Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 June 10 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America1000 08:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Mobile Filter[edit]

Apache Mobile Filter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by WP:GNG. (One lose citation is all it has.) But there is an even more serious issue: It is written like a documentation page too. There is nothing encyclopedic in it. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

سندھی شخصیات کی فہرست[edit]

سندھی شخصیات کی فہرست (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a useless title and unless you read arabic its very unclear what the point of these lists are Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because this list is not in English. Note that this is Urdu, not Arabic. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! It's all Greek to me. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Buddies (Steven Universe)[edit]

Bubble Buddies (Steven Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The episode on its own has very little independent coverage and seems to fail the GNG. — Quasar G. 22:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment I'd support a bulk AfD of all Steven Universe episode guide articles, or a bulk redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Power~enwiki: I'm currently in the process of combing through the blue-linked episodes. Some are better sourced than others (worryingly, one of the less well-sourced ones is a GA), so I won't be nominating them all for deletion. Equally, I'm choosing not to perform a bulk AfD as the issues are subtly different each time, and it would overcomplicate the !votes (e.g. if someone wanted to keep two particular episodes but delete the rest while others wanted to delete them all, consensus would be very hard to reach). Hence, they will be covered at separate AfDs. — Quasar G. 12:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking Empire[edit]

Speaking Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Sometimes mentioned in passing, no notable coverage. Yintan  21:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I removed all puffery and promotional content - not much left. Would have been a great speedy delete candidate. -- HighKing++ 17:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yintan  20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl Service (band)[edit]

The Owl Service (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. One release on notable indie label Southern Records, which on its own isn't enough for notability, and everything else appears to be quite marginal. No coverage in major music press either. Yintan  21:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Looks like they're notable enough after all. Thanks for your remarks. Yintan  20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A well-known UK band. Have you looked for any sources? Since when have major labels been a prerequisite of notability? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BAND a notable band should have:
"two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."
As far as I can tell The Owl Service fails this. And the other requirements too. Yintan  22:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. If it's a strict rule for the label to have "a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" I can immediately think of a few bands, only on their own independent label, which might fail. I'd better keep quiet about those until this case is decided. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay if a band fails this label requirement as long as they meet one or more of the others. Yintan  08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just a quick Google found a bio from The Great Folk Discography ([1]), and reviews from Goldmine ([2], [3]). --Michig (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this band is a bordeline case. Which is why I put it up for discussion. They are not obviously not-notable, but they don't appear to be obviously notable either. There are some mentions left and right, but do these satisfy WP:BAND? I'm not sure. Yintan  08:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonization of Europe[edit]

Decolonization of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Misleading article. Claims nations achieved independence after world war 2. That is not what the article demonstrates. Implies various states were colonial powers - produces no evidence. Tendentious at best. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete hopelessly biased title, article content is worthless. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The title of this article is troubling, and the burden of proof goes on the author to show that this is a researchable topic and that all of the content properly belongs under this title. I note that List of sovereign states by date of formation#Europe is much more proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Anything salvageable from this that can be put into a useful list should be salvaged. I'm not enough of a history writer to do that myself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced ahistorical bunk. I don't know why Alinor created this redirect years ago. Since it has been hijacked by an IP, this monstrosity was created with nothing but empty assertions of when various countries (political entities that did not exist at that time) were declared independent. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be an attempt to force the table template established on Decolonisation of Africa, Decolonisation of Oceania and Decolonisation of Asia onto Europe, where it really doesn't apply. It seems to assume that every time a state gains independence, it must have been a 'colony' of the parent state, which is POV, to say the least. (Note: the same IP has been editing the others, and perhaps the edits there merit review.) Agricolae (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has strong potential. Let a thousand flowers bloom.Mishigas (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Striking out !vote of confirmed sock of Kingshowman. SkyWarrior 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the person who has been responsible for the massive amount of activity on this page, I don't have a problem if you guys delete this. To be honest, I find it odd that this page, and its opposite colonization of Europe, even exists. Personally I'm not sure if ANY European nation can be considered a colony, not even the ones that were once part of the Ottoman Empire, or even Cyprus and Malta for that matter. 2600:8800:5100:38E:B547:1EF7:1C03:CBFB (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the title and the lead of the article I have a problem with. it could be rescued as a summary of the history of the various European nation states - assuming there isn't already an article along those lines. Rathfelder (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricolae. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pertinent information would be fine within a more generic European history article. Too many concerns too avoid deletion. South Nashua (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A somewhat interesting exercise, but original research to the core. This is simply not a topic covered in this manner in the secondary literature. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Durkin[edit]

J.D. Durkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP of a newsanchor with little visibility beyond self referential works from online-news sources which he has worked with. Prod removed at earlier point in time. Sadads (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Reads kind of like a CV. Article subject does not appear to meet notability criteria – Google and ProQuest searches are not turning up in-depth coverage in a multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL. Nobody has stepped forward after many days to rescue this mess. He hosts a cable show on an obscure channel. So did my oldest brother. So what? Bearian (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 find it a little odd that this was even relisted---the consensus was clear in the first few days DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Bangladesh Air Force[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Future of the Bangladesh Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find context, references. Seemed like an individual opinion page in current form. Devopam (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force as per the first AfD in Jan 2016 & protect from recreation, to avoid future deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's completely unreferenced. Merging the content into Forces_Goal_2030 manually is an option (if properly referenced). I don't think we need to save the history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I wouldn't argue with a redirect, except for the propensity for recreation, and ignoring the consensus of AfD. Editors could be encouraged to expand the existing section in the target article with updated info. Onel5969 TT me 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Ajf773; further as noted, does not have proper citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or may be merged with Bangladesh Air Force after suitable modification in the content. --Bhadani (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jim. If any detail is worth keeping (my opinion is there is too much) put it there. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with Bangladesh Air Force Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force per K.e.coffman. This is a valid search term, and we should take them to the Bangladeshi military's plans for the future of the Air Force. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect on the condition that it be full protected. The main argument against redirect is that its so easy to recreate. This is a solution that has been used during at least one AfD I have participated in before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick cheese). I think it a good solution to this case as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per nom, per above. Subject and context doesn't warrant WP:SPLIT, and can be sufficiently covered within the scope of Bangladesh_Air_Force. I also think, salting and protecting is a good idea; if in any distant future (cannot foresee happening), splitting seems necessary, an AfC should be used. --nafSadh did say 18:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. No redirect as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, it is not a valid search term. Any extant plans covered in significant detail in reliable sources can be summarized in a single short section of Bangladesh_Air_Force. --Bejnar (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has radically changed since being nominated for deletion and is now looking like the general layout of, for instance, Future of the Royal Navy. I can't see the problem with the existence of the article per se, we have many Future of the <foo> articles. There may possibly be referencing problems (I haven't checked carefully) but the very first reference is to Jane's website. Jane's is the go to source for military matters, is impeccably reliable, and coverage there strongly indicates a notable topic. Anything problematic should be cleaned up. The nuclear option of delete is unnecessary hear. SpinningSpark 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pinging top, active, registered contributors to the two proposed merge/redirect targets (Bangladesh Air Force or Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force) for their subject expertise. Attention collaborators (AzfarShams—FOX 52—ScrapIronIV—SRS 00—Thomas.W) --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced fancruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, and mere speculations about what might happen in the future does not belong here. Articles/lists of this kind are also almost impossible to keep encyclopaedic and focussed, since they attract fanboys trying to prove that their country is better than everybody else's country, by inflating numbers and adding ever wilder speculations about what the future might bring. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:CBALL - Consensus is pretty much unanimous, delete - what more needs to be said FOX 52 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL It is speculative cruft, and wishful thinking. Scr★pIronIV 17:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A total fanboy article. Even the references provided there has no match with what the article says. SRS 00t@lk, 18:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelachandra Group[edit]

Kelachandra Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, CORPDEPTH South Nashua (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT; an article with an unclear purpose and does not contain anything useful for the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khosrow Rezvani[edit]

Khosrow Rezvani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have no doubt that he does great work or has published scientific papers, but I don't see the substantial, in-depth coverage from secondary sources. (I don't think the short, four-paragraph "in-brief" article in the "local business" section of a local newspaper suffices). He also does not meet the WP:PROF standards, so far as I can tell. Neutralitytalk 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. ProQuest search comes up with no significant coverage of the article subject. Citobun (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. His work actually is interesting. I just completed my first research project for grad school on apoptosis and it relates to the origins of animals (long story short: fungi and animal cells die in the same way, and unlike bacteria, archaea, and plant cells). Perhaps this can be re-created when he gets a full chair. We nearly always delete artciels about associate professors. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak delete. The GNG, is irrelevant, the question is whether he meets WP:PROF. We judge by the work, not just the rank. (I have proposed earlier actually using rank as a formal criterion, but this did not have consensus. One problem is that the meaning of the rank depends upon the university : Associate Professor means a different thing at Harvard than at USD. Associate Professor is normally tenure, and I cannot imagine Harvard giving tenure to someone with this relatively sparse record. There is only one highly cited publication, with 72 citations, from 2007. He was not the corresponding author, so I cannot tell if he was a postdoc at the time (neither the article nor his website gives a list of positions; poking around, the date of his PhD, not specified in the article, is in 2002; in 2013 he was an assistant professor at USD; he was appointed Associate professor in 2016. ) Not yet ready. Might or might not be when he is Full Professor -- none of his more recent papers have been cited more than 40 times. For notability in biomedicine, we usually like to see at least one paper cited 100 times or more. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louise van Veenendaal[edit]

Louise van Veenendaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable reality show contestant. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks significant roles in notable productions. Claimed chart is not a goodchart duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her Australian theatre roles are in independent productions and not notable. The American performances do not appear to be notable. Boneymau (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not remotely notable ; a/c the article "She is now very well known for her portrayal of 'Princess Peach' in that particular video. " -- a Youtube video based on the game Mario Bros. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus : consulates are not inherently notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of India, Houston[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Consulate-General of India, Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. in the last AfD the keep arguments were unconvincing. all the article explains is with routine coverage is what a consulate normally does. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing in the sources provided shows a demonstration of notability. It's just a garden-variety consulate.PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage is run-of-the-mill, as indicated in the nomination. Once the building specifications and other trivia-type content are removed, there isn't anything that isn't already mentioned at List of diplomatic missions in Houston. None of the arguments provided in the previous discussion go beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C.J.[edit]

Roy C.J. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, scant in-depth reliable sources. Weak referencing to such peripheral stuff as construction projects of his firm (WP:NOTINHERITED) and an honorary consulship. Sources for ordinary bio details like birthplace and date are missing. The best source is a weak #14 of 100 'notable people' Forbes list entry. Propose redirecting to the firm, Confident Group of Companies Bri (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete dearth of RS. Not sufficient coverage or impact for redirect/Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a glorified CV on an unremarkable businessperson. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murali Vijayakumar[edit]

Murali Vijayakumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mr. Tamil Nadu is not a reputed enough award to merit an article, especially when its awarded to a lot of people in different weight categories (assuming the person has indeed won the award). Searching provides for no reliable sources to indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE (if applicable), and the only reference provided is a dead link from a non reliable source. Created and edited by 2 single purpose accounts, one of which has the person's name indicating possible WP:COI. Jupitus Smart 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Long Beach Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Los Cerritos Elementary School[edit]

Los Cerritos Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, ORG. Redirect to/ Merge with Long Beach Unified School District is an acceptable alternative to deletion here, but wanted to double check on AfD to see if deletion is more appropriate than redirect/merge in this case. South Nashua (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I see nothing to be gained by making this a red link. Customary practice for these schools has been to redirect them to the appropriate school district. That's complicated in some cases for schools that don't belong to a school district in the conventional sense, have campuses in multiple districts, or where (for whatever reason) the school district article does not exist. None of those are true here, so I think the outcome should be clear. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks Squeamish. In retrospect, I probably should have just gone down that route in the first place, but I know in the past I've seen it go both ways. The qualification you mentioned here is a good divider between redirect/merges versus deletions. South Nashua (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swift (band)[edit]

Swift (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no secondary sources Seraphim System (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Not sure why the relists but hopefully my vote will seal the delete. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhiko Takimoto[edit]

Haruhiko Takimoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still a player who has been a pro-football for already a year.

