Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Log 2017 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 27 March	29 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities

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

Personally, this feels like WP:SOAP. It doesn't really pass WP:GNG, with most of the sources coming straight from the association in question. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG/ Good example of WP:SOAP. SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:38, 29 March 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. as WP:G7.Deleted by Athaenara (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Tamil actors by caste and religion

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

Original research list that also has BLP implications. The list assigns living people to a religious caste and religious group by without providing any sources, and even if sources could be provided for some of the people involved, it would be extremely difficult to maintain without delving into OR that violates the spirit of BLP. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete categorizing or listing by cast is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia politicies. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete caste based articles can be offending and infringement of personality rights. M.K.Dan ( talk) 06:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ M.K.Dan: are you requesting as the page creator that the article be deleted? If so it would be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G7. TonyBallioni ( talk) 11:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ TonyBallioni:Yes, I had added the tag in the article already. M.K.Dan ( talk) 13:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Admin please close this AfD. Speedy deleted G7. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 23:22, 1 April 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) 22:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Peanut Butter (film)

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

I looked at all the references and external links. IMO none is WP:RS, all are WP:TABLOID. 16 non-WP:RS references doesn't cut it for me. Fails WP:NFILM. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Unremarkable Youtube film. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Fails WP:RS. Seems promotional to me. SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:47, 29 March 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) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Logan Ketterer

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by articles creator without providing a reason. – Michael ( talk) 21:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 21:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Couldn't figure out how to provide a reason. He is a player for the Crew and on roster. - Ron ( talk) 28 March 2017 (UTC)

He may be on the roster, but that's irrelevant. He has to play in a league match to meet NFOOTBALL. A U.S. open cup appearance between two fully pro clubs would meet the guideline as well. – Michael ( talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete From WP:NFOOTBALL: Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. While he has signed with a professional team, it is noted he has 0 appearance for said team, which means this WP:TOOSOON.
Delete has not yet played in a fully professional game. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Happy for the article to be userfied. Fenix down ( talk) 13:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and maybe WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:08, 3 April 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) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Story of toys

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

This is a student film that has been funded by indiegogo. I personally have problems with WP:COI, since the page was created by a WP:SPA. In my opinion it does not pass WP:GNG for films. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - A group of students made up a 'short story' and took the time to make a web page for it. Unfortunately for the students, it is not notable. - Pmedema ( talk) 23:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NFILM and WP:SELFPROMOTION. I hope the "bounding" students used a steady-cam. MarnetteD| Talk 00:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per what wikipedia is not, fails WP:NFILM. Maybe fails steady-cam. SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for kids who make films. Bearian ( talk) 01:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:12, 3 April 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) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryan Bernsten

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

Biography for a person well well below the notability bar. Reference show that he won prizes at school, has worked as a children's entertainer , an extra in a film production and currently a minor role in the film industry. The future at the Edinburgh Festival is in the future. Fails WP:GNG. Maybe just too soon, in which case an article in a few years might be welcome. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and qualifies for deletion under WP:SUSTAINED. One can be successful without being notable enough for an encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 19:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete While he is making a start as a playwright, he is not yet a significant one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:13, 3 April 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

National Association for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender People

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

The topic of the article does not really seem to be that notable. Additionally, it barely has 5 hits per day the last 90 days Kostas20142 ( talk) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep The nominator, Shawn in Montreal, has not provided any valid reason for deleting this article. "The topic of the article does not really seem to be that notable" is about as convincing as "I don't like it." Then he says it only gets 5 hits a day, which is not at all a ground for deletion. One problem is that it has a different name in its country than in English, butthe English name gets about 1100 Google hits. See [1] I looked through some of these but it is not immediately clear which of the foreign sources are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia terms. Edison ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: Shawn wasn't the nominator, he only did the deletion sorting : Noyster (talk), 11:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Article lacks independent reliable sources for notability, WP:Org Cllgbksr ( talk) 03:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep The organisation is praised by various sources as Norway's leading LGBT organisation. [2] [3] There's detailed coverage of some of its work in a book published by Routledge [4]. My Norwegian is very limited but it is mentioned many times in the Norwegian press e.g. Aftenposten [5]. An alternative to deletion would be merging to LGBT rights in Norway. But currently the arguments for deletion are very weak: mainly "There aren't any sources cited in the article" rather than "There aren't any sources anywhere". Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. Totally fails WP:GNG. Firstly, on Google, this article comes up straight-away. Secondly, the title does not mention Norwegian LGBT Peeps. It says, National, so that's misleading. Reads like WP:PROMOTIONAL SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Your "firstly" reasoning seems just a bit strained. If you google "Paris", "chimpanzee", and "quantum mechanics", the relevant Wikipedia articles come up first in the results every time. I assume you wouldn't recommend deleting those articles. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 04:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, couldn't have a more notable role in Norwegian minority rights history. Geschichte ( talk) 16:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep, a very important organization, especially historically. Searching for the older names of the organization gives many more search results than the very recently created name. For example, "Det norske forbundet av 1948" gives hits 317 hits in the National Library of Norway's database (as in 317 different books, newspapers and such), "Fellesrådet for homofile organisasjoner" gives 23 hits (including paper encyclopaedias and the Norwegian parliament), "LLH" is more challenging to search for, as other organizations also use that name, but combining LLH with relevant words gives 500+ hits in the database (including, for example, government studies and statements).

Simply Googling the current name (and criticizing said name) isn't enough to evaluate of an organization is notable or not, nor is the current state of the article. If it should be necessary to disambiguate the title, then "(Norway)" should be added at the end of the Wikipedia title, but I don't think that's necessary seeing there appears to only be one "National Association for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender People". Manxruler ( talk) 08:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Manxruler: On the contrary, if the name is moved to include Norway, then I'm fine with the keep. My point is, this is specific to Norway and should so state that. Just because there's no other group calling itself by this same name, doesn't mean there won't be in the future. This could be America, or Canada, or England, or France. Moving the page to include Norway, makes it relevant there. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Seems to be historically significant. If so, it's inevitably notable. More sources are needed, but I see no reason to delete. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 04:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - but I'd like to see the page move to same title and (Norway). Just because it's the only org with this title as far as we know, doesn't mean it always will be the only one. The sources need to be improved and there's no getting past that. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep and agree with preceding about the title. Searches more successful under the former initials LLH. Generally described as Norway's main national association in this sector: [6]. In-depth coverage in David Paternotte; Manon Tremblay (3 March 2016). The Ashgate Research Companion to Lesbian and Gay Activism. Taylor & Francis. pp. 239–. ISBN 978-1-317-04290-7. : Noyster (talk), 11:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Ufone. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Club Ufone

