held a named chair at MIT). The criterion #1 can be satisfy by his citation count (e.g. [11] cited by 821 [12] cite by 950) according to Google Scholar [13] (over 14,000 in total). He is also covered in other articles - e.g Scientific American Popular Science Physics.org, therefore he also satisfies WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In addition to having such a clear pass of WP:PROF as to call into question the competence of the nominator, there is plenty of popular press for his work, some of which I have added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, named chair at MIT, that is already enough to pass WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Viciana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Only sources that list them are B&N website and IMDB, the latter of which cannot be used to illustrate notability. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is a translation of es:Josep Viciana. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the sources provided don't pass WP:NPERSON or the the notability test for En-wiki. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 23:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citations are identical to those in the corresponding Catalan and Spanish articles. The screenaustralia.gov.au one looked promising - but then I opened it, and discovered that it contained nothing more than his name. A search turned up no WP:RS independent sources at all. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013[edit]

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

WP:SINGLENETWORK chart failing WP:BADCHARTS which violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related nominations:

Newslinger (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Not a suitable chart for Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I modeled my chart after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2018, so I don't see how it is not a suitable chart when it is just the Bollywood version of this.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boymangirlwoman: The Billboard Hot 100 is compiled by Billboard and incorporates data from multiple vendors (retail stores like Walmart and Target; digital stores like iTunes and Amazon, streaming services like Spotify and YouTube, and radio stations). Each of these examples are owned by a different company. The general methodology is explained publicly and changes are reported publicly. On the other hand, the Mirchi Top 20 is determined by Radio Mirchi, and unless someone can find evidence that they use data from multiple vendors, the charts wouldn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia because they're single-vendor charts. It's not about the formatting of the article, but about the composition of the chart itself. Newslinger (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, only attaches to IFPI-certified charts that compile data from a variety of sales and media sources. Single-network airplay charts don't meet that standard. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how WP:BADCHARTS (not listed there) or WP:PROMOTION (it's just a chart like many other charts) are relevant here. While the chart was collated by The Times of India and Radio Mirchi, both of the Times Group, it would help if evidence is given to show that the data used for the chart compilation come from a single network per WP:SINGLENETWORK. Hzh (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hzh: The Mirchi Top 20 article was deleted in 2015 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirchi Top 20. I'm unable to find significant coverage of the chart from reliable sources independent of The Times of India. All of the references to the Mirchi Top 20 come from The Times of India, Radio Mirchi, and Gaana.com, which are all owned by The Times Group. This places this article squarely in WP:SINGLEVENDOR territory, and the burden of proof is on the article creator to show that this chart incorporates data from sources not owned by The Times Group. Newslinger (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to find sources referring to the Mirchi chart, here for example it is used to assess the taste of Indian listeners - [14] (it appears to consider Mirchi the equivalent of Billboard charts) and there are references to it elsewhere [15][16]. That would suggest the chart is in fact significant (therefore the deletion was wrong). As for WP:SINGLEVENDOR, it is for those who make the claim that it is single vendor/network to show that (by showing the methodology for the chart), not the other way round. Hzh (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirchi Top 20 doesn't inherit any notability from Radio Mirchi. Of the three references you mentioned, the first mentions "Radio Mirchi's top 200 chart listings" and "Radio Mirchi rankings," not the Mirchi Top 20. The second claims that the "Mirchi 20" only ranks "Hindi film songs," and the book mentions the chart just once. The third mentions the Mirchi Top 20 only once in a long table listing Radio Mirchi's Sunday programming schedule. The deletion was valid because the Mirchi Top 20 doesn't meet WP:GNG, since there are no reliable sources independent of The Times Group that offer significant coverage of the chart. As the chart itself isn't notable, it's not even necessary for me to discuss the composition of the chart. Newslinger (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The top 200 references is likely to be just a typo as there isn't actually a top 200, but there is a top 20. The nomination was in any case based on a false understanding of WP:BADCHARTS which is about the use of such charts in article and tables and not about notability. Hzh (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used → It says it clearly that in WP:BADCHARTS Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in charts table and prose within an article, it is not about the notability criteria for a music