  • Keep - my view, which is perhaps not consistent with the letter of the policies, is that a man who is a full-time professional soccer player for the top national competition, is notable within a significant community and therefore should be included. It is not necessary for him to be put on the field to achieve notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant notability guideline, WP:NFOOTY, requires a footballer to have played (i.e. in an actual match) in a fully pro league to be considered notable. Something Takimoto has not done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richardcavell: - no, it is necessary for him to be on the field, that's the exact guideline... GiantSnowman 08:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 01:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jadwet Family[edit]

Jadwet Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An egregiously promotional article by Jadwetprince about his own family, from an SPA whose contributions include such additions as this. The Jadwets are or were clearly an affluent family of some kind. But the sources added to this page are spam articles -- we're not seeing the kind of truly independent, significant coverage required. The article -- and all this user's edits -- reads as if the goal is merely to use Wikipedia to promote himself, his family and their business ventures. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been revised. Ebrahim Jadwet's paragraph has been removed and new reference sources have been cited. I feel this article must not be deleted. It is just up there to show case the family's legacy and not to promote any business activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadwetprince (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One such new reference source is this -- another promotional article from a small local publication that clearly would not be considered WP:RS for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Apostolic Church[edit]

Persian Apostolic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite what is claimed, this church is not actually an ancient Christian Church of the Near East. It appears to be a group founded relatively recently founded by a Catholic priest as admitted on their website. I can't tell for the life of me if they are 100% independent or in communion with one of the Eastern Catholic Churches as a parish. If it is the later, this might serve as a valid redirect to one of their North American Eparchies. but it certainly isn't notable on its own, receiving no independent coverage in reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this article contains inaccurate information, would not the solution be to correct the information rather than to delete the whole article? Vorbee (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vorbee its not about the accuracy. Its about the notability of the group. I mentioned that the article was not about an ancient Christian group because if it was, that would almost certainly be notable and you could find sources on it. This is either a individual parish that began branding itself as something resembling a sui iuris Church in 2014, or a new religious group all on its own. Since it is so new, if there was sourcing it should be pretty easy to find, but it seems to be non-existent. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- The Los Angeles category shows the real objective of this article, which is probably largely concerned with a Farsi-speaking church there. But this is combined with a mass of unsourced general material in early Christianity in Persia, which is better covered in specific articles or constitutes Original Research. I wish the church that I infer well, but like most local churches it is probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V; looking for sources on the church or on Baroni, I found no reliable source coverage. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shugo Tsuji[edit]

Shugo Tsuji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is a professional footballer. However, he has not actually played a match yet, so this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 08:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Higher[edit]

Amir Higher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources.

(prodded, but prod declined) DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; a WP:BEFORE search indicates little to no coverage of any WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE in reliable sources with which to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)][reply]
  • delete surprisingly little information extant on someone w/ airplay in 16 countries. Found no mention of JBTV appearance. Though there are many ref's on the page, they basically repeat one another. None are in-depth significant coverage. AllMusic not accessible to me at work. Could not find anything at BillBoard.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has some followers on Youtube and 1.2 mil views, but almost nothing in search shows independant sources and reviews of his music. Looks like a rising kid. WP:TOOEARLY. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claims airplay in many countries but that is only sourced to his PR (could be true, airplay can be bought). Claims TV appearances but that is only sourced to his PR. Claims appearance on a Cannes winning film but that is only sourced to his PR. PR full of the same promotional garbage that has been posted here [4]. Let's look at that last claim. "short Hollywood film named 'Choices', that won the best short film in 'Cannes festival'." Which Choices, imdb give no clues. What Cannes festival? Clearly not Cannes Film Festival as Choices never won the Short Film Palme d'Or. Straight out lie? 1.2 mil views on YouTube looks good, maybe he will end up on a list of worst viral songs ever and gain some degree of notability but not yet. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 17:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meddlesome priest[edit]

Meddlesome priest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, plain and simple. SkyWarrior 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about a notable phrase/idiom from medieval times, not about a news event, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But the only reason this quote is notable is because of the recent event, so I would argue NOTNEWS does apply in this case. SkyWarrior 16:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. There are thousands of hits if you search google books for "meddlesome priest"/"turbulent priest", and here are some non-Comey newspaper articles mentioning the phrase - The New York Times, The Times of Sicily, The Telegraph. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, withdrawing nomination. SkyWarrior 17:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this phrase is notable independently of Comey/Trump and has been notable for close to 1000 years. It is laughable that someone has posted NOTNEWs regarding a 100-year old phrase that all people of cultivation, taste, and learning should know. We are here as educators, not as janitors cleaning up after His Majesty Donald Trump's unseemly messes. What is this insufferable urge to scrub wikipedia clean of everything tjat makes Teump look bad(i.e everuthing he either does or says)? Mishigas (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC) — Mishigas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America1000 08:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vina Vidai Vettai Juniors (season 3)[edit]

Vina Vidai Vettai Juniors (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 14:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 educational institutions in Sylhet. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Health Technology, Sylhet[edit]

Institute of Health Technology, Sylhet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no refs. Would be speedy, but looks like a university. Killer Moff (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RDX (Band)[edit]

RDX (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refs are mostly to a PR / SEO firm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 08:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas O'Grady[edit]

Nicholas O'Grady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any secondary sources for subject. Fails WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Here is the Triple J Unearthed writeup. It reads as a polite attempt to speak nicely of a band that has had very limited success. If Triple J Unearthed isn't going to break them into superstardom, then neither are we. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waging War (album)[edit]

Waging War (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no sources, just a tracklist Seraphim System (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A search for the album confers blogs and Discogs, none of which contribute to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Bennett[edit]

Skye Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, Planned to source it however.... there isn't any sources! - Can't find any evidence of notability on Google, Fails NACTOR as well as GNG –Davey2010Talk 13:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gumnaam Vikramaditya[edit]

Gumnaam Vikramaditya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book/poem is not notable. There do not appear to be any news articles or reviews supporting its notability. The article is an orphan and the lack of notability tag has not been addressed for at least 2 years. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 08:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Calderón[edit]

Sergio Calderón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryota Inoue (footballer)[edit]

Ryota Inoue (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. He did not play fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsunari Nagai[edit]

Tatsunari Nagai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaito Anzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Junto Taguchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Nao Iwadate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - keep Anzai and Taguchi per the comments below, my rationale above still stands for the remainder. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there's a proposition to delete this page. They're all now playing fully pro-football in J3 League. And for Iwadate is even more un-necessary, since he has been in pro-football for a lot of time (since 2012).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispered11 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 09 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anzai at least has played in two matches this season for top-tier J1 Kashiwa, including starting on May 3, so at least he better fits WP:NFOOTY.[5]. Michitaro (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Anzai and Taguchi. I misread the sources for these two as I expected them to match what is written in the article. Turns out these two have J1 League appearances not mentioned in the article. @Fenix down: You might want to re-evaluate your !vote. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Anzac and Taguchi are to be withdrawn as they pass criteria, would someone like to actually update their articles to indicate this please. I would but Japanese is not a language I can read. ? @Michitaro: maybe? ClubOranjeT 03:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it stands despite the fact that certain players meet the WP:NFOOTY criteria they all fail WP:GNG and the subject specific criteria are simply a pointer towards notability. In the FAQ of WP:NSPORT it states
Q2:If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Now that notability has been questioned the necessary sources must be added to prove that they pass WP:GNG. A reasonable amount of time may be allowed but seeing that they are contemporary subjects this should be very quick and should really already have been done at the creation of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the remaining two as failing WP:NFOOTY. Just a reminder to Domdeparis that the RfC specifically instructed not to create indiscriminate AfD of articles that pass the WP:NSPORT guidelines. That being said, the remaining two that haven't been withdrawn do not pass the guidelines and as such this nomination is not indiscriminate. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: sorry I have no idea what you are talking about. What RFC? I arrived here as a new pages reviewer and not through a RFC. And an article that doesn't pass GNG and is nominated for deletion is not indiscriminate. Domdeparis (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perr&Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Perr&Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an earlier version of this was deleted--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perr&Knight. There is no more notability now than there was then. There are no actual references to the company--just to a very few citations of their reports.

The paragraph to the winery should not be here, even if it is more than borderline notable. The firm does not own the winery. The two individuals do. DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- just a promo blurb on an unremarkable private company. The article on the winery is also highly promotional & created by the same SPA account. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if it met WP:GNG, which it doesn't, it is simply a promotional brochure at this point. Onel5969 TT me 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Kinnect[edit]

Social Kinnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the citations are to press release hostings or blog-type sites of doubtful WP:RS status. Two cites to ighthouseinsights.in are possible RS but purely promotional. WP:BEFORE finds only more WP:ROUTINE coverage of marketing agency. Very close to CSD#G11 territory. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom except for one thing: it is in G11 territory. Bri (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bri and G11. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the citations to press release hostings or blog-type sites of doubtful WP:RS status are removed. Two cites to ighthouseinsights.in are also removed. Kalpeshchatterjee (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, this does not improve the article. The two Lighthouseinsights.in articles were the only WP:RS apparently available. The article is now sourced to just a self-cite and a press release. This makes it look like it has even less chance of demonstrating notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Ghaedi[edit]

Mehdi Ghaedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Unsourced. Also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played for Esteghlal F.C. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays youth international football for Iran, and that he will play for Esteghlal in future, neither of which are grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Welsh[edit]

Harry Welsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Harry Welsh served as a lieutenant in the 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) (both in E Company and 2nd Battalion Headquarters) during World War II. He did not rise above lieutenant on active duty and performed no acts to qualify him as notable under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, Welsh led a quiet life as a teacher and school administrator with no activity to qualify him as notable under WP:GNG. His character appeared in most of the episodes of the Band of Brothers miniseries but not as a major role and he was minimally present in the book. He was awarded two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really not seeing much that places this soldier as needing a separate article within Wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like many did his bit in the war but I dont see anything outstanding that would pass the threshold for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Welsh like almost all other members of Easy Company fails SOLDIER and GNG, their only claim to fame being that they were in a unit that had a book written about it and then a mini-series and then many members wrote their own books...Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa_Lazo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marisa_Lazo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual was arrested for crane climbing, she is not notable for any other event and the article focuses on this one event. Additionally, there some of the references used to justify the article are based on op-ed not evidence. CommotioCerebri (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BLP1E. The event does not seem notable, either. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I believe both nominator, and contributor Bonadea have fallen into a common misconception, addressed in the well respected essay WP:Arguments to avoid. Specifically, it can be hard not to have a personal opinion on some of the topics on which we have articles. But we don't delete or retain articles based on our personal opinion on their notability. Rather notability is, usually, established when reliable sources write about a topic, in detail.

    Lazo's thrill-seeking did not just attract considerable attention to her act, itself, it triggered wider discussions.