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

This social networking site was never notable. Now it is offline. I suggest to redirect to Ufone. GreenCricket (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 28 March 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 06:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Ionic Composite Lodge No. 520

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

Individual Masonic lodges , just like the local groups of other large organizations, are not notable. The refs are trivial. I would have listed it for speedy A7, but it's a declined prod. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. The article includes a section on the building shared by this lodge and others, the "Ionic Masonic Center" (as it is labelled on the building, seen in photo). The article has an NRHP infobox (it should have a more generic building infobox instead), but the building was built in 1850 apparently and at any rate it is not listed. The building can be mentioned in List of Masonic buildings in the United States#California; i will try to add something there now. -- do ncr am 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- According to the article, the building was built in 1950 (not 1850). So it isn't as if it were especially old. More importantly, since the building isn't on any historical register (such as the NRHP), then it does not meet the inclusion requirements for that list. I have removed it. Blueboar ( talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. I added/merged material about the building to List of Masonic buildings in the United States#California, where it is listed as "Ionic Masonic Center". This article about one of the Masonic groups which meets there is not needed. -- do ncr am 18:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - does not pass WP:ORG. Non-notable local chapter of notable parent org. Does not seem as if the building is particularly notable either. Blueboar ( talk) 19:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Jorja Smith

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

Notability not established. With no major news coverage outside of his hometown. His entire discography consists of a guest spot for one song (interlude does not count, as the two songs combine into one larger one) on someone else's album, which was not even a single. Kellymoat ( talk) 16:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Notability absolutely established. The user nominating for deletion has misgendered the artist repeatedly, has not looked at the substantial list of sources on an artist who is tipped by the BBC as one of the breakthrough acts of 2017. She also appears in two tracks on one of the most successful albums of this year. Presumably Kellymoat does not believe that the BBC, Billboard, Evening Standard, Guardian constitute 'news coverage outside of his hometown'??? This is a totally spurious deletion request and the article should be kept. Jwslubbock ( talk) 16:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep This is a really strange nomination, especially given the references provided, the nominator's inability to gender her correctly, and how close it is to the creation of the article. I am wondering, in fact, if the nominator has an agenda of some sort against the subject? Anyway, in terms of my reasoning to keep, I point to the substantial coverage via reliable sources such as BBC News ( [7]), DIY Magazine ( [8]), The Fader ( [9]), Music Week ( [10]), Clash ( [11] and [12]), The Evening Standard ( [13]), DIY again ( [14]), BillBoard ( [15]) and more. Many of these are dedicated profiles. Jorja has also been a credited artist (albeit a feature) on a UK Top 40 hit. She is also scheduled to headline a stage at Latitude Festival ( [16]). She's also had passing mentions in Metro, The Guardian and more. None of these publications are based in her hometown (Walsall, near Birmingham). I'm just really confused by this adamant nomination but she clearly meets WP:NMUSIC due to the wealth of coverage. Finally, she meets criteria #7 of WP:MUSICBIO too due to her features on BBC Radio 1 (e.g. [17] and [18]) in which she appeared as the focus of broadcasts. KaisaL ( talk) 16:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Per rational provided above. I think to say the nominator had some sort of "agenda" is a reach. I would argue (as someone who has been guilty of this myself) the nominator probably saw the name, didn't take the time to determine whether the singer was male or female, saw "2016-present" in the info box, and immediately went for CSD. The research done by Kaisal above is enough for me to believe this passes WP:MUSICBIO and should be kept. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC per the BBC interview. Don't think nom has an 'agenda,' Those comments are totally inappropriate here, and would best be stricken. Remember WP:AGF. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:14, 3 April 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. Already speedied G2. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 22:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Pamela: The Living Doll

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

A product with no assertion of notability. No references. The creator, Brandy the Strawberry, has done nothing except promote World of Wonders and their products. Justeditingtoday ( talk) 16:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Could be a Speedy G2. Seems like a test page. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:19, 3 April 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 . Materialscientist ( talk) 23:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Joel Promise

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY and no indication it passes WP:GNG in any way. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 13:14, 29 March 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Amy Schumer: The Leather Special

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

No reason for a one time 1 hour special to have its own page, its an unnecessary WP:CFORK - Galatz ^Talk 15:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 15:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

This one-hour special meets WP:GNG, based on what I see here in the Gnews results. I can't support deletion, as a solution, therefore. It is a bona fide example of Category:Stand-up comedy concert films, which expressly includes TV specials. Keep. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 28. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
When looking at whether or not a rule applies for if a Wikipedia article should be a candidate for deletion, I look at past occurrences for the same type of article. For this, I used George Carlin's HBO stand-up specials, which literally every single one of them got a respective article. Likewise, notability of this subject increases somewhat significantly when considering all of the heated controversy that has happened with this special and the alt-right. Keep. Agith ( talk) 01:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete Fails simplest standards and notability. Cllgbksr ( talk) 03:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- @ Cllgbksr: The series has been widely covered by many sources (see my keep vote for the exact sources); this article may be unfinished, but it does not need to be deleted. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - This show has been covered by LA Times, New York Times, and Huffington Post, among others. Amy Schumer herself responded to the criticism of the show on Instagram, claiming that the amount of one-star reviews she received came from "alt-right trolls", as covered in Fox News, Entertainment Weekly, Vanity Fair, and USA Today; these sources connected r/The_Donald to the Netflix rating bomb. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- @ Yoshiman6464: Having many RS cover her special do not make it as a stand alone topic notable. See WP:SPINOFF which clearly says its in the case when it would otherwise make the main article having undue weight. This is a subject that could easily be covered in a paragraph or two in her main article without any undue weight put on it. - Galatz ^Talk 14:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  - You're right. But if that's the case, why did you set out to delete instead of simply proposing a merge? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    - @ Shawn in Montreal: Based on what the article currently has I did not think it added anything to warrant merging. I stated that the points he made COULD BE covered in a paragraph or two, but I don't think the article in its current state does that. Outside of the information about the special itself, which is included on the main page, there are 4 sentences. I did not feel that warranted merging, however I would not object to that vote if you felt that the content should be merged in, just in my opinion this is delete not merge. - Galatz ^Talk 20:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
      - Yeah, sorry, you're contradicting yourself on that point, from what I can see. My !vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Very interesting to me to see how this article, like so many others, seems to be playing out as a battleground for US ideological issues. The stub was recently halved by an IP editor who claimed it was "weird" that an article would address "topical and political" issues. Which of course is not the case, especially if the reaction to a creative work or performance, and debate over it, is part of the notability. Wikipedia is not censored. I've restored that blanked section. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of non routine coverage of the show in nationwide U.S. sources.-- TM 14:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, Galatz, edits like this serve no purpose if you don't actually ensure that the Afd is listed on the discussion pages. I've now added them. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- Whoops good catch, my mistake. - Galatz ^Talk 13:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 06:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Snow? Stand-up specials regularly have their own pages (like different books by the same author; different films by the same director; etc.) and this has plenty of sourcing to sustain the entry (in fact to expand it--more information is available to present a fuller description of the content of the special, critical response, audience criticism, Schumer's response, etc.) I'm hard-pressed to see the argument for deletion. Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per GNG. I note the article has been more properly formatted and expanded since the AfD began, but the topic was still notable through extensive coverage and the article was well sourced even in its original form. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG. Many reliable sources for the special to have its own page. Mymis ( talk) 16:38, 31 March 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. We do not have any deletion rationale. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Chanida Phaengdara Potter