article. WP:SINGLENETWORK gives the example of CBC Music Top 20 of which an article exists, however its chart should not be used in other articles. Read the lead paragraph as to what it is used for. We are going off on a tangent here anyway, as the Mirchi Top 20 article is not relevant to this list, although it shows that many don't seem to understand what the guidelines are for. WP:SINGLENETWORK however indicates that a list from such charts should not be created if it is indeed based on a single vendor/network, but as there is no proof that it is indeed chart of a single vendor/network, I therefore refrain from stating whether to keep or delete it. Hzh (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGLENETWORK and WP:BADCHARTS are both part of WP:CHARTS, which "provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles." You'll have to either accept or discount them both for this discussion. My argument is that if the chart itself isn't considered notable in WP:GNG, a list of number-one songs from that chart shouldn't be considered notable, either. Newslinger (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGLENETWORK clearly states that the list of entries in the chart should not be given if it is from a single vendor/network, however that is a different issue from the chart itself. It gives CBC Music Top 20 as example where an article exists, but states that "List of number-one hits on the Radio 2 Top 20" should not be created. The guideline is therefore clear about the distinction between an article on the chart itself, and the use of the chart entries and its list in other articles. Hzh (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The chart claims to be a "one stop destination to find the latest weekly hit songs that are top of the popularity charts" which implies that it uses multiple sources to calculate its rankings.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to say that its own self-published content about itself implies that it meets our standards for a valid or notability-conferring record chart — anything or anyone who exists at all can simply claim to meet a Wikipedia notability standard if what they say about themselves is all the proof we require. (For example, I could claim to be the president of the newly-declared micronation of the United States of Bearcat's Apartment and get over our notability standard for national heads of state, if my self-declared claim was all it took and I didn't have to show any independent evidence that any reliable source ever cared.) You have to show hard, independent evidence that it does meet the necessary standard, not soft self-created evidence that maybe it might. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akhiljaxxn: In the future, please consider making a bundle nomination. Newslinger (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be notable enough for Wikipedia to maintain a running list of its number one songs, it has to be an IFPI-certified chart that would meet the standards necessary to make a musician notable because they'd charted on it — and what has to be shown to get a chart past that test is confirmation that it is such a chart, not just uncertainty as to whether it is or not. To be fair, Radio Mirchi is a national radio network, so it would fall under a variant much like the CBC Music Top 20 example listed above: it doesn't assist in passing NMUSIC's charting criterion, but it does demonstrate passage of the more general "national network radio airplay" criterion since a song obviously can't chart on a network without getting played on it. But for charts like that, given that they don't specifially pass the charting criterion we don't track or maintain lists of their number-one hits: in the case of CBC Radio 2, thankfully nobody's ever tried in the first place, but in the case of its sister service CBC Radio 3, we have deleted several lists that used to exist of its number-one singles from its network-specific chart. But yeah, Radio Mirchi demonstrates national network airplay, so airplay counts as evidence of notability for a musician — but charting isn't relevant, so there's no need for us to maintain lists of its chart positions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2014[edit]

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

WP:SINGLENETWORK chart failing WP:BADCHARTS which violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Not a suitable chart for Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I modeled my chart after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2018, so I don't see how it is not a suitable chart when it is just the Bollywood version of this.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013 for my response and further discussion. Newslinger (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2015[edit]

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

WP:SINGLENETWORK chart failing WP:BADCHARTS which violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Not a suitable chart for Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I modeled my chart after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2018, so I don't see how it is not a suitable chart when it is just the Bollywood version of this.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013 for my response and further discussion. Newslinger (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2016[edit]

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

WP:SINGLENETWORK chart failing WP:BADCHARTS which violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Not a suitable chart for Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I modeled my chart after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2018, so I don't see how it is not a suitable chart when it is just the Bollywood version of this.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013 for my response and further discussion. Newslinger (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2017[edit]