  1. Reliable sources speculated she was the trigger for copycat thrill-seekers.
  2. Reliable sources used the readiness of emergency personnel as a justification for taxation.
  3. Her thrill-seeking triggered a discussion of mental health issues.
It is significant coverage, by reliable sources, that establishes notability, and, in a case like this, where coverage transcends the event, it is best for our coverage to be about the individual, not the event. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sure that I did not mention anything about my personal opinion about this, especially since I don't have one (I fully agree that many of the topics covered in Wikipedia are hard not to have opinions on - this is not one of those, not for me) so please don't speculate about other people's motives. :-) I just don't think that the person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, but if other people interpret the criteria differently, the article should obviously be kept, per WP:CONSENSUS. Subjects that are known for one event only should ideally have some kind of lasting impact, and I do not believe that that is shown in this article. (I do love the source about taxes, I think it's wonderfully well written and it articulates my own opinion on tax paying beautifully. I still don't think it is useful as a source in a BLP!) --bonadea contributions talk 17:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live a whopping one mile further down the same street as the incident, so I remember it quite well — but this is a WP:BLP1E, about a person whose notability and reliable source coverage derives at this point from a single incident. The sources shown here certainly point toward the possibility of a concept article about the phenomenon of crane climbing, in which she can certainly be briefly discussed as an example of the phenomenon in action — but they do not support a standalone WP:BLP of her as a person. Even if this were to be kept, it would need to be moved to an event title rather than her name, because even people who did expect an article about this incident to exist know and remember it as "that woman who climbed the crane" — the number of people who know and would search for it by her name, rather than as "Toronto crane climbing incident" or something of that ilk, is literally as close to zero as one can get without falling afoul of "never say never". (I will grant, for example, that Marisa herself, and her friends and family, know and remember her name — but literally almost nobody who doesn't know her personally knows and remembers the incident by that nomenclature.) Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Article also has a troublingly WP:PROMO aspect (they call her "crane girl." Seriously? Me, I would give this young idiot a Darwin award and put her to work cleaning latrines on construciton sites for a semester or two.) Fails to meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA: WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, or WP:LASTING. And fails WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I created crane climbing (a stub). It turns out that there is an awful lot of this happening, albeit Lazo may have been the stupedist: the other people who climb up seem to know how to climb down. There is at least one crane climber, a Brit named James Kingston (stuntman) who works as a stuntman in films, who could probably support an article. But there have been so many of them in recent years that I am not at all sure the act of climbing a crane merits inclusion in a list. I can find no other articles about such stunts, although they all seem to have brief bursts of local coverage similar to this Toronto climber and there has been at least one death. To me, this seem rather like the quarry diving of my misspent youth. Dangerous, daredevil stuff. Fairly high rate of broken necks. When you break your neck and the fire department has to show up to to dredge your body out of the quarry it makes the local papers. I will leave it to others to decide whether adding a list to crane climbing makes sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory, NOTNEWS has four numbered points: (1) Original reporting; (2) News reports; (3) Who's who; (4) A diary. The article on Lazo is clearly not 1, 3 or 4. Is it an instance of a summary of simple, news reporting, non-notable news reporting? No. As I explained above, Lazo's excursion triggered a cascade of discussion the role of taxation in governance, and the role of thrill-seekers in public governance. So, your call on the authority of NOTNEWS, in this discussion, is completely misplaced.

    WRT your perception the article has a "troubling PROMO aspect"... For this to have a genuine PROMO aspect, wouldn't I have to have some kind of close association with Lazo? Did you really mean to suggest I had an association with Lazo? For the record I don't. I don't know her. I am not myself a thrill-seeker.

    Let's be clear. Even if, for the sake of argument, the current state of the article lapsed from PROMO, that would not be grounds for deletion, so long as the topic, Marisa Lazo measured up to our inclusion criteria.

    Before you list a bunch of questionable links to genuine wikidocuments you wrote: "...they call her "crane girl." Seriously? Me, I would give this young idiot a Darwin award and put her to work cleaning latrines on construciton sites for a semester or two..." You and nominator agree in having a personal distaste for Lazo. Nominator called her a petty criminal. You called her a young idiot. A wikipedia article is neither a punishment, or a reward. We cover people when they measure up to our notability criteria. Period. Whether you or nominator disapprove of her character, or her judgment is completely irrelevant, since RS wrote about her. RS not only wrote about her, but they wrote about her in a way that transcends BLP1E -- for instance the Globe and Mail article where the distinguished professor of Psychology writes about whether Lazo is the poster child for the Type T thrill-seeker personality syndrome.

    I am going to repeat this point, because it is important. Your personal dislike for Lazo has no place in this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where have I ever said that I have a personal dislike for this individual? It seems like you would rather attack people (see the talk page for this article) rather than discuss things? I may be new but have done a ton of research about how Wikipedia works. Please remove your inaccurate assumptions about me. CommotioCerebri (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't you state Lazo didn't merit coverage here, because she was simply someone "accused of being a petty criminal". The seriousness or triviality of an accusation is irrelevant, when RS coverage are extensive enough to establish notability. In Lazo's case it is not just the basic facts of her excursion that are covered, but transcendant coverage that offers Lazo as an archetypical example.

      For the record, the civil expression of disagreement is not a personal attack. Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:BLP1E seems clear on this matter. -- Wgsimon (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as classic WP:BLP1E. I have read Geo Swan's comments, and to the extend that they address notability I do not find them compelling enough to ignore the guidelines. In fact, I find that deletion of this article will improve the Wikipedia, and that work on the Crane climbing article would be beneficial in lieu of personalities. No redirect to Crane climbing, although it is possible that one of the reliable sources from this article might contribute content to the article, I see no need to mention specific climbers in that article, absent independent notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A number of the delete arguments appear to be more suited for a merger discussion (if this is the same as Local Void, but the argument given is not terribly clear) or a move request (if the title is made-up or incorrect) than for a "delete" outcome, as there are only weakly contested arguments that the topic has extensive coverage Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KBC Void[edit]

KBC Void (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Talk about making up a name for yourself. There are zero scientific references to this name. The discovery paper itself does not mention it, which is normal, but no citing papers mention it either and call it by a number of different names. The name is mentioned in a number of press articles apparently triggered from an announcement by the discoverers. Even the existence of the void is uncertain, the discovery paper using the word "may" to describe it, and follow-up studies giving mixed results. WP:TOOSOON? Lithopsian (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now — lots of press coverage, and the work is still very recent. The OP criticism of science articles using different names from vulgar (common) usage is not uncommon. The above delete criticism about the name is moot since the name can change (via normal practice) when there is a more common name for it. The above delete criticism about the use of "may" and the presence of uncertainty is pretty much the standard status in science, and most science articles on WP would be deleted if a lack of uncertainty was the standard. — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now. A potentially important topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I disagree. When you ignore the puffery, this is a single research paper's term, defined as "the region of space contained in a sphere, one billion light-years in radius, centered around the Earth". It is not in common usage. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is reported in many places now. The article is not very promotional. This idea may also contribute to the explanation of "dark energy", so the topic may get bigger and more important. Perhaps a new title will become apparent like Local Galaxy Distribution Under Density. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essentially the same thing is already widely published as the "local void". We even have an article on it, now I come to look. Lithopsian (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Local Void is a much smaller entity inside this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Local Void, Local Hole, call it what you will. The point is there are plenty of papers discussing a local under-density on scales comparable to what these authors (and nobody else) would like to call the KBC Void (maybe Local Void needs expanding a bit, pun intended). It isn't new, it isn't special, and no other astrophysicist anywhere has ever used this name. There are 36 citing papers (a decent number), but none of them even mention this name or regard the paper as anything other than one in a long series of publications on this issue. Lithopsian (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was proposed by two scientists whose initials are in it and the third person is another astronomer whose investigations supported it. It is not the same as the Local void. It is an enormous and unusual void in space in which our galaxy are located, and is of obvious encyclopedic importance.It explains inconsistencies in the Hubble Constant as measured by different methods which should, but have not, produced the same result. Its notability is supported by secondary coverage of the original scientific report, such as coverage in Smithsonian, Newsweek, and Forbes. Edison (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Unusual" is puffery. An area of space a billion light-years in radius is synonymous with "the entire universe" for all purposes other than astrophysics. Popular news coverage cannot demonstrate notability within astrophysics, only scholarly references can. There's no sign this name is important or that their research paper is correct. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You have an unusual understanding of what "puffery" is. See the essay Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. "Seven times bigger than normal" makes it "unusual", as the word is generally understood. SciNews called it "fascinating." Do you prefer that to "unusual? They also said it is the largest known void in the universe. Wikipedia deals with "Notability" as specified by WP:N. Where is the policy or guideline for your notion of "reliability within astrophysics"? We need not wait until it is proven that a scientific theory is "correct" before we have an article about it. Also, you stated that "An area of space a billion light-years in radius is synonymous with "the entire universe" for all purposes other than astrophysics." But Universe says the diameter of the entire universe is 91 billion light years. Observable universe lists various historic estimates of its diameter both smaller and larger than that, but none are as small as the figure you stated, which has little bearing on the notability of this subject. Edison (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is normal? How many other billion-light-year sized areas of space have we studied? The answer is "None". Also, we do need to wait for at least one paper to cite the term defined before including it. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please cite some policy or guideline to support your opinion. Your speculations about "How many other billion-light-year sized areas of space have we studied?" is irrelevant. WP:N is satisfied and the article should be kept. Edison (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Do Lafzon Ki Kahani (film). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avinaash V. Rai[edit]

Avinaash V. Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established under WP:CREATIVE criteria. No substantial coverage of this individual. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from films he is associated with. Bri (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  17:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avinaash V. Rai In Indian film Producer He Did Do Lafzon Ki Kahani With well known Actor Randeep Hooda Kajal Aggarwal movie released on 10 June 2016 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theimagemotion (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 07:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 08:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1902 Software Development Corporation[edit]

1902 Software Development Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be just a random technology company with no notability; sources are just generic listings or don't actually mention company. A search produced only job listings, forum posts, and their website and social media; not even a single mention in any article. As such, fails WP:COMPANY Hazarasp (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article by 1902Software setting out the company's wares. Nothing in the article indicates more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business, the given sources don't mention it, and my searches are finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (Possible CSD A7/G11.) AllyD (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - COI piece about a company that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Only hits I could find are job listings and company profiles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-posted spam for non-notable company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've removed most of the offending text but it still fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing++ 11:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like unsourced advertising to me. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 01:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above. Domdeparis (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I can find about this company are its own website and various things its job listings (fails WP:RS). There's no indication it's done anything notable (fails WP:GNG), and it seems like it's also a WP:PROMOTION violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diaspora sports clubs[edit]

List of Diaspora sports clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't imagine what purpose this list could realistically serve. The number of ways to combine social sports clubs is almost limitless, and the immense scope (any diaspora; any country; any sport) makes this list problematic. Slashme (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the entries look rather dubious as well, many (e.g. Dundee United F.C.) may have been set up by immigrants but no longer have the same association with an immigrant community. Similarly, it includes internal migrations within the UK, which is debatable - why not other countries? I suspect there are probably books and certainly articles on the topic, but a comprehensive list may not be the best way to cover the topic - an article instead maybe. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedic list, fails WP:NOTDIR and some original research issues as well. Ajf773 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:LISTN as well as multiple issues already raised Spiderone 21:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some of the information is indeed useful but it should be included in the individual club articles. Many of the inclusions seems to fail WP:OR and WP:SYNT. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I only created it as many of these were erroneously listed in List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country. Maybe it should not be a list and convert it to an article but to be honest I never receive any help and everyone is favour of deleting as easier to do that than actually fix it and it'll be me vs. about 10 others who are keen on mass deleting articles. I have added some sources, but again it is just me doing so and what's the point as nearly every article which is less than perfect will get deleted anyway eventually. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The number of YouTube and Twitter followers usually is not considered to be a source of notability, see WP:BIO Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Boebi[edit]

Stevie Boebi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very short stub. Only claim to notability is youtube subscriber count. Legacypac (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only one article found on teen.com; which seems rather spurious; anyway, multiple attestations over an extended period of time need to be shown to confirm reliability, and this is not the case --Hazarasp (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability unclear. NickCT (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet the notability criteria. One failed nomination does not a YouTube star make. Yintan  15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I know I wrote it but that's because she has half a million YouTube subscribers, 168k Twitter followers - a huge audience. There's very little information about YouTubers on Wikipedia but there should be because people are interested in it, even if y'all aren't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indyjb1995 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sharp (ice hockey)[edit]

