Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 December 1 January >

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 Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth as A7, G11. ( non-admin closure) K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Equidate

Equidate (  | 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, and promotional . This is a Press release, based on press releases and notices. Amazingly, even the NYT article is essentially an advertisement for them. There is apparently no source about business that is always reliable for purposes of notability, making the GNG useless in that area. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Telangana Labour Party

Telangana Labour Party (  | 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:NORG. Per the Electoral Commission of India, there are over 1800 registered unrecognised political parties in India ( [1], page 15 for the start of the list); merely existing as one is not sufficient to show notability. I have checked GBooks, GNews, the archives of The Hindu and the Times of India, and the website of the Electoral Commission of Andhra Pradesh ( [2]) and have found zero indication that this registered but unrecognised party is any more notable than any of the other 1800 of its kind. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 23:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 23:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Errr, NFP? It's not a film... ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Apologies. I accidentally entered a flag when I was editing two articles at once. Appreciation for catching my error. Ventric ( talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Haha, no problem. I figured you might have had two tabs open at once or something. Cheers :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. It's clear that WP:NSPORT is met. There are open discussions about the relation between that SNG and WP:GNG at WT:Notability and WT:Notability (sports). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Doug Gallagher

Doug Gallagher (  | 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: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
He should be reprimanded for bringing the article to AFD with such a weak rationale. As to the standard of the article, I have already improved it greatly with just a few moments of research. I'm sure there is more out there if someone has the time to spend on it. Spanneraol ( talk) 03:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Please explain why suddenly the consensus standard that a person who has participated in a regular-season major league sports competition is notable is "disruptive to the health of the project"? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. It took maybe 30 seconds to find strong sourcing, and there's plenty more out there. That's why NC-BASE is a thing, to prevent stupid nominations like this when researching it and expanding the article takes no time at all. Wizardman 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
I am not a sportsman and usually avoid athlete articles for that reason but, ummmm, the "article", created on 20 September 2010, when I made the AFD consisted of "was a pitcher who played in nine games for the Detroit Tigers in 1962. That does not constitute notability, under any circumstances. Any article so sloppily and idiotically created, and left in that condition for seven years deserves to be not only deleted but atomized into extinction. Quis separabit? 18:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
That's not even a good argument. See for example WP:TOOLITTLE. "Being "short" is not grounds for deletion." It would be preferable to tag it for expansion. Spanneraol ( talk) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Over The Top Wrestling

Over The Top Wrestling (  | 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 does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG Galatz Talk 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz Talk 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galatz Talk 14:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep the promotion in question has had articles by PWI Insider 1, PWI insider 2, Figure 4 Online, National Newspaper Irish Mirror. Lee Vilenski( talk) 14:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Both PWI Insider "articles" were written by Matthew Macklin, who according to his Twitter, is associated with Over The Top Wrestling. The Figure 4 Online "article" is fan-submitted WP:ROUTINE match results. None of those sources count towards notability. Nikki♥ 311 23:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
A national newspaper doesn't count toward notability? I'm a little bit surprised that could ever be said. Lee Vilenski( talk) 09:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't say that. I stated that the PWI and Figure 4 sources don't count toward notability and provided rationale. I never said the Irish Mirror didn't, or I would have provided rationale for that as well. Nikki♥ 311 14:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep Tone seems good and fact based, and sources seem notable. Schracq ( talk) 21:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete The sources do not confirm what is written in the article, in particular, the Irish Mirror only mentions OTTW, but says nothing about talent coming in "worldwide", yet that is the claim in the article. The article itself is written as an advertisement. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ 00:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  • At this point, it's fair to question whether you do any research whatsoever on any of these business articles, or if you instead simply repeat variations of the same meaningless rationale. I suspect the latter option is correct. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note that User:Hey you, yeah you! seems to have been permanently blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - their conduct at AFDs was the primary concern thus I've taken the liberty of striking their !vote from the discussion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 00:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Irregardless of what is said in the article, the point of an AfD is if the article meets WP:GNG. If it does, and a section isn't referenced properly, then use a citation needed tag. There are quite a few articles in the Irish mirror Irish Mirror 2, Joe.com, Irish Mirror 3, Irish Mirror 4, Irish Mirror 4, Irish Mirror 5, Irish Mirror 6, Belfast Live, Irish Mirror 7, UK Mirror, Irish Times Lee Vilenski( talk) 09:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the criteria is not weather or not the sources are present in the article, but if there is significant third-party coverage in reliable sources, I'd say that the Irish Mirror and Belfast Live sources cited above meets the criteria.  MPJ -DK  22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Did you take a look at any of the links above. They are national newspapers with articles specifically about the company. Lee Vilenski( talk) 10:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Craig Covey