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

Reason Badgerswi96 ( talk) 15:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 28. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep There's enough external coverage to meet GNG, but it needs some cleanup. South Nashua ( talk) 17:25, 28 March 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) 22:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

DrComposer (Software)

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

Seems pretty close to WP:CSD#A7, but is ambiguous between a website and software, and probably isn't strictly unambiguous advertising. Not written for an encyclopaedia. Looks like a failure of WP:NOTGUIDE -- Krenair ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 14:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: Clearly non-notable software. KGirlTrucker81^{huh?
what I've been doing} 16:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: Agreed. Not much to discuss. — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 15:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Countries, country subdivisions and cities by GDP

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

This list should be deleted as it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is an excessive listing of statistics. It also fails WP:NOTDIR as it is a simple listing with no context. - KAP03(^{Talk •
Contributions •
Email}) 13:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Logically, I don't see how it can be an excessive listing of statistics and have basically no content. But yes there's really nothing there in the main body of the list. It appears as if the editor has given up? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. The comparison between countries, subdivisions (another problem: what's the definition?) and cities is meaningless, just not done in the real world. I could see separate lists of countries and cities, but not this unwieldy mess. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. As academic research, this is interesting. However, we have this stopper called WP:OR. We can't allow editors to use Wikipedia as their research pad. Now if this could be tied to secondary reporting of comparative research like this, we might have something. After all, sometimes we hear that "California has the 7th largest economy in the world" in some political discussions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk •
Work} 12:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank You very much for all the remarks and interesting points. I am a brand new Wikipedia editor and I am surprised by the very quick and professional reaction and comments. The article is in the process of creation / inputting based at my professional research. I hope my article will defend by himself because of his scientific professionalism , his innovation, contribution and by his new concept of the subject in the field of Economical Geography. I believe it will be removed soon from this “Articles for deletion”: category.

Re: “Steve is the man” – thank You for Your remark . This is my original professional research based on the current researches from reliable sources in the field economical geography so your argument that is WP:OR is not good. Re: “Clarityfiend” – thank you for your remark. I already improved a lot this article from your last talk entry and now is much mor tidy and not so messy it seems to be at the beginning. Re “Sawn in Montreal” thanks for your comment. You answered already to “KAP03” remark. Mariusok ( talk) 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Research based on reliable sources (what we call WP:SYNTHESIS) is still research, and Wikipedia doesn't provide space for that, and that's no matter how well-crafted you may make it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk •
Work} 14:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - we do not publish original research in any form and we are not a free web host for research; we are a tertiary source and a charity. Bearian ( talk) 01:12, 30 March 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. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Generation Snowflake

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

Wow I really don't know what to say. This article is just many reasons that Wikipedia is not taken seriously as a source. This article is complete trash just because many people have coined the phrase doesn't mean that it's the name of an actual generation or that it should have it's own article. The phrase is usually used by people who are actually so called "Snowflakes" calling others who don't agree with them "Snowflakes". This article should be Deleted I can't believe it's been nominated twice already it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It's not a real generation 10, 20 years down the road this isn't a term people will use. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep See Talk:Generation Snowflake/Archive 1#oh come on.... nominated for deletion, "and it survived that process with flying colours." at 09:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC), etc. The above merely repeats pov which has been discussed repeatedly, see Archives. Qexigator ( talk) 07:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It has not been resolved, there is no consensus that the current state of the article is acceptable, and the "survived with flying colours" is pure inflammatory rhetoric by an editor who has consistently displayed bad faith. MaxBrowne ( talk) 10:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Term ( Generation Snowflake) seems much used and sources are sound. WP: I don't like it is not a valid reason for deletion. Xxanthippe ( talk) 08:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC). reply
Delete Allsportsfan's "words fail me" reaction is entirely understandable. The same people keep popping up every time the article is nominated. The fact is the article was irredeemably biased from the beginning, and any attempts to remove that bias have been resisted. Even attempts to move it to Snowflake (slang) or Snowflake (pejorative) have been resisted; this would at least give the article a chance to be an article about a slang term rather than a "kids these days" attack piece. It needs WP:TNT. The sources are mostly garbage too, just trashy op-eds and polemic pieces. In particular the pieces by Michelle Malkin and a nobody called Eleanor Halls who writes fluff pieces for GQ should not be cited as sources. Let's sort this crap out once and for all, it is entirely unacceptable that the article should be retained in its current blatantly POV, unencyclopedic state. MaxBrowne ( talk) 10:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep The references included with the article include multiple reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage,and widespread use, satisfying general notability and WP:NEO. It was kept twice in recent months, and instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources continue to appear. Sorry if the term offends some editors. Wikipedia is not intended to be a safe space. Edison ( talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment. Maybe the article should contain a trigger warning to alert people of delicate disposition that it might cause offense to them? Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC). reply

I don't find it offensive I find it ridiculous because usually the people who use the term are actually so called Snowflakes themselves. Anyways it does not belong on wikipedia because it's a term that was made up by somebody and will lose it's meaning someday. It's not notable and the sources in the article are weak and opinion pieces. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Get that line from Breitbart did you? MaxBrowne ( talk) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I do not know what Breibart is. I find your edit summary offensive and WP:Uncivil. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC). reply

Too bad. It was a fair and accurate description of your comment. MaxBrowne ( talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep because this article was Kept at AfD in November 2016, and again in December 2016, it is far too soon for a do-over. Also, it passes WP:NEO with secondary WP:RS considering the origin and usage. A good deal of sentiment both in hits that pop up in searches and in these 3 COUNT THEM 3 AfDs in less than 6 months amount to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and I get why given that it is a pejorative. But do sources support notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