Andrew Sharp (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacks any indepth coverage: only a few mentions in articles. As such, fails WP:GNG; also fails more specific articles --Hazarasp (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Found very little actual coverage on Andrew Sharp the hockey player, but there is apparently a hockey writer for Sports Illustrated by the same name. Either way, very little coverage any case and drastically fails NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 17:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FECON[edit]

FECON (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely referenced, reads like a press release, notability questionable. Likely COI issues. JamesG5 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notable Organization, but lacks online references. Should be deleted as it is not notable enough for Wikipedia Bishal Shrestha (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xesam[edit]

Xesam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a desktop search specification that is sourced mostly from company and partially through related product information. Interestingly, a company statement about a new, stable, finally realized 1.0 version came after the Linux Magazine reporting of merging ontologies with Nepomuk. I was unable to find breadth and depth of coverage in RS with which to improve sourcing/information. Did find a W mirror. Don't see as meeting the WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not finding much coverage in rs except for this 3 ¶ article. Does not meet WP:N at this time. North America1000 09:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Aiken[edit]

Peter Aiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article makes no claim of independent notability, i.e. apart from his work as founder of a company of, at best, marginal notability, and one-time president of an industry association. The sources given are interviews and comments to the press, notices of awards from the organisation where he was president; and a profile on an industry website: no substantial in-depth coverage. Slashme (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Raleigh Flyers (AUDL) / Austin Sol. SoWhy 17:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Raleigh Flyers season[edit]

2017 Raleigh Flyers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2017 Austin Sol season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know that Ultimate is quickly becoming a more popular/visible sport, but I think the focus should be more on the team articles than incredibly detailed trivia about individual seasons. Content of the article is little more than what's on the stats pages used as references. Primefac (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do understand this point, but personally, I think having the individual season article means the information is collated on wikipedia, while meaning it doesn't take over the main page for the team (e.g. the Austin Sol page becoming just lists of match results?), especially as the information builds up over multiple seasons. Ult580 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having looked at a few pages from football/soccer which these pages were loosely based on (I know Ultimate isn't quite on the same level of popularity), there's a lot of stats dumped on the pages in a very similar way to these Ultimate season pages. For example, 2016–17 Sunderland A.F.C. season. Ult580 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that page shouldn't exist either; I haven't looked at it. But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and we're looking at these two pages. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I didn't realise that was something to be aware of. In your opinion, is the problem with the pages that they're mostly just stats (which could be fixed by adding more text about the season), or that the focus should just be on effectively merging them into the general articles for the two teams regardless? Ult580 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's just no indication that these seasons are particularly notable. Wikipedia articles require significant coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources. Stats pages just verify that the season took place, and nothing else. What demonstrates that this season is worth including in the encyclopaedia? Primefac (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSEASONS suggests that as this is a top-level season it should be notable enough (at least if more text is added, rather than just stats), but this doesn't fully take into account the fact the sport is Ultimate, so I'm happy to just go with your judgement on this, which is presumably to delete?). Ult580 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point, but that same section also says that season articles shouldn't simply be a wall of stats. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd probably say the two articles should be deleted then. I've copied the info from both of them into sandboxes on my user page, so I can add any necessary information onto the main pages for the two teams. (I have no idea how the actual deletion process works here though, so I'll leave it to you) Ult580 (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to the main team page. In the future, if this becomes more mainstream, with more coverage, it might warrant their own page, but not currently. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main team page. No harm in having the redirect. As Primefac says above, there's not enough coverage to warrant a separate season article yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Robert Moore[edit]

Geoffrey Robert Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing in the article except the relationship to his parents which identifies why this person is notable. ☕ Antiqueight haver 08:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Irish Life Assurance plc. North America1000 08:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Progressive Services International[edit]

Irish Progressive Services International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim or evidence of notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sha-ron Edwards[edit]

Sha-ron Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent autobiography which does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Miniapolis 16:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another user mistakenly added this to the deletion sorting for football, which refers to association football (i.e. soccer), not American football. I have added it to the proper sorting place, but felt it inappropriate to remove from the football list even if it had been incorrectly added. People coming here from the association football pages should keep in mind the subject is an American football player, not an association football player. Smartyllama (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I've got no qualms deleting it from the football list. This player has nothing to do with football, so no point waste people's time who are interested in football. And no point letting it be archived with the football articles. Nfitz (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't speak to the apparent self-promotion, but I can speak to notability. Subject does not seem to pass WP:NGRIDIRON guideline nor do I find anything with WP:GNG to point to passing. Therefore, I believe this subject fails notability standards. I would change my position if evidence to the contrary were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment presently an WP:UNOPPOSED AFD discussion, rather than "relisting" please at least comment. An unopposed AFD discussion carries the same weight as an uncontested PROD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure point. Relist is pretty routine if only one person has weighed in. No rush. Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the essay please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just did. First, it's only an essay. Second, it appears to have been followed. There were 4 acceptable results, and number 2 was chosen. What's issue? There is WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim to notability. Per the article he never appeared in a regular-season NFL game, and no other claim of notability is presented. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 08:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

142 MP Company US Army[edit]

142 MP Company US Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:Prod. Company level formations are generally not notable, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Units and formations. MKFI (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not generally notable, no significant coverage, fails soldier and the berginning of each section on the WP page matches the leading text from military.com (I could not get the full text to display this morning in spite of being a member).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your problem is; it loaded for me. I would be tempted to merge it with the 94th Military Police Battalion, but that unit doesn't have an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it could be mentioned briefly in a parent article if reliable sources exist, but ultimately it doesn't appear to be a valid stand alone topic, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- unsourced original research on non notable company-sized unit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of storage devices[edit]

Evolution of storage devices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page reads like a poorly researched elementary school report on digital media. It is not properly referenced, it does not accurately reflect the history of digital media, the writing is vague and confusing and much of the information is incorrect. Niimarra (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important, interesting and sufficiently sourced subject. Moore's law is something obviously different, remotely related to the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems redundant as a topic, but could it be merged with Data storage device which is very short? I'm not convinced that the evolution is a notable topic separate from data storage: timeline articles are valid, but this isn't a timeline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it reads like original research/synthesis. Not a bad effort, and some of it is salvageable, but it's better to wipe and start again in the proper mindset. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hoogterp[edit]

Bill Hoogterp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CV-like article on a subject who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Subject, woefully fails WP:AUTHOR and also is lacking in notability.Celestina007 (talk) 7:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm unable to find sufficient secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The secondary sources referenced in the article are: 1. A Bloomberg biography, 2. A Fortune article, and 3. a Men's Health article. (Also, an appearance on the today show.) I did not find any other reputable third-party sources on the first three pages of results from a Google search of his name. -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newbie here. Full disclosure: I work at Own The Room, where Bill is currently CEO. As far as I can see, this article meets the criteria for  WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. For WP:GNG, in addition to the Bloomberg/Fortune/Men's Health articles and Today Show mentioned above, he's appeared in Fast Company, Parade, and NY Daily News -- all major outlets. For  WP:AUTHOR, he is cited by peers, including [Ben Casnocha] and Sheryl Sandberg and Lean In, and has presented a new way of looking at approaching public speaking in the articles and media appearances above. Plus, his other work in founding and/or leading major organizations is noteworthy. He ran the initial pilot of Do Something, which is now a major, national organization. And he was a founding member of Cafe Media, which is #23 on the comScore 100 ranking... not exactly an insignificant startup. -9been (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9been as a newbie, I think you have not read what WP:GNG clearly states. I can also perceive you're having a WP:COI due to your claim that I work at Own The Room, where Bill is currently CEO; with this edit your only edit after creating your account four days ago? The sources you and kslays listed are however non-reliable and only contain mentions of the subject.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm afraid this comment also confirms my impression this is a promotional entry--the arguments presented do not indicate significant, independent secondary source coverage of Hoogterp from which we could write an encyclopedia entry, but rather a pitch about why he is someone that major outlets, academic journals and the like should be writing profiles of, books about, etc. Perhaps at a later date more such material will be available. But what's currently available are mostly not even secondary sources about Hoogterp, but instead quote Hoogterp talking about a different subject, or are primary sources written by Hoogterp himself, and thus don't suffice for us to write an independent, neutral description of Hoogterp's biography. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as promotion of someone not yet notable. The refs are not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the issue of unreliable sources seems to have been addressed to some degree, the other main concern, original research by synthesis, has not. I'd have expected the "keep" opinions to address this concern in particular by indicating how this topic as a whole is treated by reliable sources, such that we don't have to synthesize it, as it were, out of reports about individual incidents. That the article is mainly a list of incidents is indicative, as it supports the contention of those in favor of deletion that the topic is OR. Because this argument has not been seriously addressed, I have to find a consensus for deletion here, based both on numbers and weight of arguments.  Sandstein  08:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-abortion rights violence[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pro-abortion rights violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So I know this will be a sensitive subject however I am nominating this on the grounds of WP:NUKE as there is no encyclopedic version to roll back to and quite frankly, there is a lot of WP:WEIGHT being thrown around as well as a total dearth of reliable sources. This article relies entirely on bias sources and to break it down even more, we have 35 sources total:

  • 9 sources are LifeNews
  • 1 source is ChristianityToday
  • 1 source is CNS news
  • 1 source is Mlive, a local Michigan news station
  • 1 source is CBN, The Christian Perspective
  • 8 sources are from LifesiteNews
  • 2 sources are from CatholicNews Agency
  • 1 source is People, which details a doctor who winds up taking a baseball bat to a protesters car, not assaulting him as the text implies on the Wikipedia article
  • 1 source is EWTN, Eternal Word Television Network which explains that those who are pro-choice as anti-life
  • 2 sources are liveaction.org, a self-proclaimed pro-life site
  • 1 source is FoxNews
  • 1 source is Students For Life
  • 2 sources are The Record, published by the archdiocese of Perth
  • 1 source is InfoCatolica, a Catholic newspaper
  • 1 source is the National Catholic Register