Craig Covey (  | 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:BLP of a small-town mayor, without enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. His main claim to being more notable than the norm is that he was the first openly gay mayor in the state -- but that's not entirely accurate, as he was merely the first to win a general election of the voting public rather than getting selected as mayor by an internal vote of the city council. And even if we corrected the claim, being the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not actually a notability pass that would automatically make him more notable than his predecessors or successors -- it might make a difference if he could be shown to have garnered nationalized coverage for it, but that's not what's being shown here: there are just four sources, of which two are routine election results announcements in the local community newspaper, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about Dustin Lance Black, and one is a source I can't even find at all to verify whether it says enough about Covey to count toward GNG or not. This is simply not enough to make a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and just being gay isn't enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this either. Bearcat ( talk) 19:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. A person being the first elected gay mayor is just as notable than being the first selected. Additionally, Craig Covey now sits on the Oakland County, Michigan Board of Commissioners. Oakland, per its article, has 1,000,000+ residents. Most counties with over 1,000,000 have county board members whose sole political office (outside of small town stuff) is the county board. An example of this can be seen with Cook County Board of Commissioners.
Except that (a) regardless of whether a mayor was elected or selected, being gay is not an automatic notability boost over and above any other mayor of the same small town in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:NPOL #2 ("local political figures who have received significant press coverage"), and (b) county commissioners don't get a free notability pass in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about them to pass NPOL #2 either. In a nutshell, neither of those things is an automatic notability pass in the absence of much more reliable sourcing about him than has been shown here. Bearcat ( talk) 21:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep- First gay mayor elected in the state helps make the argument. The technicality about not actually being first is a valid point, but its easier to appoint someone than for someone to actually win an election. Not that being gay is a valid reason to vote for someone, nor is it a valid reason not to vote for someone. He did receive some national press, here's a USA Today article about his campaign to regain the position of mayor. [3]-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
We require evidence of sustained national coverage, not just one piece of one-time coverage — before we can deem him notable. And anyway, that's not an original piece of content being written by USA Today itself, but merely a reprint of a piece written by a journalist for the Detroit Free Press — so it's not real nationalized coverage, but just reaggregated local coverage. There's a Canadian smalltown mayor, for example, who received a tiny blip of nationalized coverage earlier this year solely on the "news of the weird" criterion that his sole challenger in his reelection bid had exactly the same name as he did, forcing them both to add their addresses to the ballot to ensure that the townsfolk actually knew which one they were voting for — but that's not automatically a "more notable than the norm" criterion just because a couple of nationalized sources could be shown to support it, because it didn't sustain beyond that one isolated blip. Bearcat ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete I am a resident of a north of Detroit suburb, keep up fairly well on news in the metro-area, and have to say I have never even heard of Covey. Note that the sources are not even the Detroit Freepress and Detroit News, but local papers to Ferndale, even though Ferndale borders Detroit. Being the mayor of a city, especially one as insignificantly small as Ferndale, and being a member of the Oakland County Commission are both not at all signs of notability. No county commissionership in Michigan is a notability sign, especially considering that Oakland County has over 20 comissioners. The sources do not show widespread, indepdent, non-routine coverage, and it is high time we stopped this incessant rush to more and more first openly x categories. I am also a little skeptical about some first openly x categories. For one think, I have seen to many places that have said Bishop Robinson was the first openly homosexual Episcopal Bishop. This is false. The Episcopal Diocese of Utah had an openly homosexual bishop back in the 1990s. With neither the News nor Freeepress being sources here, I have a sense the claim has not been vetted well. Also, being the first x-type mayor in a state is not a clear sign of notability. I am 95% positive we do not have an article on the first African-American mayor in Utah, although we do on the first female African-American mayor in Utah, but only because she is now a member of congress. That is the way politician articles work. We do not create articles on cities with about 20,000 people unless we have a really good collection of sources. 2 extremely local articles and a report on a speech at a college, a college that is local to the paper giving the report, do not add up to the level of sourcing needed to justify an article on a mayor of a place with well under 25,000 people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
"I am 95% positive we do not have an article on the first African-American mayor in Utah..." — That is an OTHERSTUFF argument. Carrite ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since Ferndale borders Detroit on the north, we would need sustained, multiple articles for the local dailies, not just one time write ups. A person like James Fouts is notable, but he is mayor of a city with well over 100,000 people, that is also a much bigger economic powerhouse than Ferndale, and due to his audacity in charging the croonyism of King Hackle and his goons, has faced a smear campaign involving engineered false records. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:HEY I added a few sources, but saw plenty more WP:SIGCOV. After becoming Mayor he was an elected County Commissioner. There is coverage of issues addressed in his mayoral administration; environmental measures in particular. Pre-elected office, he was a pretty major gay rights activist in the area, working for a gay civil rights org. and founding Detroit's gay pride parade Motor City Pride; also founded an annual blues festival that gets coverage every year - including mentions of his role in it. Plenty of WP:INDEPTH to support notability and support a better article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - First elected gay mayor in the state (and that fact's associated coverage) is enough for a GNG pass, even if the elected post by itself is not. Carrite ( talk) 19:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lack of coverage in major Detroit newspapers. Small town major without big achievements. Lack of significant independent/in-depth coverage. desmay ( talk)
  • Keep - Passes the GNG. I don't understand what all of the discussion is regarding the larger regional newspapers. Is there a notability guideline that I'm not aware and that no one has yet linked to that states that small city politicians have a higher bar than the GNG and need coverage from the larger circulation regional newspapers? -- irn ( talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being "the first openly-gay mayor of any municipality in the state of Michigan" is a big deal. Zigzig20s ( talk) 14:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just because there is not coverage in Detroit newspapers doesn't mean that this is not notable. Jefstevens ( talk) 06:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Rajendra Panchal

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

Sources doesn't establish notability of subject. ─ 1997 kB 09:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Discuss 09:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Discuss 09:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