This is from the WP:NEO page: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Not to mention the sources are mostly opinion pieces that aren't reliable sources. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per prior discussions, and a gentle WP:TROUT for the nominator… — JFG ^talk 11:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep per above discussions. Jus da fax 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment the fact that the article has passed two previous Afd's does not alter the fact that it is a terrible article. This is why an editor who previously had no involvement came across the article and immediately, instinctively thought it should be deleted. It was conceived as a POV article to ridicule young people and attempts to alleviate this bias by getting rid of some of the crappier sources like GQ or moving it to a more neutral title like Snowflake (slang) have been resisted by the POV pushers. "Generation Snowflake" is not a common term but a meme that was pushed by a British provocateur named Claire Fox to sell her book, with the co-operation of compliant British media like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. The actual slang term that the article should be about is "Snowflake" as used in Fight Club. Wikipedia should not be doing Claire Fox's propaganda for her. MaxBrowne ( talk) 02:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I fact-checked your assertion that "'Generation Snowflake' is not a common term." here: [19] is the gNews search on snowflake + generation, ghits supports the idea that it is a common term. That said, your point about the article title is well taken. Here: [20] is a gNews search on snowflake. Clearly the more common use. After the article is kept, you can start a discussion on the talk page about moving to a more neutral title like Snowflake (slang). Cheers. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The other problem with the title is that it has become a pseudo-sociological article. This is a politicized insult, not a term used by sociologists to describe an age demographic like "baby boomers" or "the silent generation". Naturally, most of the sources that use the term "snowflake" in combination with "generation" will be sneering right wing op-ed pieces that ridicule millenials. Sources that discuss the term "snowflake" more neutrally will note its probable origin in "Fight Club" and discuss how the term evolved from criticism of parents who think their children are more unique and special than other children, to criticism of young people who grow up believing this (exemplified by people who claim to be "agender" or "gender fluid"), to criticism of college campus culture, and now a politicized insult used by Trump supporters to stereotype millennials or just liberals or protesters in general. A neutral article might provide a few op-ed links as examples, but they would not dominate the list of references, and it would definitely not link to poorly researched garbage like the GQ article. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

We can make the article clear that this is a pejorative and not a cohort/generation label. Frankly, it already is rather clear in the lead. But that does not mean we need to delete it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

There was already a recent page move discussion to move article to Snowflake (slang). The result was no consensus to move. [21]. This was contested at move review [22]but the result was endorsed. However, the move discussion result offered path forward which was to create a new article on snowflake slang (just changing the title isn't an easy fix because the current article is about generation snowflake) and once the new article is stable, start a discussion to merge generation snowflake article into snowflake (slang) article.-- DynaGirl ( talk) 04:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. After reading the article again and some of its sources, I have deduced that one characteristic of a Snowflake is that they find it intolerable that any idea that they disapprove of should receive public exposure. I am sure that there are no such people among Wikipedia editors. Xxanthippe ( talk) 08:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC). reply
Keep per nominator. Third nomination (last one in December), and not a single new argument. If this was a recreation of a deleted article it would be speedy deleted. Christian75 ( talk) 09:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment. This month – April – is the sixth in a row that the article has been nominated for/as something or another... deletion, move, NPOV, etc. I've had enough, now that personal attacks are produced automatically as part of the 'discussions'. Being ground down by this to the point of giving up is not how Wikipedia should operate. The more moderate editors have already silently dropped out from editing/commenting on the article. Now, I'm out too. EddieHugh ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ EddieHugh: Please don't leave. This discussion is clearly going to close as keep. When I run into this sort of animus on a topic (and it happens a lot) I back off for a while, or edit a little on a non-controversial topic that I happen to know something about (cf. gleaning). We need editors, and it would be a pity to let the sort of aggressive editors who have behaved badly here run the place. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Above opinion seconded. Just let it roll off your back. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC). reply

Thanks. I'm abandoning further discussion of and contributions to this article – it's not worth the aggravation – but I'm not leaving Wikipedia. EddieHugh ( talk) 09:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Procedural comment: IP user 2605:e000:300a:1500:dc1a:baeb:d4a9:77f9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a poorly formatted edit with the following in the edit summary: "keep it. the article answered my curiosity as to what the term meant in a WSJ article today.ar". Cnilep ( talk) 00:05, 5 April 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) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Kyriakos Gold

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG $Tushi Talk To Me$ 12:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: The "award" he is claimed to have won is an "Outstanding Community Service" award. Doesn't relate to being a journalist or broadcaster. Doesn't seem notable. bojo | talk 13:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete winner of a non-notable award. The article thus is also overly promotional, beyond no sign the subject is at all notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

delete blatant self promotion created by a single purpose editor. LibStar ( talk) 01:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:16, 3 April 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 G4 as a recreation of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most_viewed_kpop_music_videos. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

List of most viewed K-pop music videos

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

The article as it now stands is certainly "different" than the list previously deleted. New entries have been added and the list has grown. The problem, however, is exactly the same as that discussed at Talk:K-pop#RfC:_.22Is_a_most_viewed_list_from_several_sources_acceptable.3F.22: This article is synthesis. We do not have reliable sources stating which songs are #1, 2, 3, etc. SummerPhD^v2.0 12:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - as I said on the Talk page, this has gone from top 10 to top 50 to top 1000. Adding new content doesn't make it encyclopedic, it is just WP:INDISCRIMINATE Evaders99 ( talk) 20:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong delete per RFC and AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most_viewed_kpop_music_videos back in 2015. The "new" list doesn't address any of the notability issues, and goes even further into synthesis and original research, counting how many videos made the top 100 and grouping it by company. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete A clear-cut example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Whatever useful info within this list (if any) can be moved to the main K-pop article, if it's not already there. And I'm not inclined to look. freshacconci (✉) 02:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete under CSD clause G4 - recreation of an article previously deleted during discussion. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:48, 30 March 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Pangasinan Solid North Transit, Inc.

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

No notable bus company. This reads like a company brochure thus is pure advertising. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 11:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete under CSD G4 : This article was deleted 4 months ago, and it looks to just be a rehash. bojo | talk 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- @ Bojo1498: In the previous discussion, it was soft deleted. I've declined the speedy deletion nomination. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: It seems that not much has changed since it was last deleted, and it still seems to not be demonstrably notable enough to warrant an article. bojo | talk 13:07, 31 March 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Dato' G. Raja Gopal, FRGS

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Google and google news searches didn't turn up anything promising. Siuenti ( talk) 11:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Siuenti reply

Delete: I surfed across the web, searchin' far and wide, but also could not find more than a few passing mentions on blogs and a list of principals of this secondary school. I'd additionally consider WP:TNT for this puffy machine translation. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 18:36, 28 March 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. Likely a hoax. Taesulkim ( talk · contribs) seems to be here only to spam links to this website. Deleted and user indefinitely blocked. Sandstein 10:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

International Handbook of Universities

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

Was deprodded without rational or improvement. This is a handbook published by UNESCO, not an organization. As a handbook, no indication it is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. The .vg citations bother me. UNESCO's web site is UNESCO.org. I could not find any link to unesco.vg from UNESCO.org, and there are indications that unesco.vg is not a safe web site. I think this is a hoax, possibly to promote an intentionally harmful web site. This is the information on the real UNESCO web site about International Handbook of Universities, stating that the real IHU (I doubt this is the same publication) is NOT a UNESCO publication and not associated with UNESCO - they merely have a copy in their library. The British Virgin Islands National Commission for UNESCO has a page at http://www.bvi.gov.vg/departments/bvi-national-commission-unesco which does not mention unesco.vg. The phone number in the whois lookup for the web site is a Miami, Florida number (phone number for a company that registers international domain names), whereas the phone number for the real BVI National Commission for UNESCO has a British Virgin Islands number. With the only references being this dubious web site, verifiability is lacking. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 03:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Do not Delete.