The remaining two are in Spanish and I am unable to make heads or tails of it but after looking at several of these and what they reference in the article, there appears to be a great exaggeration of what was actually reported in many but more concerning is the very obvious bias and the fact that there is absolutely no source independent of the subject matter in the major media reporting on what this article contains. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this propaganda piece unless more neutral sources can be found and the article itself made more neutral. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a highly biased issue (WP:WEIGHT issues) and per the source list that I checked, theres a lot of material coming from unreliable or biased sources as well. -- Dane talk 21:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – only three of the sources are unbiased, and a list article like this with only three entries would not be worth having. It would be nice to have an article like this in parallel with Anti-abortion violence, but WP:TNT is definitely necessary here. — Quasar G. 21:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC) My opinion has been changed by the significant improvements made. See below. — Quasar G. 21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Some of the sources could be easily revised to other credible news organizations covering the same story. In addition, although it is Wikipedia policy for there to be a neutral point of view, it is not necessary for all sources to be "neutral" in the sense that the edits above suggest. Rather, they should be reliable and lack excessive bias that could impede reliability. This is why, for example, NARAL Pro Choice America and the National Abortion Federation are listed as sources on other articles pertaining to abortion, and why Fox News, as well as the Catholic News Agency, are routinely used as sources throughout Wikipedia. Obviously, this article needs work, but I think a decision to delete it would reflect a lack of neutrality. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Wikibolivar2009 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Wikibolivar2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm glad you agree that sources "should be reliable and lack excessive bias". That's not the case with most of the sources you give. It is in the interest of these news outlets to publicize their anti-abortion views by seeking out examples of wrong done to those opposed to abortion that might not make mainstream media. This gives the examples undue weight, as is suggested above. If you can replace those with truly unbiased sources from mainstream media, please do so. This is not to say there isn't a role for sources opposed to abortion on Wikipedia, but it's for particular information like statistics, not stories in the guise of news. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, very much agreed. Am working through the sources to replace any overtly campaign-oriented references with stories published by other news organizations (cf. the recent alterations). I do not, however, think it is appropriate to exclude by default any sources that originate from Catholic news agencies, many of which are signed up to national press standards and which, in spite of tending to cover closely news that is relevant to Catholics (e.g. property destruction at a cathedral), tend to be highly reliable. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Not a !vote.) If the story is only covered by Catholic news agencies, I would have to wonder why. If it is covered by other news agencies, we should use those instead to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice - After all the unreliable sources are removed, there will be hardly anything left. Article as it is should be deleted, but with the possibility of recreation later if better sourcing is found.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the proceeding 4 iVotes are all based on an assertion that sources are not neutral, not on the standards laid out under WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above list of sources is substantially different from the original list given by Chrissymad. The list of references is now as follows:
  • The Washington Post - six citations
  • Lifenews.com - five citations
  • Catholic News Agency - five citations
  • The New York Times - two citations
  • CNN - two citatinos
  • SFGate, a San Francisco newspaper - two citations
  • The Washington Times - two citations
  • Mother Jones - two citations
  • World News Daily - two citations
  • The Record, an Australian Catholic newspaper - two citations
  • ACI Prensa, a Spanish language Catholic news site - two citations
  • Pro Choice Action Network - one citation
  • The FBI - one citation
  • Mlive.com, a Michigan newspaper - one citation
  • KOB, an NBC affiliate - one citation
  • Independent Journal Review - one citation
  • CBN.com, a Christian news site - one citation
  • Fredericksburg.com, a Virginia newspaper - one citation
  • The Daily Interlake, a Montana newspaper - one citation
  • CNS news - one citation
  • NY Daily News - one citation
  • The Post and Courier, a South Carolina newspaper - one citation
  • The Herald Courier, a Virginia/Tennessee newspaper - one citation
  • The Star Telegram, a Texan newspaper - one citation
  • Stephenville-Empire Tribune, a Texan newspaper - one citation
  • Huffington Post - one citation
  • Reading Eagle, a Pennsylvania newspaper - one citation
  • The Texas Tribune - one citation
  • The Catholic Standard - one citation
  • Hotair.com - one citation
  • Northern Colorado Gazette - one citation
  • Fox News - one citation
  • The College Fix - one citation
  • The Santa Barbara Independent - one citation
  • Mediate, a news site specializing in the media - one citation
  • KXAN, an Austin news site - one citation
  • Channel 9 news, a national Australian TV station - one citation
  • El Mercurio On Line, a Chilean newspaper - one citation
  • Terra Chile, a Chilean news site - one citation
  • InfoCatolica, a Spanish-language Catholic news site - one citation
  • National Catholic Register, an American newspaper - one citation
  • Peru21, a Peruvian news site - one citation

Nevertheless, it remains untrue that Wikipedia is required to have "neutral", rather than simply reliable, sources, as discussed above. Dismissing a source out of hand for being unreliable simply because it takes a right-of-center point of view, or is in Spanish, or is from a Catholic journalistic organization, is problematic and would seem to violate Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref I checked[6] didn't name any instances of "violence committed by individuals and organizations in the name of furthering access to abortion" instead, it covered a threat that Operation Rescue said was left on its answering machine. The saecond ref I checked [7] also only mentioned a threat. The third ref I checked[8] is a web site pretending to be a newspaper (real newspapers always have a way to subscribe to the print edition).
It really looks like you are cherry picking stories from unreliable sources and reliable sources that don't actually talk about violence committed by individuals and organizations in the name of furthering access to abortion. I am not going to check your overly long list Please post whatever links you have to reliable sources (See WP:RS) that actually talk about Pro-abortion rights violence, as apposed to words, signs, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Guy Macon, you're not wrong that much of the sourcing is partisan and weak, (although do note that Anti-abortion violence#By country has been tagged for its woefully inadequate sourcing since 2010) but I suspect that the culprit here may sometimes be the inexperienced article creator - who may be sourcing with links form some pro-life website. I deliberately took a look at two of the poorly sourced incidents that looked like they might be real, one I will now link: Murder of Jim Pouillon, the other a 2016 arson in Albuquerque that was not well sourced, but it was simple enough to source it to the Albuquerque Journal. I do think we have to look at the notability of the contents, despite the inexperienced editing and poor sourcing of the article as it stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point well taken, and please note that so far I have neither !voted to retain or delete. I would like to see the article trimmed at the very least to only those sources that actually support the violence claim and see blogs like hotair.com deleted, then I can evaluate the sources that are left. Wikibolivar2009, would you be willing to do that? If we can see that you are working on doing that we can request and extension/relisting of this deletion discussion if you need more time. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Guy Macon, willing to work on that - agree that hotair.com should probably be removed. Need some more time if that's alright, haven't had much access to internet recently. Apologies for any sloppy sourcing - doing my best to remove any dubious instances e.g. blogs masquerading as news cites and add more citations to existing entries. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that I agree a refocus to pro-abortion violence as a phenomenon would be better than merely documenting every example of it that can be found. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're both right: article needs a severe trimming. Abortion is one of the few issues where I take an absolutist position: a woman has a right to decide. Period. I see no shades or grey. Still, I'll try to make time later this week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible, if... I was really skeptical when I saw this on on the politics-related list, and at first glance it looked like my skepticism was born out by the inadequacies of this article; although some of the incidents in this list are well-validated, although many are not. I knew about many anti-abortion violent incidents, but when I actually looked at Anti-abortion violence, I found a lot of sketchy sourcing there. That page, however, is validated by a number of blue-linked incidents, including bombings and murders. No incident on this pate is blue-linked. However, when I decided to look up an alleged murder of a anti-abortion activist liste don the page, it turned out that Murder of Jim Pouillon is blue-linked. Overall, my hesitation comes from lack of sourcing for attacks on pro-life activists as a phenomenon, Anti-abortion violence#Background does this and I would require a WP:HEYMANN upgrade to include a similar section. Ideally, some of the incidents would also need better sourcing. Although editors should note that User:Wikibolivar2009 comment notwithstanding, a source does not have to be "neutral" to be a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among the worst examples of WP:SYNTH that I have encountered. Neutralitytalk 01:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The issues with the sourcing, synth, etc. are already sufficiently presented above. Similar issues to when it's been proposed to add as a section at e.g. abortion debate, or at the previous AfD, when this was deleted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As promised above, I have now gone through part of the article. I rewrote the lede. Then I checked all alleged incidents of violence in the United States. Note that I only vetted the U.S. incidents. I deleted some after searching and filing to find reliable sources for the allegations (see my edit notes), I rephrased some, sourced some, blue-linked some. Summing up, like many editors commenting here, I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Article was written as an obvious, POV attempt to "balance" the fact that Anti-abortion violence has taken place on an egregious scale. Even to excuse such violence by, for example, citing physician Barnett Slepian who was harassed along with his family and his patients for years because he performed abortions, and was murdered by anti-abortion activists as an example of violent attacks on anti-abortion activists because he lost his cool one day and smashed the window of an van carrying protestors to his medical clinic with a baseball bat. (I revised the POV wording on that section. The Lord alone knows how Slepian kept his temper for so many years under extreme duress, God rest his soul.) -End of rant.- However, I voted keep. Reason is that there is well validated SIGCOV of a handful of incidents of Pro-abortion rights violence in the U.S. (probably in other countries, too, although I did not check the non-U.S. section of the article. Nor did I touch the "Background" section. I hope other editors will edit both the parts I did not touch and those I did. I leaned over backwards to e fair since I have a very, very, pro-choice personal POV. I did, however, see enough well-sourced, significant material to validate this as a notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) To have an article on "pro-abortion rights violence" we need significant coverage of the topic "pro-abortion rights violence," not a subject synthesized from multiple incidents of violence by pro-choice, etc. activists. Also, many of the examples are not "pro-abortion rights violence"; they're "violence against anti-abortion activists" or "anti-pro-life-activist-tactics" or just "anti-harassment violence". This is part of the problem of WP:SYNTH. In just the US section you're talking about, there are examples with explicit statements that the violence was in response to a tactic/sign/whatnot, not to the position on abortion; there are examples of crimes that do not involve violence, like vandalism; there are examples of suspected arson.. and these are all under the section heading "Politically-motivated incidents". In some cases, the characterization as "politically motivated" only comes from publications known for having a pro-life agenda (having an agenda doesn't disqualify it as an RS, but when it influences story selection, weighting, and accurate reporting, it does). These are barely examples of what they purport, nevermind justification for a synthesized subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then, fix it. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, but it's a handy occasion for reducing this article to an acceptable encyclopedia entry. I freely admit that I leaned over backwards to keep what reliable sourced material I found because I abhor the politics of the pro-life movement and was trying to overcompensate. What I cannot do in good conscience is to pretend that the topis is not notable, since there have in fact been a handful of well-documented violent attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? I don't know what in my comment above implies cleanup is an issue. The problem is the subject. The material is not reliable sourced. It's synthesis and other subjects altogether. Where are the reliable sources about the subject "pro-abortion rights violence" (about the concept -- not what editors synthesize to be a subject drawn from a collection of individual incidents)? Many of the sources here purport to be about that subject but are clearly not. It seems like you're confusing "pro-abortion rights violence" with "a list of various criminal acts against anti-abortion activists or buildings, violent and nonviolent, regardless of intention, as long as some news outlet mentioned it could be politically-driven". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I not only take your point, I made it a few inches up the page in my first comment. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the idea of deleting the several well-sourced instances of violence against pro-life activists, notably including murder and arson, that were as clearly motivated by political animus as other hate crimes and acts of political terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up Pro-abortion rights violence#Background which does make the sort of claim you and I have asked for. Sourced only to one WaPo article and a pro-life org. I had been hoping for some pro-lifers to bring sources to this section, not least because my keyword searches have all been drowned by the shockingly massive amount of anti-abortion violence and resulting coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, since you mention it, let's go with the murder. There's one example. The murderer said it was not because the victim was anti-abortion, but because of the sign he was holding. The killer had not been tied to pro-choice activists. This is similar to many of the other examples. People object to the tactics of anti-abortion activists far more than to the activists themselves. Objecting to the tactics is not "pro-abortion rights violence". The other section that mentions "murder" is likewise not an example of pro-abortion rights violence. At a forum on abortion rights, someone included a statement about "eliminating" cardinals and other religious figures. Someone took that to mean this person speaking at the event was literally disclosing a "conspiracy" to kill religious officials. Then the Cardinal basically said "They're out to get us", and nothing happened. And, again, even if these were examples of pro-abortion rights violence, they are only that -- examples that we place under our SYNTH umbrella. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC
  • Responding to the background section. Your "cleaned up" version, as with many other parts of this page, is sourced to obviously unreliable sources for this subject. The entire background section is sourced to Lifenews.com, prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org, and a single, 22-year-old Washington Post article supporting the claim that the FBI is investigating someone saying they received death threats. Quite a long investigation, and someone saying "I got a death threat" 22 years ago is an odd choice on which to rest the background section for an article on pro-abortion rights violence. (BTW I don't mean to imply you don't see a problem with the sourcing -- you clearly said as much just above. I just want to highlight that even after these revisions, it's still hopelessly problematic -- because, again, it's not about clean up). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, Lifenews.com is an organ of the Human Life International (I looked it up because I hadn't heard of either gorup, but, then, I don't follow this issue.) They are a partisan political activism outfit flogging the idea that "Pro-abortion rights violence" is a significant thing. We do cite the opinions of political activist organizations on controversial topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a reliable source to the Background section. Also cleaned up the non-US section, removing some stuff, tagging for better citations. I think that I have largely cured the POV language problem and have removed that tag also.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article suffers most from WP:SYNTHESIS and should be deleted on that basis. It is also a non-neutral presentation, despite the revision of the "Background" section. The POV problem seems not to lie not just in the language used, but in the choice of topic. Lists, such as this one which pick only one side of an equation, are inherently POV. Lists unsupported by multiple sources that discuss the topic, not just the individual list entries, are, like this one WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also just false. anti-abortion violence may contain some similar sources, but it has sources about anti-abortion violence and does not simply synthesize a bunch of individual incidents, some of which have evidence for political basis and some don't (though to be clear, it wouldn't matter if they all did, because it's still synthesis 101). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly this article suffers from intrinsic bias, undue weight, and pervasive poor sourcing. It is not salvageable in it's current form. The topic may indeed be notable, but the article needs to be re-written from scratch if it is. Waggie (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Partisan nature of reliable sourcing is something that WP:DUE anticipates; WP:YESPOV is relevant. Just because, for example, Catholic News has an opinion on abortion does not make it unreliable. Most of the above deletion arguments seem to hinge on this misreading of policy. Note that this area remains under discretionary sanctions. I think E.M.Gregory makes a valid point: how much of the argumentation here is based on editors' own strong feelings about abortion? As the drafting arbitrator for the 2011 case, I can say that the argumentation here seems pretty mild by comparison to what I had to wade through there, but there are echoes of the partisan arguing couched in terms of Wikipedia policies which that case examined. The fact is that there is both pro- and anti-abortion violence throughout the world. Maybe the right thing to do is to put it all into one big article and lay out the relevant incidents in one article that shows the relative preponderance as covered in RS'es. Regardless, this is verifiable content on a notable topic, and so the burden on those seeking to delete this from here becomes, "If not in this article, where should this information best be presented in encyclopedic fashion?" Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a source's bias affects its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, the bias is relevant. Sure, we can cite biased sources for their opinion or for things that they're a reliable source about, but when coverage of a subject (not individual instances synthesized into a subject) only exists on sites with a known POV on the subject, and is totally ignored by mainstream reliable sources, that matters (WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:PROFRINGE). Ultimately, the POV of the sources is not the only issue. It's not even the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the dearth of sources about the subject of the article (again, not just examples we've synthesized into a subject) in mainstream reliable sources (the kind that are plentiful for anti-abortion violence). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're asserting that ALL of the sources are so hopelessly unbalanced that there's not even two or three who could qualify as RS to meet the GNG, that'd be a valid argument, but I don't think you can get there from here based on the sourcing. Likewise, the conflation of Catholic perspectives on news with FRINGE does nothing to help your cause: Opposition to abortion is not FRINGE. It may be a vocal minority, but it's never been FRINGE. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate that it's necessary for there to be mainstream media attention to the topic - if you'll look through the sources you'll see that there has been considerable attention given to the matter in the mainstream media, with attention peaking in 2009 around the death of Jim Pouillon. Will go through and add some more of the attention from around this time. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable topic outside tabloid and fake-news publications, which we're supposed to be opposing not pandering to. Individual incidents are reported, but are not notable per WP:NOTNEWS (similarly, lots of rappers have been murdered but anti-rapper violence is not a notable topic). WP:FRINGE probably applies, which says that unless mainstream media discusses a fringe topic, it's not notable just because it has some coverage in fringe media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is WP:SYNTHESIS and the lack of articles to significantly support the topic, not lack of WP:RS that verify individual incidents. --Bejnar (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the best solution to that would be to reduce the "Background" section to the brief statement of the position of Human Life International, and the single, well-sourced sentence: "Anti-abortion political commentator Ramesh Ponnuru describes "pro-abortion rights violence" as "not very common at all." This would make it clear to a reader coming to this page that this is a very minor phenomenon. Minor, but real. Then perhaps editors here and at anti-abortion violence cold work out mutiallyy agreed standards about what qualifies as an act of violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a phenomenon it's not particularly common but it's received sustained attention from the mainstream media, particularly in the U.S. and Hispanic countries. The sources discussing it in this piece are not "fringe" publications. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – I swayed towards delete at first (see above) due to a significant issue with unreliable sources and undue weight. However, after improvements made by E.M.Gregory and Wikibolivar2009, I have combed through the sources and believe that the article is now well-sourced enough to warrant keeping. There are still some issues; I have tagged any events which are covered by only (semi-reliable) local news with [relevant?], and any questionable sources with [unreliable source?]. Fourteen events remain without these tags, a number which I believe just about proves this to be a notable topic. Hence, keep. — Quasar G. 21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV junk drawer. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Carrite could you be a little more specific? What exactly is the problem? Thanks — Quasar G. 06:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Running a Google search for DENTIST + MURDERER generates over 411,000 hits, including a rich mine of "reliable sources" that could be cut-and-pasted to create an article which really socks it to those nasty, murdering dentists. I mean, really, screw those guys — I'll show the world!!! A POV crusade could be waged to demonstrate that the only good dentist is a dead dentist, because they all must be murdering scum. The problem is that "Dentist Murder" is not a thing, it would be an artificial creation by somebody who doesn't like dentists, created out of thin air, and used to make Wikipedia into a politicized battle axe to advance a POV agenda. The same here. WP:COATRACK is the official term... Carrite (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comment (slightly leaning to "delete"). Whole page reads like WP:SOAP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes Which bits? Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the entire concept of "Pro-abortion rights violence" is WP:OR based on poor quality sources. How do we know it? Let's make a Google books search [10]. What did we find? Nothing. Of course, one should also make this search, and it does finds some refs. Let's follow them, and they tell such problem exists, but I do not see this to be described as a notable general subject. Compare this with a similar search for "anti-abortion violence" [11], and you will see 10 times more sourcing in books. Can this page be fixed, or the subject is "inherently POV"? As written it seems to be the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I think it goes without saying that violence from this end of the political spectrum is significantly less notable, because it happens less. "Pro-abortion violence" and "pro-choice violence" on Google books get around a tenth of what you get from looking for "anti-abortion violence" and "pro-life violence". (Although I don't think it would be correct to re-title this page either pro-abortion violence or pro-choice violence.) Anti-abortion violence, though, receives a lot of significant coverage from reliable sources, and I'd think that even a tenth of that attention from reliable sources (e.g. WaPo, CNN, National Review) should be enough to qualify another topic, esp. given the political attention given to certain incidents (e.g. Harlan Drake, some incidents at prominent universities). It could be made more obvious that this is considered a relatively minor phenomenon in the background section, compared to anti-abortion violence. I don't think, though, that a phenomenon being relatively less common means it doesn't meet the requirements for notability. Wikibolivar2009 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false equivalency used to justify an artificial construct. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the recent edits. Looking at the history, the article has become significantly better sourced and meets WP:RS. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the rewrite has addressed a lot of the bias issues with the sources, but does not and cannot address the fact that this is a huge pile of WP:SYNTH. A grab-bag of unrelated incidents across different countries does not a cohesive topic make. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete. Whether it should be merged can be discussed outside AFD. There is no consensus to do so here. SoWhy 17:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Dayton Wolfpack season[edit]