PrettyLitter

PrettyLitter (  | 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 procedural nomination. The article was created by a UPE sock but can't be speedy deleted per G5. I'd like the community to evaluate if the article is sufficiently notable to keep. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Telugu cinema. Sandstein 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Sai Srujan Pelluri

Sai Srujan Pelluri (  | 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:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. Article subject has appeared in some roles, but has not established the significant impact on the industry required by WP:NACTOR criteria. SamHolt6 ( talk) 00:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss fortune 01:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss fortune 01:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss fortune 01:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. MT Train Discuss 16:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 21:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Congolese unification

Congolese unification (  | 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 no reliable source coverage of this proposal. This is a discussion that seems to have so far only appeared on Reddit and this article was clearly created by someone who knows very little about the political affairs of either country and probably just assumed that having a similar name is all that counts for anything. Most of the Google books search returns for "Congolese unification" are about the struggle of the DRC to unify itself. Indy beetle ( talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

UNC Charlotte Fight Song

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

Nothing to say this a notable song. Mattg82 ( talk) 20:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to not keep this, but split opinion about a merge vs. straight deletion. The arguments to delete seem stronger to me, so I'm going with that. If anybody really wants to mine the existing text for information to merge someplace, ping me and I'll be happy to userfy the article for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad

AfDs for this article:
List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad (  | 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:NOTDIRECTORY as this is a list with no context whatsoever, only positions, ranks, and names. This does not add anything at all to our articles about Stalingrad, unlike an OOB, because all notable commanders and major staff officers, etc. (officers not in command positions who played notable roles) will be covered in the main battle article or the articles on the sub-operations of the article. To address the keep votes of the first AfD nomination: I would like to note that WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here as if we list all the known senior staff officers of the Axis and Soviet commands (since Stalingrad is a large battle involving thousands of staff officers on both sides), we would end up with a long list of potentially non-notable staff officers. Kges1901 ( talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 ( talk) 20:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Zaytsev and Richthofen are mentioned in the main battle article. I'm not sure what Milch's role in the battle was, while Golikov should be mentioned in the main article but he isn't due to content omission as the main article is based on obsolete sources and doesn't include enough from Glantz's Stalingrad Triology. Kges1901 ( talk) 12:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Corey Jantzen

Corey Jantzen (  | 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 don't see the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or that he meets the notability standards for actors or athletes. Routine sports reporting, local coverage, and/or school reports don't meet the requirements. Simply qualifying for the NCAA tournament doesn't make someone notable. Appearing in a file nominated for an Academy award does guarantee notability, especially with a role as "Foxcatcher Wrestler #4". Fails to meet both WP:NSPORT and WP:NACTOR. Sandals1 ( talk) 19:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unverifiable, possibly a hoax. Sandstein 19:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

European Pharmaceutical Union

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

It's unreferenced, and google knows nothing about this organisation. I think it may actually be the same as Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union and if so should be merged with it Rathfelder ( talk) 19:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Robbie Q. Telfer

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

Local poet. I don't see any significant, in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Neutrality talk 18:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Tagging JzG, who proposed deletion. Neutrality talk 19:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard Saldan

AfDs for this article:
Richard Saldan (  | 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 significantly covered in reliable sources. Can't find sources of the awards he's won so they're unlikely to be notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO PriceDL ( talk) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Naval Space Command (  | 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 is entirely plagiarized from https://fas.org/spp/military/program/track/spasur_at.htm, with that plagiarized article being the only source. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete as this blatant plagiarism is not only encyclopedic, but also is only from the single source on the article. Garuda28 ( talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note really need to mention/tag this discussion on the actual article so it is visible to interested parties, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks! Didn't even realize I didn't do that yet. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment government military websites are public domain so if that site copied the material from govt website then it is not copyvio. Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Atlantic306: The information copied was from the Federation of American Scientists, which is not a government institution. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
But did the FAS copy public domain material ? Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
They definitely cited it (given the footnotes). Given that these sites are now all offline I see nothing that suggests that they copied it. Garuda28 ( talk) 20:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Patricia Louise Dudley

Patricia Louise Dudley (  | 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 seem to satisfy WP:PROF (but feel free to tell me otherwise, not too sure with handling that criterion yet) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Based on recent improvements, I would now suggest Keep as well. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not meeting either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. It is hard to find information about older women scientists. Perhaps more can be found and the article kept. The article was created as a translation of fr:Patricia Louise Dudley as part of Wikipedia:Meetup/UNC/Women in Science 2017. The only two references I can find are:
    • McLaughlin, Patsy A.; Sandra Gilchrist (1 June 1993). "Women's contribution to carcinology". In Frank Truesdale (ed.). History of Carcinology. CRC Press. p. 200. ISBN  978-90-5410-137-6.
    • Damkaer, David M. (December 2004). "Patricia Louise Dudley (1929 – 2004)" (PDF) (48): 10. {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)
StarryGrandma ( talk) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Hmm. I assume the Monoculus piece is as good as it gets. She seems to have been a dedicated teacher and taxonomist for all of her career, and inshallah, that's not good enough for an article based on out guidelines. Those really need an overhaul. Do you know how many ****ing Romanian soccer players I have NPP-reviewed as "notable" this week? :( -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Change to keep. The article has been expanded with more references. StarryGrandma ( talk) 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Hatnote added to target of redirect, to achieve same end. Pam D 13:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: When there's an endowment in her name, "Who was this Patricia Dudley?" is a question Wikipedia ought to be able to answer. Notable within the small world of Copepodologists, having a detailed obit in their newsletter. (And that obit mentions that "A longer notice on the life and work of Patricia Dudley is planned for the Journal of Crustacean Biology." Anyone got access to that for 2004-5?) Pam D 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The endowment is a good argument, I think. - There doesn't seem to exist a longer article in the Journal of Crustacean Biology; although they do print the odd obituary, the archives [5] don't show up anything on her. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Anything in contemporary newspapers in New York or in Washington state? Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 00:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude ( talk) 23:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Bookmann Kolkata