The site is not harmfull, it offers International Handbook of Universities free access. Also found on Google APP store, with all publications for free ^[1] Taesulkim ( talk) 20:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete- Weirdly promotional tone, badly sourced, and the research done by Jacknstock makes me wonder if this is even legitimate. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 6 April 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. Puff piece for non-notable book. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Solve for Happy: Engineer Your Path to Joy

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

Non-notable book, it was only published less than a week ago. Basically an advertisement/puff piece for the book that reposts its blurb. At best it is far too soon to show that the book is notable. Mabalu ( talk) 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete – does not meet WP:NBOOK at this time. Author has no article so a redirect is implausible.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: The book blurb in the reception section wouldn't be able to give notability for two reasons. The first is that the book's author works for Google and as such, anything written by them or their employees would be seen as a WP:PRIMARY source because it's in their best interests to say nice things about their own employees as it makes them look better. The second is that book blurbs are just short statements that are solicited by the author and/or publisher and are intended to be placed on the book jacket or publicity material to boost sales. Books just plain sell better with endorsements and the thing about these blurbs is that they're not part of a longer review and are just a sentence (or two if they're especially lengthy) written explicitly to promote the work at hand. So far I'm not finding anything, but I'll try searching a few more databases before making a final decision. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. Those other database searches didn't take long because there's just nothing out there. I found a mention here, where the author was supposed to talk at an event, but it doesn't seem like any further publicity came from that appearance. It might gain more coverage in the future as this work was released about a week ago, but right now it's just too soon for an article. I have no objection to recreation if/when those sources come about. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: Here are some sources about the subject:
1. McMahon, Barbara (2017-03-28). "The man who invented a happiness algorithm - and learnt to cope with his son's sudden death - Mo Gawdat thought he had unearthed the secret of unalloyed joy. Then his child died and his theory was sorely tested, he tells Barbara McMahon". The Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Solve for Happy: Engineer Your Path to Joy was written in the months after the tragedy. The Google executive acknowledges that a book about happiness might seem an unlikely subject for a bereaved father to take on, but it sets out the research that Gawdat carried out over 15 years and that helped him, his wife, Nibal, and daughter, Aya, to deal with their loss.
  ...
  It was this discovery, which he calls "committed acceptance", that helped him to deal with the death of his first-born in 2014. His son Ali had been studying at college in Boston, but decided unexpectedly - he had been planning to go travelling - to come home to Dubai for a holiday. Four days later he complained of a stomach ache and was admitted to hospital for a routine appendectomy. While he was on the operating table a needle punctured his femoral artery, one of the most important vessels carrying blood to the heart. "Within a few hours my beloved son was gone," Gawdat writes in his book.
  ...
  Seventeen days later he sat down and wrote Solve for Happy. The words poured out, he says, because it is also a tribute to his son, whom he describes as "a role model for peacefulness, happiness and kindness".
2. Shaffi, Sarah (2015-04-28). "Bluebird buys happiness book by Google's Mo". The Bookseller. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Pan Macmillan has pre-empted a book by the v.p. of business innovation at Google [X], the company behind Google Glass and the self-driving car.
  Carole Tonkinson bought UK and Commonwealth rights to Solve For Happy: Engineering Your Path to Uncovering the Joy Inside by Mo Gawdat, who likes to be known only as "Mo", from Julian Alexander at Lucas Alexander Whitley acting on behalf of Michael V Carlisle at InkWell Management.
  ...
  Solve For Happy aims to explain the logic behind happiness and the rigorous process everyone can apply to find it. Seventeen days after the death of his son Ali, Mo decided to share with the world how he applied his engineering expertise and creative problem-solving skills to find an algorithm for lasting happiness: an equation that can actually deliver joy.
3. Deahl, Rachel (2015-04-16). "London Book Fair 2015: The Buzz Books of the Show". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  On the nonfiction front, Mo Gawdat's Solve for Happy, sold in a number of major deals at the fair. The book, which we initially reported on in this year's London Briefcase, was preempted, in a six-figure deal, by Scribner's Rick Horgan.
4. Deahl, Rachel; Swanson, Clare (2015-03-27). "London Briefcase 2015: What U.S. Agencies Will be Selling". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Among Inkwell’s notable titles in London is Mo Gawdat’s Solve for Happy (on submission in the U.S.), which explores, the agency says, “how we fit in the world.” Gawdat has worked at Google since 2007 and, in 2013, joined Google X, a somewhat secretive division of the company focused on technological innovation. (At Google X, Inkwell noted, Gawdat worked on something called Project Loon, an effort to use high-altitude balloons to bring affordable Internet access to billions of people.) In the book, Gawdat will map out, using his background as an engineer and “humanist,” the steps he’s taken “and that anyone can take, to enrich their lives.”
5. Maughan, Shannon (2017-02-03). "Spring 2017 Audio Announcements". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Solve for Happy by Mo Gawdat (Mar., unabridged CD, $29.99, ISBN 978-1-5082-2799-1). Gawdat proposes an equation based on an understanding of how the brain takes in and processes joy and sadness. Then he solves for happy.
This is likely not enough to establish notability for the book yet. However, the book's author, Mo Gawdat, is notable based on the articles about him such as The Times article I linked above. If an article for Mo Gawdat were to be created, this book article could be merged to his article.
Cunard ( talk) 04:45, 2 April 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. Per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Caroaebe River