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

WP:SINGLENETWORK chart failing WP:BADCHARTS which violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Not a suitable chart for Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I modeled my chart after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2018, so I don't see how it is not a suitable chart when it is just the Bollywood version of this.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013 for my response and further discussion. Newslinger (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2018[edit]

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

WP:SINGLENETWORK chart failing WP:BADCHARTS which violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Not a suitable chart for Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I modeled my chart after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_2018, so I don't see how it is not a suitable chart when it is just the Bollywood version of this.Boymangirlwoman (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mirchi Top 20 number-one songs of 2013 for my response and further discussion. Newslinger (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CIF Southern Section#Leagues. Be bold and redirect as an alternative to deletion whenever reasonable. czar 19:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big VIII League[edit]

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

NN high school athletic league. No indication league meets GNG. MB 04:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CIF Southern Section where it is listed. Good luck with the other league stubs in the same boat. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Soak[edit]

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

Promotion for a non-notable product. Most of the references are advertorials. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Advertorial" has a very specific meaning: paid advertising masquerading as editorial copy. I do not think the term can be appropriately applied to these references. Most of the references appear to be a journalist saying "This looks cool" and writing independently about the topic. In particular, The Irish Times is a newspaper of record, and the writer for The Irish Times is a staff business reporter. https://www.irishtimes.com/profile/ciara-o-brien-7.1010748 So even if the manufacturer has mailed out dozens of samples to journalists around the world (and I do not think this is the case), reporters and editors have decided that the technology is newsworthy independently and without payment. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but the journalists may have relied a little too heavily on press releases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look it is covered by Yahoo [17], The Irish Times 2, Engadget 3, PopSugar 4, Futura-Sciences 5, Tom's Hardware 6, Digital Trends 7, Government Technology 8, The Siasat Daily 9, Deccan Chronicle 10, Core77 11, Mashable 12.