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

Individual bookstores are not notable unless there is some significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cannot merge because target does not exist. Sandstein 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Slosh Park

Slosh Park (  | 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 made to notability, WP:CRYSTAL John from Idegon ( talk) 14:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Milwaukee Harbor District (currently a red-link; if there's interest I'll create that page). The physical space and the organization do exist, though this park is still in the planning phase. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy or Delete with option to redirect  Nothing in Google books, this is more of a PROMO than a record of history.  I don't see any purpose to mentioning the park until it is more than a plan. 
    On the other hand, the Milwaukee Harbor District was created in 2015 and a search shows it is not recorded in the encyclopedia...a redirect to some material added to a relevant topic would be a good idea, and I can't say that that material should or should not mention the park.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Cidney Fisk

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

At best, the lawsuit could some day be notable. She definitely isn't, and unless something else occurs to make her such, she won't be per WP:BLP1E John from Idegon ( talk) 14:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly a non-notable individual. The article also has serious violations of NPOV. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as NN. The content looks to me as if she sent her Statement of Claim for the court to two local newspapers which may then have interviewed her. The article this projects only her POV, not that of the school board and other entities sued. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. New Atheism is dead and atheism related news is typically getting weak/zero coverage. She has no significant news coverage from reliable sources. She has no backing from ACLU or a national atheist organization. desmay ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Most deletes here appear to be from self-declared Christians. Peterkingiron being the exception. Please note that Christians have a history of hostility to Atheists.
Note: above comment made by Jmv2009, the article creator. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 18:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Binaca Geetmala records

List of Binaca Geetmala records (  | 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:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. There is no doubt that Binaca Geetmala itself is notable, but this is a disparate collection of records and statistics sourced to a single blog post. –  Joe ( talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - Thank you for informing me. I didn't think it may be insignificant. If it is deleted, I've no saying. But I think before deleted, this stats should be added to the main Binaca Geetmala article as a column. I actually thought that if there is billboard top chart records in a seperate article then why shouldn't be about Binaca Geetmala? মাখামাখি ( talk) 14:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -Because apart from being indiscriminate collection and original reaserch, the article is completely replication of list from blog post, utter unreliable source. Don't merge indiscriminate information from unreliable source to pollute another article. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I note that the article List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones has been nominated for deletion four times and each time has been kept. Is there any reason why this equivalent article for India, a more populous contry that the one served by Billboard and where popular music is just as popular, should be treated differently? This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, because the other stuff was discussed and kept at AfD. I also note that we have a category with over 200 members devoted to the Billboard charts. To delete one of the articles about the equivalent charts for India would seem like systemic bias in the extreme. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The difference would be the difference in coverage in independent, reliable sources. That is all we're really concerned with. List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones cites dozens of articles and several full-length books that discuss Billboard records and statistics. This article was only sourced to a blog post, and I was not able to find anything else. Our efforts at countering systematic bias can't extend to including topics where no sources have been shown to exist. –  Joe ( talk) 18:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The difference is in coverage in independent reliable sources available in English from Google searches, not in such sources in general. It was accepted in the deletion discussions for the Billboard equivalent that sources from Billboard itself are sufficient and that other sources must be available, even if not found yet. We should give the same consideration to topics outside the anglophone world. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure, and if you or someone else could point to sources in other languages, I would be happy to withdraw. –  Joe ( talk) 20:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard Werbe

AfDs for this article:
Richard Werbe (  | 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 fails WP:ANYBIO. There is no reason to believe that Studypool already is a "widely recognized contribution" in the field of online education. Shemer77 ( talk) 14:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Magnolia677 ( talk) 03:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Ra Diggs

Ra Diggs (  | 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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:PERP. Ephemeral press coverage for his criminal acts; little notability as a musician. Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 14:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. This has received what appears to be both WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV. The subject appears to have been the gang leader of the Bloods in New-York. He was convicted of multiple crimes (so not a BLP1E - in addition we have coverage of the rap angle and post conviction coverage) and we have continuing coverage of convictions of his henchmen. The legal case itself was somewhat novel in that his own Youtube rap videos were used as evidence against in the trial - which has led to coverage in the BBC for instance [6] and elsehwere [7], [8]. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Icewiz above, however the article should focus more on the notability of the criminal acts with less on the YouTube, though both are needed as they tie together the notability. Gatemansgc ( talk) 23:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Brittanya McCall Razavi