2017 Dayton Wolfpack season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Basically this is a season article about a team that folded before the season began. There's no point in having a season article about a sports team that didn't actually have that season. LionMans Account (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead an adding the main article on the team to this since the team isn't notable either for the same reason.

Dayton Wolfpack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)LionMans Account (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Technically, the Dayton Wolfpack folded. Officially, the "Dayton" Wolfpack were a travelling team that did play. The team(s) had Wolfpack uniforms and played league games, but they were operated by at least two separate Georgia-based semi-pro teams. In league records a team called the Dayton Wolfpack played several games, so to say the team didn't actually play or that the season that they played would be incorrect. I don't care one way or the other if these pages get deleted, but those that do comment here should at least have the facts. (Now if you argued WP:GNG for each season, all NAL team's seasons might fail per only routine coverage. The league itself would pass and probably the league's season. You could also throw it the Can-Am Indoor Football League and Arena Pro Football league pages for GNG non-acceptable sources as well.) Another point towards its existence was the apparent GM of the team at the time briefly contacted me to make corrections to the page. Yosemiter (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that one of the sources used on the page is basically a blog that occasionally covers the league. Said blog also used much of what I wrote about the demise of the original team (gathered from twitter, facebook, and instagram posts from the players and coaches, so it was hard to source properly) verbatim from the wikipedia page. I was not the author of the blog, but it at least was something to source that wasn't social media when I added it to the wikipedia page that had some extra info. Yosemiter (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge As Yosemiter discussed, league records indicate a team called the Dayton Wolfpack is operating under a travel-only schedule where the games were played by two semi-pro Georgia based teams wearing Wolfpack uniforms. These games are still covered under the same video policy as other NAL teams, so arguing WP:GNG against the Wolfpack also argues against the other teams as well per WP:ROUTINE. However, as this would be the team's sole season, merging certain parts of the season article, i.e. schedule, infobox, league table, etc. with the Wolfpack main article is also feasible. Jd02022092 (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out that arguing WP:GNG on the Wolfpack could also argue the same guidelines against another team that met a similar fate in 2016, the Minnesota Havok. I'm just providing an example here; other failed teams that have pages could also fall under this category. Jd02022092 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd02022092: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here. I can also think of a few dozen team pages that likely have only routine coverage that may not meet GNG (most teams in leagues like American Indoor Football and its equivalents in the last two decades). I have also personally prodded and had deleted team pages that never played in these lower leagues (see histories at Anderson Gladiators, Louisiana Cottonmouths, Louisiana Gators, Northshore Gators, Pineywoods Bucks, Texas Stealth). The best argument here is that according to NAL league records the Dayton Wolfpack played games as a league member in the 2017 season. Yosemiter (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG would be the guideline for this article (since there's no official standard for sports teams), and I'm just not seeing either article meeting that standard. There's probably a ton of article that could be deleted too if someone actually found them. LionMans Account (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If nom thinks seasons in this league are not notable in general, he can argue that and put them all up for deletion. But nobody has proposed doing that. Nominator's rationale does not apply, as the team under this name still existed, even if they didn't play in or anywhere near Dayton. The same rationale should therefore apply to this team as the others, and nobody has proposed a single reason why those should be deleted. So there's no reason to delete this, either. Smartyllama (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG still applies, and there's no information about this "team" other than what the league claims. Its just a name being used by two fill-in teams. LionMans Account (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the claim is that seasons in this league fail WP:GNG, make that claim. But if the rest are notable, there's absolutely no reason why this team isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Marjoram[edit]

Adam Marjoram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (removed with the rationale "Lack of notability should not be grounds for deletion", which is interesting). Regardless, my reading of the relevant criteria in NSPORTS is that Marjoram needs to compete in a fully-professional tournament, which the Dunlop Super2 Series isn't BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable driver per notability guidelines. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Fails NSPORTS and GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 09:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Chapman (US)[edit]

Kyle Chapman (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion as non-notable. I'd say this subject falls within WP:ONEEVENT - he did receive some media/online coverage during the protests. Overall, however, he did not even play what I would call a "major" role in the protests, and it looks unlikely that he will receive sustained media coverage outside of his role in those protests. Slon02 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notable only for one event. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article is in serious need of work, but as much as I would LOVE to sweep this guy under the rug, he has sufficient coverage in multiple reputable (and non-reputable) news sources and is now a "thing" to the Alt-Right. He was named to appear at a cancelled rally in California and is in the news for beating more people. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mention in connection with an event covered by an alt-weekly and a crime report in a local-news website is not my idea of extensive coverage. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were the "Berkeleypedia" there still wouldn't be enough for an article. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Specialpage (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Institute[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aakash Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete queried by a message in my talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I do not agree with the nominator because, article is well-referenced with third party reliable sources. It meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. The article was speedy deleted under G11: Unambiguous advertising or by nominator without informing or leaving a message on my (creator's) talk page, which itself a violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy and it looks bit suspicious as well. Let's assume even if article was promotional in nature, I believe, instead of deleting the article, it could have been fixed as per FIXIT. Later on my request, article was undeleted. I found, some issues were pointed out by new user @Specialpage:, which i have FIXED.
What was the issue in article?
Business Standard reported in 2012 that the institute was bullshit about its online offerings but instead of writing it bullshit i wrongly made it bullish by auto-spell check, that made the article promotional. Bullshit (means stupid, poor, worthless or rubbish) and Bullish (means aggressively confident and self-assertive) is totally two different words with different meaning. An other problem was pointed is undue weight about an award mentioned in article. But i find it appropriate to mention as it was reported by Hindustan Times, but if anyone think it is inappropriate, feel free to remove, it's not a problem. If anyone still think, the article is promotional, please help to fix it.--Elton-Rodrigues 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: Thanks for bringing this to my notice. I thought you are the one who nominated and deleted the article. It is HOAX nomination, where new user User:Specialpage is purposefully vandalized the article and nominated it for speedy deletion, even without leaving a message on my talk page, which itself a vioalation of deletion policy and deletion process. The account User:Specialpage seems to be created with single purpose that is to delete this article. It has hardly any or no contribution to Wikipedia. Please take this into consideration. --Elton-Rodrigues 14:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • DELETE: Please see these deletion logs of a similar article.