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

Non-notability GetSomeUtah ( talk) 09:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: It's a river that is verified to exist. Per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. SL93 ( talk) 23:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have notified the page creator of this discussion. SL93 ( talk) 23:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Geographic entities such as rivers are held to be notable. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: I strongly believe in Wikipedia's goal of being a gazetteer per WP:5P, and so I agree with the rather loose requirements laid out by WP:GEOLAND for named natural features. However, despite what's stated above, there is no presumed notability for named features on a map: GEOLAND requires that "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" for named natural features, and "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." The only source given is a map, which sure enough has the "Rio Caroaebe" on it - so its verified, but that's only enough to ensure its place within the List of rivers of Roraima article. My searches have turned up nothing but wikimirrors (and confirmation from NGA GeoNames that this is a recognized name), so I'm not convinced this is deserving of a stand-alone article as yet. I'm not voting delete, however, since I don't believe that I am able to do a thorough search given my limitation to online sources and my inability to speak Portuguese. Also, because deep down, I hope for the article to be kept. Antepenultimate ( talk) 01:25, 2 April 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Royal Free and University College Medical School Boat Club

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

Non-notable school club. Prodded soon after creation almost 10 years ago, deprodded by creator, has survived since - time to clean it up. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete, as there's nothing that suggests that WP:GNG is met. Schwede 66 08:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The Abakanowicz Art Room

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. " It was deprodded by User:Kontrola (creator). The topic of this is unclear, but the subject seems to be either an artwork, or a digital application/publication about one, or both. In either case, the coverage of the work (few online mentions) does not seem to make it pass WP:GNG. Whatever this is, it is not notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep I would say that it is the first publication in art and art room of polish painter. Magdalena Abakanowicz is one of the most influential polish artist of all times. It is a shame to delete the pieces which show the level of art from Poland. Kontrola ( talk) 22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete I see no independent, reliable sources. Magdalena Abakanowicz is undoubtedly notable, but a mobile app, created for an exhibition of her work, is not; unless it receives extensive coverage. That the app is the first app to be created with "Straight eye technology" might be interesting if it was explained what that was. I find no mentions of it anywhere, and expect that if it was new an notable, I would be able to find a mention somewhere. Mduvekot ( talk) 21:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Lot of information was published about this theme on local newspapers, TV News (TVP Poland), and Facebook (exhibition in New York City). Kontrola ( talk) 01:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Then add references to those sources. You need to demonstrate notability, not merely assert it. You can skip Facebook, not a reliable source. Mduvekot ( talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

If it really was important, the odds are good it would be at least mentioned in her Polish article, not to mention have its own article on pl wiki. Yet I don't see this work even mentioned in pl:Magdalena Abakanowicz... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom, and discussion above. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete simply not a notable thing. The painter, yes. A newly created VR app without adequate coverage in reliable source? No. 104.163.140.228 ( talk) 03:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The keep comment has made no policy- or guideline-based argument. Kurykh ( talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

René Patrick Burakowski

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kontrola (creator) with the following rationale "additional info". Sadly, the two external links added are not doing much to convince me my original assessment was wrong. This individual exists, but I do not see how he meets our notability criteria, the coverage is passing, not in-depth, and of poor reliability. This looks pretty close to WP:VANITY/ WP:COI paid-editing, I am afraid - so I'd like to ask User:Kontrola if they have any COI to disclose here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom. It all seems sketchy to me. Looks like something along the lines of WP:SOAP to me. Also as Piotr says, User:Kontrola needs to state if they have any WP:COI. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
KeepWhy You do not want to delete polish stubs e.g. [23] ? Becasue this man is working for a small countries, villages and gave a hand to simply people? He created in Northern Poland a new opportunity for horse sport. Kontrola ( talk) 01:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Plus the article you link shows subject getting coverage in New York Times, etc. This is a totally bogus comparison. (Also in Poland Kulczyk is a much more famous name, millionaire-celebrity-wise, than Burakowski, hence the difference in coverage, not to mention René Patrick Burakowski doesn't even have an article on pl wiki... a big red flag, too.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
  reply here} 04:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  - [24] - It's about his activity pl-wikipedia Kontrola ( talk) 08:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    - I don't see his name mentioned there and in any case, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
      reply here} 07:48, 3 April 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 Devanagari transliteration. Exact merge target and scope can be determined in a separate discussion on the talk page but there is no reason to delete this article completely. So Why 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Romanagari

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

Suggesting deletion since original research and promotional purpose without any citation.IMO Other articles are already available on en wikipedia to take care of essential aspects of this article.

Mahitgar ( talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge to Devanagari#Transliteration Mostly unsourced WP:OR with doubtful independent notability. Searches turn up primarily non WP:RS with the occasional academic proposal (no completed studies, apparently). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Very selective merge to Devanagari transliteration; there don't appear to be any references, but some of the information may be useful. I note that User:Pare Mo suggested this merge in April 2016, but no discussion came from it. 'Devanagari transliteration' may need better sources, but it does have 21 footnotes and a mess of external links. Merging to Devanagari might make the section unbalanced. Cnilep ( talk) 03:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: It seems some one else earlier tried to nominate article for deletion but some one else removed that notice without citing any reason.

Mahitgar ( talk) 14:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

In principle anyone who objects to deletion can remove a {{ Proposed deletion}} tag. The {{ Article for deletion}} tag initiates a discussion like this one, and it should not be removed until the discussion runs its course. But of course best practice is to provide at least an edit summary when removing a PROD. The editor who removed that one appears to be an indefinitely blocked sock puppet. Cnilep ( talk) 01:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak delete. While Google just gives <1000 hits, I notice the term is used in some books decades old ( [25]). Few low quality hits on Google Scholar ( [26]). News coverage at [27], through that newspaper is hardly quality. I am not sure if this is a notable concept, two notable topics merged into one, or just some (sic!) noise, since I am not a linguist. However, given the pre-Internet reference, the article claims "a slang word coined by bloggers", and the general poorly referenced state of the article, I think this may require WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 06:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 28 March 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) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Maurizio Bragagni

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

Non-notable businessman. The FT article is the best coverage there is, but the subject of that is more the EMBA than about Bragagni's life. Other than that, the coverage is either very brief e.g. [28] or not in RS e.g. [29]. SmartSE ( talk) 08:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not seeing anything here that would make him pass WP:BIO. Some mentions in passing, etc. Not enough IMHO. Created by WP:SPA, likely a vanity paid-for COI article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. FT article reads like a vanity piece, nothing in-depth. I'm sure he's well known in his circle, but agree with Prokonsu, this is likely paid-for COI article. We don't need more of those. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - can't find reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 3 April 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Marek Ronowski