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

Although this has been around a long time, it has failed to gather any reliable independednt references except for her criminal assault conviction. This is a woman who apeared on a reality show and featured on some magazine covers. There seems to be no other reasonable claim to notability. Several of the claims to fame in the lede are not supported by any evidence nor by any searches. Fails WP:GNG by a mile   Velella   Velella Talk   13:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have discounted the SPAs. The remaining keep arguments are variations on "definitely a real organization", which is not exactly an incisive, policy-based argument. A Train talk 12:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Covenant Christian Coalition

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

Borderline WP:HOAX. This is essentially a website with a list of churches. There is indeed an organisation, but it has a fake NY address, and it doesn't represent anybody else, as it claims to, since it adds denominations to the list without their knowledge or permission. Also, there is a complete lack of notability - no independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. St Anselm ( talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

It seems that this is a legitimate organization as I noted on the article's Talk page. There were already reliable secondary sources (FaithStreet, TGC) and yesterday someone pointed out that the CCC is in the UN's Civil Society Database, which is about as reliable as you can get. It claims to have been founded two years ago, so a lack of notability in news articles is not surprising. I vote to keep, but suggest possibly revising some of the wording in the article. - Elder-ado ( talk) 15:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC) — Elder-ado ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The UN and Gospel Coalition references are just directory listings - see [9]. Even if it is a real organisation, it is not a notable one. The fact that that might because it's relatively new makes no difference to us here on WP. St Anselm ( talk) 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Those aren't just any listings. They're the United Nations and The Gospel Coalition. The former isn't just a directory - they have stringent review processes for inclusion. The United Nations DESA database is notable in itself. The latter is one of the largest and most notable evangelical organizations in the United States, which also doesn't arbitrarily add listings. I think this discussion was probably premature and there are likely more sources out there. Many, many articles have fewer and less notable sources including some of your own (apparently). - Elder-ado ( talk) 16:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, I see the UN listings are reviewed, but it's too much to say they have a "stringent review process". It appears any NGO may be added. St Anselm ( talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
It's notable enough. We should keep it, but I can help revise wording that might not be neutral. The sources are good, but it could use a few more just like most articles out there. From a quick search I was able to find that UN source and I also just found a few published sources.-- Kigozi Af ( talk) 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) — Kigozi Af ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
When you say "enough", what threshold of notability are you using? St Anselm ( talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems users have added plenty of sources that appear to be reliable, I would encourage you to give it a rest. There are thousands of articles with fewer, more dubious, or no sources and as a previous user pointed out--even some of your own. This is a real, albeit young organization that was formed by a number of church leaders, primarily from the U.S., but also some from Africa, Latin America, and the Philippines. I also know first-hand that the CCC funds an orphanage and school network in Kampala. DavidStats ( talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- If genuinely what is claimed, this has the potential to be a very significant organisation, but it appears to be seeking to be a clone of World Evangelical Alliance. My preference would be to keep but heavily tag it for better sourcing: I found nothing in the way of G-news or newspaper hits, which O would have expected if truly notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Peterkingiron, that sounds like the most reasonable approach. I can fix the POV and notability issues. So we keep, but leave the "primary sources" tag? Are there any other tags to add to help expand this article? From what I can find it is similar to the World Evangelical Alliance, but with perhaps a slightly more conservative slant and different organizational objectives (see http://www.ccc.one/p/purpose.html). Similar to the difference between the World Reformed Fellowship and the World Communion of Reformed Churches.-- Kigozi Af ( talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I would also point out that this article already has more secondary sourcing than similar organizations that have mostly only primary sourcing (or no refs) such as the World Reformed Fellowship, International Lutheran Council, Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference, International Conference of Reformed Churches, among others.-- Kigozi Af ( talk) 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
But those could be easily sourced with significant coverage in reliable sources - e.g. [10]. No such sourcing exists for CCC. In any case, those organizations have an actual membership; CCC does not. St Anselm ( talk) 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Denominations don't join, but churches and ministries do, so, yes, it does have membership. I even know the leadership from a few of the churches that have formally joined including Church of Christ at Gold Hill in Fort Mill and Syosset Gospel Church in Syosset, NY. DavidStats ( talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep because it's definitely a real organization. A number of other references were added in response to the nomination for deletion and POV was improved. Close the discussion, but add tags to help expand. DavidStats ( talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - A Google search] for "Covenant Christian Coalition" excluding its website - ccc.on - and the subsidiary sites godsong.org and hehodos.com returns only 4 pages, and none of them is for a news outlet. That the CCC apparently lists an entire denomination and its membership as belonging to the CCC after even a single local congregation signs up means that it is trying to inflate its importance and influence. I would also note that several newly-created and single-purpose editors have been adding the CCC to the WP articles for the various denominations listed on the CCC membership page, which may mean a conflict of interest issue is also involved. Indyguy ( talk) 02:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Seems like there were several things going on here. First, POV issues in the original article. Second, StAnselm's concerns over notability. Third, some user(s) added links, perhaps indiscriminately. The first issue seems to be resolved. The second issue seems to be resolved insofar as necessary for an independent article (WP notability does not require news sources; it already had refs in several reliable/reviewed Christian directories and refs from books, church websites, and even the UN were added subsequent to the nomination for deletion). That may not satisfy StAnselm, but it is arguably enough for inclusion. Third, I think the links might be a C.O.I. and should probably be removed, but I'll stick with keep for the main article in question. Also, StAnselm and IndyGuy have made some assumptive claims that can't be proven without further investigation. The previous claim "the CCC apparently lists an entire denomination and its membership as belonging to the CCC after even a single local congregation signs up" is not true according to their website and bylaws. It adds denominations based merely on a test of doctrine, but churches and ministries are added by registering and are actual members independent of the denominational list. DavidStats ( talk) 04:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article as written is perpetuating a fraud on the encyclopedia. Extraordinary claims like "700 million members" require some independent referencing or notability. It's clearly not true that it represents some 1,479,414 local churches and approximately 704 million individuals. Based on the references, I'm not sure this exists as an organization beyond its website. There are a lot of SPAs voting here as well. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong keep - I read through all of this and have to side with keep. It's a real organization and plenty of sources were found after articles of deletion were added. Delete claims don't seem legitimate, just a POV issue, so fix the POV and add tags if necessary. Wiki rules very clearly discourage deletion of articles over POV disagreements. Clearly denominations don't join, but many churches apparently have. Their members are only Christian churches and ministries, but they endorse entire denominations apparently. Tech878 NN ( talk) 23:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete  Nothing on Google books or Google news, and Google web is Facebook and mirrors.  Manta reports, "We are a privately held company in New York, NY."  FaithStreet and GospelCoalition are church directories with self-published pages.  Whatever this is, it is at best a 2015 startup, one we can ignore (WP:SUSTAINED) until 2022.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train talk 12:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Serpentine: The Short Program