    I want to further add that the “well-referenced [and] third party reliable sources” that the article cites are category articles from online news channels. Such newspapers are known to publish short articles on any and every local event that they come to know of, newsworthy or not. As such, these references alone cannot indicate the noteworthiness of the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.102.219.116 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@{ping|185.102.219.116}, A baseless point, the article is supported and information in article are verifiable by reliable sources. These sources are not from any local publication, but from reputed and mainstream media houses in India. The article has significant media coverage that is too in depth. Your claim is false. I would have appreciated if you had participated in discussion by using your own account (identity), instead of using IP address.

By providing deletion log of recently deleted article (FIITJEE deleted on 8 June 2017) with similar category, you have proved my suspicions right. By creating new accounts (possibly socks) [example:User:Specialpage] and using IP addresses, there are some individuals or someone who hoaxing and vandalizing WP for their purpose and purposefully trying to delete articles, which is wrong and violation of Wikipedia policy. They do not bother themselves to leave a message on creator's talk page, which itself a violation of deletion policy and deletion process. Let me investigate and confirm everything from authorize sources. --Elton-Rodrigues 20:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Despite being widely cited, WP:TNT is only an essay and not official policy. With all editors basically agreeing that the topic itself is notable and one editor strongly arguing that it's not beyond the point of TNT, there is no consensus to delete even if one assumes WP:TNT is a valid reason to do so. SoWhy 17:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Act 2003[edit]

Patent Act 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about the Ghanaian Patent Law consists of an introductory section that is a copyright violation (as marked), and an analysis section that, sourced only to the text of the law itself, can only be considered original research. While I appreciate the value of Wikipedia educational projects, such submissions must meet Wikipedia guidelines the same as all other submissions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a significant parliamentary statute of a nation, I think this article meets WP:GNG. I don't think it's really WP:OR. It relies pretty heavily on the WP:PRIMARY source of the statute itself; however "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any indication of misuse here. the editors so far have been essentially summarizing the contents of the primary source. What I don't see is any real interpretation of the source. ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.") As I read it, the editors are on the right side of the line here ("A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") If they go over the line that can be corrected by editing.
The article clearly needs a buttload of work to meet Wikipedia standards. But that is a matter for editing; I don't think it needs deletion. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+Comment; I've just added a {{refideas}} to the talk page with some good secondary sources that can be mined, to assist in alleviating the WP:PRIMARY shortcomings (which I still agree should be addressed; just not via deletion). TJRC (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article topic clearly merits inclusion. My point here is that WP:TNT applies: no single part of the article is valid and the entire article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start again. The article author started the text with a copyright violation, and although this has been removed, I'm going to assume that there are problems with the rest rather than assume that there aren't. I have no doubt that national-level legislation, especially that which widely affects an often-commented-on area of the law, is inherently notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the subject is notable per WP:NLAW, but the article is in such bad shape that I think WP:TNT applies. Also any subsequent article should have a better name "Patent Act 2003" is to general and nonspecific and likely to cause confusion. Something like "Patent Act 2003 (Ghana)" would be better. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avakin life[edit]

Avakin life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely primary sources. WP:BEFORE does not show any comprehensive coverage otherwise. Waggie (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. I tried searching for sources using Goodsearch; the first 40 results all appeared to be primary sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arielle (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable musician. CMT are badcharts anf not sourced. She lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A look at current sourcing: 1. Her talking about herself. 2. Buzznet, a social media network. 4. Interveiwee pays for the interview. Her talking about herself. 5. Her talking about herself. 6. Dead, Her talking about herself, guitar shop, not a reliable source. 7. Her talking about herself. 8. Blog post, no depth of coverage. 9. Blog post on activist website. 10. Concert announcement. 11. Wordpress blog, Her talking about herself. 12. Her talking about herself. 13. dead dead, appears to be just a video clip. 14. Just a video clip, dead. 15. Just a video clip. 16. Search Engine Optimization business. Dead dead interview. 17. Her talking about herself. That leaves 3. One reasonable article. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Her Youtube view counts suggest non-notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a lot of stuff here, but none of the sources provided are indicative of the in-depth coverage that establishes notability. Nor could any additional sources be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Kostrzewa[edit]

Natalia Kostrzewa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT and has no significant news coverage Bakilas (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Jasper[edit]

Irish Jasper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Horse only won Grade III races with no significant coverage. Per NHORSERACING, horses need to win Grade I races or have significant coverage for other reasons to meet the indicia of notability for GNG Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NHORSERACING which states "Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races..." It isn't clear what is required for significant, but I would think two of the wins meets the requirement. I think the Thoroughbred Club of America Stakes is for sure significant as the 2016 race was part of the 2016 Breeders' Cup Challenge series. Miss Preakness Stakes is the main undercard race for the Black-Eyed Susan Stakes (a race of the Filly Triple Crown). Similar arguments for the Victory Ride Stakes (but to me Miss Preakness Stakes is more significant). Additionally, article meets GNG - at least the first three sources are detailed enough to meet GNG. Note that I am the creator of this page, I think its keep. RonSigPi (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The TCA is of pretty minor importance IMO. Yes it was part of the Breeders' Cup Challenge Series, but so are about 70 races, some of which don't even have articles on them, much less articles on the winner. If you look at the article on the 2016 BCCS, you'll see that most of the horses don't have articles, and at least one of them, A.P. Indian, really should since he actually is a G1 winner. Why not research him and write an article that's more than a bare stub? You'll find plenty. As for the Miss Preakness, definitely not notable. The major race on the Black-Eyed Susan undercard is the Pimlico Special FYI. As for the sources, literally every graded stakes race in North America receives a write up of that nature in the BloodHorse, Thouroughbred Daily News, Paulick Report, Daily Racing Form and probably a few other periodicals that skip my mind. Coverage in them does not confer notability. Jlvsclrk (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability, lack of coverage. Another equine wikiproject editor. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NHORSERACING. I read "significant" (in "Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races") to mean "notable." The races mentioned by RonSigPi are notable by WP definition as there are articles. To delete Irish Jasper, it is necessary to show that those races are not notable, which requires successful AfDs of the articles on the races. Put the races up for AfD; if they are deleted, then Irish Jasper no longer passes WP:NHORSERACING and can be deleted. Or you could try to change WP:HORSERACING. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I am very wary of WP:NSPORT (of which WP:NHORSERACING is a section), I reconsidered this AfD. Reviewing coverage in online news sources, I found that Irish Jasper has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example, there were 129 results in a Google news search for the phrase "Irish Jasper" horse, and several had Irish Jasper specifically as the topic, with the name "Irish Jasper" in the headline. Irish Jasper thus passes WP:GNG at least to the extent that I have not changed or struck my initial response. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per NHorseracing, article does not meet notability. Horse has not won a grade I race and there is not significant coverage. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Bob Cratchit's Wild Christmas Binge[edit]

Mrs. Bob Cratchit's Wild Christmas Binge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated by an unregistered user. Their rationale, taken from Talk:Mrs. Bob Cratchit's Wild Christmas Binge, is as follows: This article has no references to reliable sources. Delete.2001:A61:3222:6201:D99:5CAD:E6:3AEA (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC) clpo13(talk) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason given rhat establishes notability. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - i've found various reviews including these three, but I'm not sure if there are specific guidelines for musicals/theatre. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough significant reviews exists in WP:RS to substantiate WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - While the ip is correct that in its current form the citations suck, this is a clear case of WP:BEFORE not being performed. A cursory search turned up significant reviews and coverage. Rather than add them here, which provides zero help once the discussion is closed, will add them to the article. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 17:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Harari[edit]

Julia Harari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see anything that passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. She's been in some short films, a bit part in Matching Jack. Stage roles appear to be just in independent and university theatre, not fully professional. Boneymau (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. typical bio fo a beginner. A 2010 speedy was declined, but should have been followed up with an AfD at the time. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and certainly does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 12:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tried to convince myself that WP:ATD could be used to justify a merge, despite the nose count favoring delete, but with two of the merge supporters being WP:SPAs, I can't see a way to do that. So, sending this off to live with the old ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First United Church of Cthulhu[edit]

First United Church of Cthulhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable organization, religious or otherwise. The only hit in a reliable source I could find was a passing mention in an article about a Phoenix-based comic convention, while the other hits online have more to do with Lovecraft's mythos than this specific organization. Interesting group, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merger. Utterly non-notable; at least make people put a little popular into popular culture. 64 google hits, most WP-related. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not evidence of notability: all sources seems to be things like blogs related to it or routine government filings by the org. I'm not notable just because I have a birth certificate, and this isn't notable because it filed papers of incorporation or registered as a nonprofit. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be noted that Nil Failstorm (talk) created the subject of this AfD and Vonotterskull's (talk) only activity so far has been in this AfD. I don't think this organization is popular enough to be merged into an article about popular culture. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AuthBridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AuthBridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently this version differs from the previous incarnation sent to AfD, but still suffers from same problems as previous AfD. Fails WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. There is no consensus to merge with multiple editors explicitly objecting. However, the objections to merging do not apply to redirecting, so that part of "merge and redirect" works. SoWhy 19:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Chiara, Duchess of Capri[edit]

Princess Maria Chiara, Duchess of Capri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, unsurprisingly, as the girl is 12. Apart from all the noble titles, this would have been a CSD-A7. Kleuske (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She appears to be the current Duchess of Capri (?) and is the heir to the throne of the two sicilies, which would mean she would normally get a page. I'll see if I can find some references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a factiva search in Italian, there are about 13 references to her on there. I've put some in the article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro - she is only 12, the second daughter7 of a claimant/pretender, and it's not yet clear how she's notable; none of her grandparents nor great-grandparents were reigning monarchs. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to her parents' respective pages. She may or may not become notable at some point, but isn't notable in her own right at this time.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro; I would also support a consensus deletion. She's not the heir, the family are disputed pretenders to a throne that hasn't existed since 1861, and she has no independent claim to notability due to being 12. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge: this is a child who, by herself, fails to establish independent notability. She may be related to someone a bit more notable, but not even her grandparents were reigning monarchs. --Re5x (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. No claim to notability made. She's not even a real princess. Marvello123 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more independent notability than any 12 year old of an aristocratic family with pretensions to an no-linger-existent title. There's nothing worth merging. The content is mostly about her confirmation, a `non-encuyclopedic event. The principle here is NOT TABLOID. . DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable member of an aristocratic family of minor significance. There's nothing to merge as the article is largely uncited original research. Whatever is cited is to unreliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis O'Donnell[edit]

Lewis O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gates clothing isn';t notable . Veral isn't actually in WP. No reliable refs for notability and no reason why htere should be any DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements for BLP. Ajf773 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per improvements.