Delete Pure commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Commercial, with very minor sources. The Irish Times is just one source, and it's a short piece (111 words) appropriately headed "This supersonic gizmo will clean your stuff on the go". I'm sure that Ciara O'Brien is a fine journalist but this wasn't her finest hour. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Soak is covered by Yahoo [18], The Irish Times 2, Engadget 3, PopSugar 4, Futura-Sciences 5, Tom's Hardware 6, Digital Trends 7, Government Technology 8, The Siasat Daily 9, Deccan Chronicle 10, Core77 11, Mashable 12. There is deep coverage in the media. Gharee (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is covered by Yahoo [19], The Irish Times 2, Engadget 3, PopSugar 4, Futura-Sciences 5, Tom's Hardware 6, Digital Trends 7, Government Technology 8, The Siasat Daily 9, Deccan Chronicle 10, Core77 11, Mashable 12. There is deep coverage in the media. Gharee (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The articles seem to me more focused on the fundraising campaign and claims made as part of the campaign than on the actual product or company. As of right now there is no product. Some of the sources link to the company’s promotional video rather than to their own reviews which might have a bit more editorial heft. No opinion on whether this is a viable widget, but at this point, there is no widget, just a fundraising campaign that has attracted some media to claims made by the company. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 14:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one splash from a press release with an intriguing idea doesn't make a notable product. Deserves a footnote under crowd-sourcing. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews. --Bejnar (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Hassani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musical artist. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Stanleytux (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In two years, I believe the artist has met the requirements as outlined in GNG and MUSICBIO. It will be great to improve the article as opposed to outright deletion. I also think that Stanleytux can help with improving the article seeing that he has several years of editing under his belt. — Blossom Ozurumba ^Talk 11:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've tidied up the page a bit, and there are now reliable sources from at least four reputable, established news sources in Nigeria, and Mr. Hassani appears to have received multiple nominations for two notable African award ceremonies – that appears to be enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO now. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: AFRIMA awards are presently the most standard and significant musical award in the entire continent, which was why I suggested the article to be created by a new editor, and immensely contributed to it. Headies has been the biggest national award in Nigeria in ages. I believe subject passes WP:USICBIO, the reason this is weak is because he didn't win any. HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 convincing argument for keeping put forward. Sufficient consensus to delete. Michig (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lok[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article lacking reliable sources. Key claims to fame are not independently verifiable and seem to revolve around claims made by the subject. Most sources are primary or closely related PR. While it may be true that he has been invited as speaker and appeared on TV, there's little reliable, independent coverage *about* the subject as opposed to what is *output* by the subject. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: no part of the article is promotional in nature. The article is a simple biography of a person who is notable on 3 counts: as a martial artist, as a business founder and as an author. The article in no way promotes or puts the person in good light and only describes his career and life history in a factual manner. We should not be using the deletion option to address any such issue but I do suggest that nominator point out what in the article is promotional to follow WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The subject has written atleast 9 books which are in their selves good citations and make him notable. A google search shows that many reliable references are present (some of which are already in the article). --Rubyking27 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of user Danthemanlok who created an original version of this article. See below. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly does not meet notability requirements as a martial artist WP:MANOTE. Don't think WP:NAUTHOR is met either.PRehse (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danthemanlok _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Content and article meets WP:GNG criteria of wikipedia. The article is about a notable subject. 64.231.242.134 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — 64.231.242.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage from reliable sources. The article creator is also the subject of the article himself, which means this is a case of WP:SPIP. Newslinger (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added WP:COI notices to Dan Lok and Talk:Dan Lok. Newslinger (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep: Person is covered in reliable sources such as ABC, NBC, and Fox news which prove notability of Dan Lok, therefore the article should be kept. 24.17.167.248 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC) — 24.17.167.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi there, thank for your view. The claim that he appeared on those TV stations is based on a press-release by the subject so we cannot independently verify this. What is interesting though, the one show that was picked up by several networks, "America’s PremierExperts®" is an interview style. A look at their website tells us their mission is "To showcase Experts who are dedicated to spreading knowledge and awareness in their field while making significant contributions to their industry and the marketplace as a whole. In exchange for the knowledge these experts contribute, America’s PremierExperts® is dedicated to promoting them in their field of expertise, by offering business owners, entrepreneurs, professional speakers, teachers, lecturers, authors, professionals and corporate CEOs exclusive opportunities for further exposure and growth in the marketplace." Digging a tad deeper, it seems that "America's PremierExperts" is owned or managed by "CelebritySites" an Orlando based marketing firm and content provider. I think it's safe to assume that we are dealing with TV advertorial contents. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I see the weak aspects of the sourcing of the article and have read the above debate and Jake's explanation of sources. It is a good idea to keep the article for now and if more sources are not available in future, it can be renominated. However, I would like to see if the article can develop if given a chance as the bibliography section of the person rings some notability bells to me. Talking about TV coverage, TV coverage does not need verification by news sources, infact TV coverage is a secondary source in itself and therefore should be taken as WP:RS. It is an assumption that the coverage is advertorial which we should not take at face value and give the article six months (which is the normal time before an article should ideally be renominated) to see if it can be improved. 50.100.174.75 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC) — 50.100.174.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Not notable. Article written by subject - blatant WP:SPIP. Hiernonymous (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A distinct lack of notability. Citations to promo pieces in magazines like Life as a Human and Jet-Set. Some cited sources in the article don't even mention Dan Lok. The article may not be written in a promotional way, but the intent to promote is clear. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Piggott[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Unfortunately, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both general and military notability requirements. The Croix de Guerre seems to have been awarded quite widely, so not enough to meet criteria #1 of WP:NSOLDIER, and he doesn't meet any of the other criteria. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to the claim about the "wide" awarding of the Croix de Guerre. Heroism is not as widely dispersed as it may seem. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: The award was the Croix de guerre (Belgium), which has multiple levels, many of which look like they would not meet NSOLDIER. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not pass our notability requirements; poorly sourced and main claim to notability seems to be an award that was not all that uncommon. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 08:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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