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kontrola (creator) with the rather misleading edit summary " correction". I stand by my original rationale. The subject seems like a very low visibility artist, no News/Books/Scholar mentions, ~500 Google mentions total. Not all artists are notable, and this one seems a pretty bad failure at meeting WP:CREATIVE. This looks pretty close to WP:VANITY/ WP:COI paid-editing, I am afraid - so I'd like to ask User:Kontrola if they have any COI to disclose here? PS. In either case, I do appreciate that the artist licensed a number of his works under a free license, but we have to remember that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of individuals. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - It seems that he doesn't have a online presence that would sufficiently prove notability and pass good old WP:GNG. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Chciałbym powiedzieć : Brawo! do moich przedmówców. W rzeczy samej obaj Panowie jesteście Polakami - w związku z powyższym pozwolę sobie napisać swój komentarz w j. polskim. Krótko: Skasujcie wszystkich żyjących Polaków, którzy cokolwiek robią na arenie międzynarodowej za życia. Są skromni, ale doceniani. Nikt ich nie sponsoruje i nie mają szans na jakiekolwiek finansowe sukcesy. Nikt o nich nie pisze, bo źródła to np. niskonakładowe wydawnictwa galeryjne, ale Wy macie władze - znacie doskonale j. angielski i pracujecie na sukces polskiej kultury, nauki i techniki poza granicami naszego kraju. Tu nie chodzi o promocje, tu chodzi o proste informacje o człowieku i jego twórczości. Jestem członkiem stowarzyszenia Wikimedia, przygotowałem program wsparcia polskich i międzynarodowych twórców, których znam i mam dostęp do materiałów źródłowych, realizuje to bezpłatnie. POMAGAM i co zawsze jest jakiś problem... najpierw nie było np. OTRS (dokumenty podpisane), później licencja O, ok, to teraz co zostało - usunąć. Brawo... Z wyrazami szacunku: Jarosław Pijarowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontrola ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

For the sake of this being the english speaking wikipedia - I will loosely translate. Enjoy - "Congratulations! to the people who I now write after. Since you are both Polish, I will reply using Polish. Shortly: Delete every living Pole, that has done something abroard in their life. They are modest, but appreciated. No one sponsors them, and they have no chance for any financial success. No-one writes about them, because the other sources are small circulation gallery magazines. You have the power - you know perfectly the English language and work for the success of polish culture, science and technology beyond our borders. This isn't about promotion, this is about information about a person and their creations. I am a memeber of the Wikimedia foundation, and I have prepared a programme of supporting Polish and international artists, who I know and I have access to primary sources, I do this free of charge. I HELP and there is always an issue... first there was no OTRS, then the licence and now what remains - delete. Congratulations! With best wishes, J. P." Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Transaltion of my post in the end ought to have correction. EVERY ARTICLE which I illustrated has an OTRS, or special permission from me (my own work). Kontrola ( talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia cannot serve as a vehicle for promotion, see also WP:NOBLE. English Wikipedia has stricter inclusion criteria than Polish, and if the subjects aren't meeting WP:CREATIVE, well, why should we bend the rules? Because they are Polish? Sorry, this does not compute. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG Thanks to @ Nicnote: for the translation. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:24, 5 April 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

List of streets in Oslo

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

WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No apparent list criteria except possibly a list of every single street name in the city. Only a handful of list entries have articles. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Category:Streets in Oslo is sufficient unless some additional organization/info can be added. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep There are notable streets, as you'd expect for a capital city. Improving the organisation of the list is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. The existence of the category indicates the validity of the list per WP:CLN. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per Andrew D. Pruning to only those streets that have articles or merit them is an issue for normal editing to address. postdlf ( talk) 00:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- With only 20 or so entries with articles, this article is neither encyclopedic nor useful for navigation. I don't see how pruning adds any value to it. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  - I've never even seen anyone claim that "20 or so" is somehow not enough articles to merit indexing in a list. Instead the debate is commonly whether three or five are enough to pass a minimum utility threshold. postdlf ( talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    - Without looking into each list entry with an article we don't even know if any of the streets even meet the notability requirements. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
      - We don't err on the side of deletion. If any of those articles shouldn't exist, that's for other AFDs to determine. So long as those articles do exist, we should list them. And I don't find it plausible that there are no notable streets in the thousand year-old capital of a European country. postdlf ( talk) 14:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete, perfect category material. Geschichte ( talk) 13:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
- And a category already exists. You've not made any argument or comment regarding this list. postdlf ( talk) 14:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  - Why do we need a list article if a category exists? Or vice versa? Ajf773 ( talk) 09:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    - Andrew D already addressed that above, but I see you're not yet familiar with the guideline he cited. postdlf ( talk) 16:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete -- unneeded as the existing category takes good care of this. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete unencyclopedic. Prevan ( talk) 02:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:LISTN; no indication that this topic, "streets in Oslo", has been covered as such in reliable sources. Sandstein 08:49, 5 April 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) 22:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

ACFR conductor

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

No references, and so no assertion of notability. Does not explain how it is notable compared to other conductors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not seeing how it passes WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete I did not find sufficient instances of significant coverage in secondary sources. Mostly one sees it for sale or listed in directories of cable types. Edison ( talk) 21:45, 28 March 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) 22:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Tran Siu

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

A contested prod. Seems to clearly fail Wikipedia:POLITICIAN as a ward councilor. Mattlore ( talk) 05:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. WP:TOOSOON, indeed not a notable politician yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 00:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete, elected local councillors for suburban LGAs are typically not considered to be automatically notable for Wikipedia purposes ( WP:POLITICIAN). Where there is some other compelling notability an exception can be made, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case here. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 13:01, 31 March 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. Editors can figure out a redirect target later if they want to. Sandstein 06:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Neurotronics

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

This appears to be a synthesis from primary sources. Guy ( Help!) 19:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Neuromorphic engineering. I can't find any mention of the term "neurotronics" apart from a dozen companies who presumably think that this is a way cool name, dude. Article appears to be an original synthesis including coinage of umbrella term.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sounds like a WP:HOAX article. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per WP:CHEAP and WP:FORK. Bearian ( talk) 16:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't know if this is a hoax, but it sure looks like original research and/or synthesis. As for redirecting, here's a short list of where the term is already being used on Wikipedia -- Search Results. One of those pages is linking to the instant article, but apparently thinks it's an article on a particular company. Other pages have little or nothing to do with neural engineering. I don't see redirecting as a viable option here. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 10:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Agree, I must have been thinking round a corner there - the content would be suited for redirection, but the title would make for a confusing redirect name (if we consider it a coinage). So, delete.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect to OpenXDF#History, where the Neurotronics, the company, is mentioned as the developer of the OpenXDF data standard. I agree that this article is OR and that neurotronics as a search term for neuromorphic engineering is not compelling. But the company is a real entity and is somewhat notable for initially developing the openXDF standard. I don't know if the company itself is standalone notable, but it's role is verifiable and makes it a plausible search term for a redirect. -- Mark viking ( talk) 17:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect or Merge with Neural engineering or something related to it. also, agree to Elmidae. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 08:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect or Merge: not a hoax topic, but we don't need a different article for each neologism that's coined whenever somebody reinvents that wheel. Should redirect to a relevant scientific topic, not the company. — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 13:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is to delete or redirect, but three different targets have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:53, 28 March 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) 22:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Studio.co.uk