Tuberculosis in popular culture[edit]

Tuberculosis in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Huge sprawling list of trivia. No sourcing found. No attempt has been made to turn this into a viable article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at all the Wikipedia articles that are "in popular culture" [13] I'm surprised to see how many there are. Odd to see the one about sharks listing every cartoon that sometimes had sharks in it. Anyway, this article shows what major literary works used this as a plot device, as well as how common it appeared back when it was a major problem. Shawn in Montreal has found reliable sources giving it coverage, so it meets the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 03:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer The article is now fully restructured, supported by 32 reliable sources, and illustrated with major artworks that depict the disease. Hope you're pleased with the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dismissal of James Comey#Congressional testimony. The consensus is that this is not appropriate for a separate article, and I agree. There is almost no instance where we go into this level of detailed breakdown of articles about current events. Certainly this will be of historical importance, but only in a more general context. I would normally h closed a situation like this with a merge ( here, to the Dismissal of Conway article), but for this there does not seem to be anything worth merging, and subsequent events will appropriately add to that article, not to this section.

I do not want to predict whether the Dismissal will prove b itself of historical importance, but it seems simpler to keep it separate for now. But that's not the immediate question, because I don't think it make ssense to redirect to the main bio article while the more specific one exists. . DGG ( talk ) 13:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Comey Senate Intelligence Committee testimony[edit]

James Comey Senate Intelligence Committee testimony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Comey Senate Intelligence Committee testimony Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep, major event worthy of its own article. Hundreds of reliable sources on topic. Biggest historical event of 2017.Mishigas (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Article was created by nom and speedy deleted by Narutolovehinata5. Nom kept removing the CSD tag, which is prohibited by the article creator. SkyWarrior 03:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply suggested we change the tag and assess consensus. If that is a crime, I don't want to be innocent. Mishigas (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This vote fails to supply a rationale for deletion or "merger" (i.e. Deletion de facto) and simply states that the author wants a speedy delete or a merge, without adequae reasons. Mishigas (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and retagged. Let an uninvolved admin decide if CSD is applicable or not. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Note: this vote fails to provide ANY reason for the request to delee. Also, the speedy delete tags were ultimately removed by another editor. Again, I never removed the deletion tags; I merely replaced them with AfD tags so the article would not be deleted in the middle of the nifht without consensus.
Comment I still believe the article should probably be deleted due to G5, but I am fine with a selective merge to Dismissal of James Comey, though even if the article is redirected rather than deleted, I can't see how the article is a viable redirect given its length. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reserve judgment, but don't speedy delete. This article is sorely lacking, but it may have potential. —Guanaco 04:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article wasn't a POV piece, I don't exactly see how this warrants an article separate from Dismissal of James Comey. If anything, we might need to have an article on the investigation and hearings as a whole rather than just his testimony. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it probably does need to end up merged. Where and what, we can flesh out over the next few days as this deletion discussion attracts a swarm of editors and more secondary sources are published. —Guanaco 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have not yet heard any justification from an editor as to why they "don't exactly see how this warrants an article." What policy are you pointing to that says it doesn't warrant an arricle? It clearly passes GNG. Stuffing it down the memory hole through "merger" (i.e. De facto deletion, lets not split hairs and pretend that merger and deltion are ANY different) doesn't make the event less notable or make it go away. I could find at least 10,000 sources on this event if I had the time. I have not heard one REASOn this should not have an article; I have only heard editors say that they don't want it to have an article "because t should be merged." That isn't a reason; that's just you stating your vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishigas (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 04:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
seems reasonable does not tell is why you want to redirect. Ticker tape is a reason to improve the article; it doesnt explain why you feel the article fails GNG. Mishigas (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion involving confirmed sock of Kingshowman, nothing to see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • also, this is yet another comment that provides no justification whatsoever why aa "redirect" (euphemism for delete) is "obvious". No voter thus far has explained why the testimony fails GNG. If you think the article can be improved, do so. These aren't reasons the topc is not notable. Also, the voter saying the Comey testimony was a "little thing" calls into question his credibility. Mishigas (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Personal attack removed) Mishigas (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What the actual fuck? I'm about as anti-Trump as they come, I suggest you strike your ad hominem before it's removed like the last one. This is simply WP:NOTNEWS nonsense that can be better covered in other articles. Wikipedia is better than the 24-hour news cycle - or at least it should be. ansh666 18:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I deleted the comment. Apologies. That being said, I do not understand how you can think NOTNEWS applies here. The testimony garnered over 3 million tweets. All of Washington shut down to watch it, as shown in the references. I could find you at least 10,000 reliable sources on the testimony. I do not understand how you think NOTNEWs applies. Notnews does not imply that something should not be included because it was "in the news." Everything starts out as News. Comey's testimony is already of historical significance. Mishigas (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, you replaced your personal attack with...another personal attack. Good going. ansh666 18:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep this is a blindingly obvious keep. Those who think it should be buried as a 2 sentence mention in comey's dismissal fail to appreciate that other topics were discussed in the testimony, the testimony has major implications for Trump's political future, generated an jotable set of memes, such as Meddlesome priests, Covfefe cocktails, Comey watch parties, and the inexplicable questions of John McCain, and was the political event of the season. On the theory that this event should be deleed, let's delete NFL Superbowl XXXXX or whatever because it could be folded in to NFL 2017-2018 season. There are zero legitimate reasons for deleting this article. Look at the watch party articles I've listed to see how big of a deal this was if you lived in a major city, rather than flyover country, where I assume most of these comments are coming from, since they are otherwise unable to explained. Merger will result in the testimony, a major event in itself,getting an extremely brief mention which fails to accord it its requiste importance commensurate to the huge coverage it has received. The idea that this fails GNG is laughable.Mishigas (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mishigas (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Mishigas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking out !vote of confirmed sock of Kingshowman. SkyWarrior 19:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per SkyWarrior. I am saying redirect, not merge, because there is nothing worth merging in this POV essay, and the subject can be covered adequately as a section in another article. With regard to the calls for speedy deletion or speedy keep, IMO this is not eligible for speedy anything. But in the meantime, while it is waiting to be redirected, we should trim out the obvious POV material. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And if you wonder why I called it a POV essay: you should have seen it before I trimmed it.[14] --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And just to correct the history above: the article has not been speedy deleted by anybody. User:Narutolovehinata5 blanked the article and requested speedy deletion, but that did not happen. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this. I wanted to give the author a chance, but he's blocked now and this is going nowhere. If anyone can turn this into a decent article, please do so. But I think the chances are slim; good encyclopedic articles about testimonies are few and far between. The events described in testimony tend to be a much better fit. —Guanaco 08:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with optional merge. It is definitely notable but we don't need a separate article for this particular part of the story. It should be included with the main coverage. Anything genuinely worthwhile that we have here, that is missing there, can be merged. We don't want fragmentation that makes the subject harder to read about. We don't need an individual article about each individual event. Maybe, if in a few years time, this specific testimony is seen as the fatal blow to Trump then we can revisit this but that certainly does not seen to be the case at the moment. It seems a lot more like just another nail in the inevitable coffin and we don't need an article for each of what is very likely to be a large number of nails. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point an admin may want to consider speedy deletion - since the creator is not only blocked, but blocked on suspicion of being a sock of a well-known anti-Trump vandal, CU-blocked as a sockpuppet of a longtime-banned user, so it may fall under G5. Before being blocked he re-inserted a bunch of POV stuff; I will revert to a somewhat more neutral version. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, this does not qualify for G5 because there has been substantial editing by others. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete now that we know this is Kingshowman. All other substantial contributors have now endorsed speedy deletion. —Guanaco 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is clearly consensus not to delete this outright, but there's no agreement whether it should remain as a stand-alone article (perhaps with some serious editorial improvement) or if it should be merged into any of several possible related articles.

Certainly, if there are copyright violations, they need to be removed, but it sounds like that's been done already.

My recommendation is to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. If consensus forms for a merge, that's something that can be done by any editor without need to bring it back to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communism in Vietnam[edit]

Communism in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads like an essay, contains more than one copyvio, and is largely unsourced. Given the sheer number of articles on the Vietnam War, the History of Vietnam (plus History of Vietnam since 1945), and the Viet Cong, ect., I also see little justification for its existence. I recommend redirecting Communism in Vietnam to the vastly superior Communist Party of Vietnam. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is the proposal to delete, then redirect or simply to redirect? If it is redirect, shouldn't this be a merge discussion located at the talk pages of the two articles? Smmurphy(Talk) 17:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't given that much thought; sorry, but I'm not terribly familiar with the process for deletion vs. merging. I'm also not necessarily adamant about the merge target I proposed, but I do insist that there is nothing in this article that isn't covered better elsewhere on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject "Communism in Vietnam" is clearly notable and would have piles of documents written about it, though to write the article well one would have to be able to read Vietnamese/Chinese/Russian/etc. It is not the same subject as the Communist Party of Vietnam. I'm not a good enough editor to find and remove the copyright violations, though this ought to be done as a priority. It's within the closing admin's discretion to take more stern action if the copyvio is not easily dealt with. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. Despite the apparent condition of this article (cogent, sourced, notable), in this case I'm inclined to take the advice of the nom, who's been at work on the topic since at least 2012. --Lockley (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me if this is a dolt idea, but wouldn't it make more sense to merge a Communist Party of Vietnam article into a broader Communism in Vietnam article, rather than the other way around? I am certainly not an expert on Vietnam but as I think Richard is suggesting, there tends to be plenty more to say about communism in a country beyond strictly the official party, and I think it makes sense to keep such an article open for additions, rather than having folks searching the term being routed to the page about the Party, where their additions may or may not fit in. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On topic is the political system, the other is the economy. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Communist Party of Vietnam; the article under discussion is largely unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject (a political system and ideology) is not the same as Communist Party of Vietnam (an organization). Even in the event of merge it should not be deleted to allow merging. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment - Distinct from Communist Party of Vietnam, as mentioned above. Massive sourcing available. Communism in Hungary and Communism in Yugoslavia would also be excellent topics. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Australia-Vietnam Research Project, Researching the Vietnamese Economic Reforms, 1979-86. (School of Economic & Financial Studies, Macquarie University, 1995).
    • Adam Fforde and Stefan De Vylder, From Plan to Market: The Economic Transition in Vietnam. (Westview Press, 1996).
    • Paul Glewwe, Economic Growth, Poverty, and Household Welfare in Vietnam. (World Bank, 2004).
    • Ken Post, Revolution, Socialism and Nationalism in Viet Nam. (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989).
    • Shozo Sakata, Vietnam's Economic Entities in Transition. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
    • Malcolm Segall, Economic Reform, Poverty and Equity in Access to Health Care: Case Studies in Viet Nam. (Institute of Development Studies, 1999.)
    • Lewis M. Stern, Conflict and Transition in the Vietnamese Economic Reform Program. (Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1988).
    • William Turley, Vietnamese Communism in Comparative Perspective. (Westview Press, 1980).
.....and so on and so forth. In short Communist Party of Vietnam is about the political party and the political system, Communism in Vietnam about the economy. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And after saying that I took a close look at the article and found it to be in need of cleansing by dynamite. So, there ya go. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 19:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Crider[edit]

Michael R. Crider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, there is one award listed which doesn't seem to be notable in itself, nor the awarding publication. Bri (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 19:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freshtix[edit]

Freshtix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NCORP. Sources provided are entirely about the founders of the business, and not about the business itself. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from the creators of the business, or their previous business endeavors. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Deepak-Tijori-earns-praise-from-Do-Lafzon-Ki-Kahani-producers/articleshow/52554695.cms
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_June_9&oldid=1142618207"