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

utterly Non notable short film. Fails NFILM and GNG. Was never generally released and even its out of theatre distribution is limited. John from Idegon ( talk) 13:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club

Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club (  | 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, esp WP:CORPDEPTH John from Idegon ( talk) 13:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure from all of this code what the concerns are, that might cause this page to be deleted. You cite WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH, and I've read those links, but I'm not sure how they apply to this page. We've worked hard to make sure this page for the Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club (UVARC) is put out on Wikipedia, and will be happy to do what we need to do, to keep it out there. We've taken notes from pages such as the South Jersey Radio Association to pattern this page after. Since UVARC is the largest amateur radio club in Utah, and one of the largest in the western US, we believe that fact alone to be notable. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojiratz ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

References need to be to reliable source coverage in media, not to the organization's own self-published content about itself or to routine databases which every organization that exists at all would always have an entry in. And per WP:ORGDEPTH, that coverage has to extend beyond the purely local. Bearcat ( talk) 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok, I see what you're saying, but not quite understanding it all, especially the self-references. Anyway, how can I get a copy of the original page code, so that we might keep it for when we can satisfy your requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojiratz ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. A Train talk 12:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Lucky Supermarket

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

Small chain of specialist groceries with 5 locations in 3 cities. Failing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Siarhey Balakhonau

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

It's very doubtful whether this person meets our notability requirements. The article is essentially unreferenced; it is sourced only to his personal website and a now-defunct blog. And I can find nothing substantial about him, his two books, or any of the magazines he's supposedly published in. In fact, sourcing is so scant that I almost thought I was dealing with an elaborate hoax article until I thought to search under the alternate spelling of Sergey Balakhonov. All I could find kind of verifies that he exists, but doesn't help the notability situation. Reyk YO! 12:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 12:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 12:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 12:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I concur with Reyk's findings. We can show this person exists perhaps, and that they've published a couple of books. But, just getting published does not make someone notable. There's nothing in this article to suggest anything that would pass WP:NAUTHOR. Further, there is no a single source in the article nor anywhere that I can find on the web that supports any notion of notability, except (again) that he exists. I am sensitive to the reality that non-English speaking/writing creative professionals are harder to find sources for, but there's just nothing to go on here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train talk 12:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

OxySure

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

Highly promotional article of a non-notable company that doesn't appear to pass GNG. Google and Google News check brings up a bit of WP:ROUTINE coverage, mostly revolving around its stock price, which is currently three-tenths of one U.S. penny. There are also a few stories about a 2015 FDA recall of one of its products. The article has references, but they are mostly press releases or from the company's own website:
1, 4, 9, and 14 are from the company's website.
2, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are all press releases.
3 is a page at the New York Times' website which states "News about OxySure Systems Inc., including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times." and then proceeds to list no articles.
5 is about the FDA recall.
6 is a transcript of an earnings call from the company CEO.
7 is a routine product announcement.
Egsan Bacon ( talk) 10:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G5. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Rajasthani Film Directors

Rajasthani Film Directors (  | 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:OR Chetsford ( talk) 10:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Train talk 12:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Johannes Wahlström

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

Falling WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Shrike ( talk) 10:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shrike ( talk) 10:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shrike ( talk) 10:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service. Simple google search came up with plenty of references to confirm notability. This articles subject is within WP:GNG. That the article needs a lot of work is not a reason for deletion. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Its only name drops as far as I checked.-- Shrike ( talk) 11:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Source in the article and sources posted by power~enwiki are insufficient to support a BLP. A Train talk 12:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Rabih Baroud

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

Has been lacking citations since 2016, with the only giving source stating his day and month of birth. Additionally doesnt appear notable as per WP:MUSICBIO Zocke1r ( talk) 09:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unless someone can come up with some very convincing RS in the next 7 days. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delte does not pass notability. Considering that some articles on actors have gone 10 years without a reliable source, I have to admit lacking a source since 2016 does not seem all that bad, which just goes to show how much work needs to be done on keeping only articles with sources. I invite people to help with the actor articles, there is a lot of work to do, and very little gets done. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep there are some Google News hits in English (largely about a song he's doing for a Bollywood film [12]), and also some pages in Arabic (such as [13]). I don't see any detailed biographical pieces on him. It's claimed that he had songs on The Official Lebanese Top 20, but that chart isn't listed at WP:CHART (nor are any Arabic-language charts, as far as I can tell). The article content needs improvement, and it's borderline from a notability point of view. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 09:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Daniel Fessler

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

Unremarkable person. Notability has not been established, even in the prior deletion discussion. This would fall under A7 for speedy deletion, but somehow this article survived a deletion discussion in 2010. Gamebuster (Talk)║ Contributions) 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 09:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Calma Carmona

Calma Carmona (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete. It was speedy-delete-tagged by User:89.154.149.145 for "It doesn't fulfill the criteria for singers and musicians on Wikipedia, and keeps containing personal promotion and advertising, without objective point of view" (and tagged {{Autobiography|date=December 2017}}, {{Advert|date=December 2017}}, {{Peacock|date=December 2017}}). Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 06:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 06:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 06:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep provided edits to the article corresponding with the inline requests are acceptable. The subject is clearly notable, and the quotations are from published sources, however the original article appears to have been created as a promotional bio. This article came to notice during the construction independently of an article on 'Derek Williams (musician)' currently in the 'Chrisdevelop' Sandbox in the context of the subject's connection with Calma Carmona as performer for the notable Whisky brand Glenfiddich to record a video ad with the notable Scottish Opera orchestra, that gained 1.7 million hits on YouTube. At that point, there were several flags already within the text of the article alerting editors to language, arguably self-promotional, that was not corroborated with appropriate citations. To save the article, the flagged quotations were either deleted if they could not be sourced, or verified with citations linking to the article where the author of the language could be identified and quoted. Chrisdevelop ( talk)
@ Anthony Appleyard: The article has now been edited to address the flagged issues (removal of extraneous weblinks, tightening up language and relocation of useful links to citations). Please provide feedback on whether the issues have been adequately addressed. The inserted notifications have been left in place pending feedback. Chrisdevelop ( talk)
  • @ 89.154.149.145:@ Anthony Appleyard:@ 86.17.222.157:@ Babymissfortune: Autobiography, Advert and Peacock flags, and the large number of external links appear to have been the original reasons for speedy deletion. Please provide feedback on whether the recent edits have satisfactorily addressed these issues. Seems odd to have a Speedy Delete for an article for which notability was already established by surviving the NPP, and there has been no subsequent input from the Speedy Deletion nominator. Chrisdevelop ( talk)
  • Very Weak Keep- The sourcing in the article is poor. Outside of the Vibe Magazine article, I don't think there's much to establish notability (everything else is eitheir not well-known or not reliable). However, I also found this NPR article [14]. With that there's barely enough for her to meet WP:NMUSICIAN #1 in my opinion.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks! Added. Chrisdevelop ( talk)
Also found and added another album released on AllMusic, Amor Millonario (2011). Have also added Apple Music songs, where there are quite a few more albums, and a list of Top Songs to the Discography. Chrisdevelop ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • However without this AfD discussion, the article would presumably have sunk without trace following speedy deletion. Chrisdevelop ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of institutes and colleges affiliated with Board of Intermediate Education Karachi

List of institutes and colleges affiliated with Board of Intermediate Education Karachi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We aren't record keepers. We never had list for college who are affiliated with CIE or IB. Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTMIRROR. Störm (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I'm also nominating the following related page because of above given reason:
List of institutes and colleges affiliated with University of Karachi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Störm (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Seager (radio presenter)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 07:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Danish (journalist)

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

We don't know his dob and last name. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Störm (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Two former sources are not reliable enough, and the latter one is not independent of the subject. -- Saqib ( talk) 04:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as already deleted by Seraphimblade as A7/G11. – Ammarpad ( talk) 16:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

A-MNEMONIC Music Productions

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional cruft on an non notable private business. The creator appears to think of Wikipedia is a company website for placing their promotional messages. I've requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1 - Withdrawn by nominator without any outstanding non-keep !votes. The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Andrew Tang

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Tang (  | 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 don't see WP:ANYBIO here at all, and there appears to be no SNG for chess players. WP:TOOSOON applies. John from Idegon ( talk) 07:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn - I failed to note the previous AfD, and altho I disagree with its outcome (There is nothing saying anywhere that just achieving the status of grandmaster ensures presumed notability), I'll respect the process. John from Idegon ( talk) 10:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Little Lives UK

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

promotional article for a very minor charity. The references mostly relate to a single instance of assistance. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Taylor Grey

Taylor Grey (  | 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 reliable source. Full of unreliable, non-independent sources like itunes and picture slide shows. Mar11 ( talk) 05:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 ( talk) 05:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mar11 ( talk) 05:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 ( talk) 05:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Naho Ozawa

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Kevin Draper

Kevin Draper (  | 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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Support consists of brief mention of article subject. reddogsix ( talk) 00:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I just went though and removed the hyped statements and the refs that did not support the claims. There's not much to say about Kevin Draper that is not already said in the Satellite collective article. What remains in the Draper article is all abotu the satellite collective. Changing to Delete. Satellite collective and draper articles are by same editor. 104.163.153.162 ( talk) 03:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge with Satalite Collective. theatrelover2467 ( talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

And also a sock puppet. Vote struck. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Mpumi (singer)

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encourages the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Stop rewarding the sockpuppets. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

College Potatoes Inc

College Potatoes Inc (  | 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 to meet WP:GNG , should be deleted. Elektricity ( talk) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Admirable scheme but does not fulfill notability requirements for an organization. Having been founded only two months ago, that is not surprising. ChenelleT, you may have to wait a couple years for third parties to talk and write about it before there can be a WP article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Nastee Nev

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encourages the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Stop rewarding the sockpuppets. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Da Capo Mogashoa

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encourages the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Stop rewarding the sockpuppets. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Formal Dude( talk) 12:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

2017 Perekrestok supermarket bombing

2017 Perekrestok supermarket bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 08:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Nick for “sockpuppetry and copyright problems”. I believe that’s speedy deletion per G5 and G12, respectively. ( non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Jhumur (TV Series)

Jhumur (TV Series) (  | 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 -- HindWiki Connect 02:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki Connect 02:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki Connect 02:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

United For Care

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

part of a promotional campaign for John Morgan. No notability in its own right, with most of the references being only mentions DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Jamie Treacher

Jamie Treacher (  | 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 non notable person was deprodded by IP with promise they will provide sources to demonstrate notability. I waited for a while to give the IP user a chance but nothing is forthcoming, confirming my earlier WP:BEFORE check, that the subject is not notable. Article claims of significance is only by namechecking his father's name who have another bare minimum biography but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED– Ammarpad ( talk) 01:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am less than convinced the role is significant, but since guidelines require multiple significant roles, I think we have nothing here. I have been going through articles on actors, and realized that we have far too many only based on directory listings with nothing substantive in them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I found two reviews for a couple of stage productions in which the subject played supporting roles. Appears to have done little else. Per nom, the subject is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor ( talk) 03:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 03:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A. F. James MacArthur

A. F. James MacArthur (  | 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 would appear to be a classic example of BLP1E. There is one event, widely reported, but no other notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. In an earlier era, an anti-police journalist may have been able to carve out sustained publicity, etc. But with pro-police Donald Trump in office and declining public trust in news media, I think he is just a blip on the public's radar. Knox490 ( talk) 01:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per DGG and TheGracefulSlick. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19 on January 2, 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Grange P-12 College

Grange P-12 College (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page sounds like a promotional piece written by someone close to the subject, a school in Hoppers Crossing (AU). Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Keep to Hoppers_Crossing,_Victoria#Education There was a break from previous consensus regarding notability of schools in February. Where the relevant point would be that secondary schools are no longer presumed to be notable simply because they exist. (See February 2017 RFC for more) Regarding sources - of the four in the current article three were written prior to the schools creation in 1993. Those may be reliable sources but they aren't coverage of the school. The other source is a report prepared for the school. Perhaps reliable. It's not evidence of notability when someone produces a report you've requested. Currently no independent coverage by reliable sources. Given the current sources and the little found in searching for more this school fails both GNG and WP:ORG. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab ( talk) 02:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Changed to keep given sources identified by Kb.au. Gab4gab ( talk) 02:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Regarding the above comment, the RfC last February said no such thing. The ONLY thing it said is that SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be used as the sole argument to keep in a deletion discussion. That's all. WP:NSCHOOL, which is part and parcel of ORG, states that meeting GNG is enough. It's a fair assumption that any school in a city of 150,000 is going to meet GNG, given enough digging. Your acknowledgement that there is enough to merit a redirect, IMO is tantamount to saying there is enough to keep. However, I do acknowledge that the journal source is a bit of a ruse, so I've struck part of my vote. John from Idegon ( talk) 10:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Your version of what it said is a bit off. Really it said almost exactly what I said. In addition it said not to use SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an argument (without your sole qualifier) at Afd. Your comment that a redirect implies a keep is a rather silly. Still we're all free to ignore the RFC and behave as if it never happened. To help you out here is the nutshell closing of the RFC:
Gab4gab ( talk) 12:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - we have a long standing consensus to keep such school articles (which the nominator, a relatively new user, may not be aware of), as evidenced by 1,000s of school AfD closures. I see no reason to delete this 10-year old article, well written, and no COPYVIOs. If the many regular and experienced editors who have contributed to it over the years have not seen fit to bring it to AfD, then I think it's not necessary now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I believe you are all correct. Beauty School Dropout ( talk) 10:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I didn't even see convincing statement from nominator for deletion and any promotional content can of course, be removed by anybody, any time. It is verifiable school and has some academic print sources which are not easily accessible. It needs cleanup and refimprove tag, although.– Ammarpad ( talk) 12:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Significant ongoing coverage in local paper Wyndham Weekly. Was covered in The Age in relation to a situation involving an affair with a student. Covered in the Herald Sun in relation to school funding. Covered in the Wyndham Leader, on ABC RN's Law Report, in The Age, and the Huffington Post in relation to employing an in-house lawyer. Received coverage from various Australian Indian-community media in relation to its Indian celebrations. Meets the notability bar for secondary schools. Quality of the article and state of its sourcing does not determine notability. Kb.au ( talk) 14:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_December_31&oldid=1142619400"

    Top Of Page

    Home • Search • Translate

    © CSE