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

The company has not been subject to substantial coverage from reliable sources. Lacks notability and fails WP:CORP. ℯ xplicit 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect to Findel plc which already has adequate summary coverage: "Express Gifts operates through a number of brands, studio.co.uk, ace.co.uk, HalfCost, Health & Home Shopping and Webb Ivory Fundraising." This article was authored by a user account blocked for promotional editing, and I am seeing no substantial independent coverage of this particular branded site: fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:44, 28 March 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Migration Policy Institute

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

WP:PROD removed by an IP. This article has never cited any independent sources to establish notability. Guy ( Help!) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Editors have provided some independent sources below, but to respond to the nomination for deletion, they should be added to the article itself.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 00:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per above Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 16:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep As per coverage in reliable sources NYTimes, San Diego Tribune, and LA Times. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep MacArthur Foundation calls it notable. Good enough for me https://www.macfound.org/grantees/535/ Rogermx ( talk) 15:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. WP:NCORP is not as friendly for NGOs as it should be, but its publications and researchers seem widely cited (many cites in books, GNews). Those kind of institutions are about as notable as similarly not-well-covered by GNG middle-level government agencies and such. I lean towards keeping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep Needs independent references, which I will soon supply. Immigration is a hot topic, but we need factual information from academics and think-tanks.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 00:41, 2 April 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. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Elucid Magazine

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

the magazine fails WP:GNG. No in-depth third-party sources could be found about the subject. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 10:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, the magazine has been involved in multiple notable events. It's also referenced in notable publications and Oluwa2Chainz has nominated this for deletion only a few mins after it was created. Karl Twist ( talk) 10:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you give me valid reasons why you think the magazine passes WP:GNG? This search brings up 0 result about the subject. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 12:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Reply to Oluwa2Chainz. Quote - "Can you give me valid reasons why you think the magazine passes WP:GNG?" - Well, the magazine has been involved in some major events both in supporting and covering. In 2013, the magazine covered the Young Designers Rooftop Runway Fashion Show, which was held at the Sky Room Rooftop Lounge at Times Square. * Later that year the magazine had a major role y being instrumental in supporting the Masquerade Art Gala, an event to raise money and awareness for the Freedom Ladder organization which has a role in fighting against the sex trafficking of children etc etc etc. Then there's the mag hosting the Miss Nepal US 2015 fundraiser which was held at the New York Society for Ethical Culture building in NY. * In Sept 2015 they were in partnership with the World Fashion Parade, an event showcasing designs from around the world. The event was The Fashion for Peace show was to promote world peace. They even showcased famous designer Bata Spasojevic's wares. *, * And there's much more which I will talk about later.
quote: - " This search brings up 0 result about the subject." - Yes I know. Same thing for Elvis Presley [30] brings up 0 results as does New York Times - [31]. Maybe broken. ??? Karl Twist ( talk) 10:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. At the time I look at this, there are 13 references. I clicked through 7 of them, and they are all passing mentions (3 others would not load in my browser or were not legible). That is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I read Karl Twist's comment above, and it's very much in line, actually. Seems this magazine has gotten mentioned a variety of times for it's affiliation with various random events, and there are various websites which list or discuss people who have some affiliation with the magazine. But so far no one has provided substantive, independent coverage of the article topic itself. Martinp ( talk) 03:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak delete. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). I don't see how this magazine fits it. We are not a catalog of magazines or newspapers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Reply to Priotrus post 07:50, 28 March 2017. Yes Wikipedia is not about cataloging magazines, it's about info which is notable. The fact that this magazine has been able to work with famed designer Bata Spasojević, well known singer and model Radmila Lolly, hosted the Miss Nepal fundraiser as well as being involved with another event in relation to the May 2015 Nepal earthquake, it has attracted attention. It has a following in India and is now written about in Serbian media. It is quite involved in the fashion scene in New York as well. Karl Twist ( talk) 10:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. We seem to agree that this encompasses several potentially notable topics and that the previous essay wasn't a good way to cover them. There's no agreement, though, about whether to let the now-stubified article stand as it is. Perhaps an editorial solution will appear in time. Sandstein 07:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Law without the state

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

This has been tagged as OR since it was written. It appears to have been cut form whole cloth by an account that looks on the face of it like a shared account for a class project, hence the fact that it looks like a term paper. Guy ( Help!) 13:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ The article appears to be exactly as Guy characterizes it above. It was written by user GradInstLWOTSclass2014 ( talk · contribs), who was only active on Wikipedia for a week, two years ago, right at the end of Fall semester 2014. The creator's chosen handle GradInstLWOTSclass2014 (LWOTS: "Law With Out The State"; it doesn't get any more WP:SPA than that) and the nature of the content makes it very clear it's a term paper consisting almost entirely of original research and opinion.

That being said, there probably is some interesting topic, the concept of law in a region in the absence of a formal government, somewhere at the heart of it. For example, the Oklahoma panhandle was in such a state from 1845, when Texas ceded the territory to avoid having to give up slavery, until 1890, when Congress formally made it part of the Oklahoma Territory. In the meantime, for those decades where it was part of the US, but with no form of government, the residents made up their own, and it's actually pretty fascinating. There are likely other similar instances in history. The general topic of law without a formal government is probably worth having an article on, if it can be found to be properly addressed in pre-existing reliable sources. But this is not that article. TJRC ( talk) 23:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note; as discussed more fully below, I now think something is salvageable here, so I'm striking my "Delete". There's probably a better course than deletion. TJRC ( talk) 22:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment parts of this might be salvageable. The section on "History and origins in Europe" is pretty decent, talking about the decentralized nature of law in Europe prior to the development of the modern nation-state. On the other hand, the section beginning with "The internal and the external point of view" and going through "Paradigms in law" seems to be chock full of OR, and not written in an encyclopedic manner. Phrasing section headings as questions seems especially egregious to me. The modern examples the author chooses (international arbitration and EBay) don't necessarily seem like good examples of what the piece is arguing - but that right there indicates this is not a suitable WP article as an encyclopedia article shouldn't be arguing anything. The piece seems well researched, with good sources, but ultimately it's not an encyclopedia article. Moreover, I'm not convinced that "Law without the state" is the best title for an encyclopedic article about extra-governmental norms. There is such a thing as the Stateless law theory, which might be what this article is trying to be. I'm torn between wanting to have this deleted as it is not an appropriate article, and wanting this kept as there is some good material here for an article on stateless law theory. If I thought I or someone else would get around to completely rewriting it I'd !vote to move it to draft space, but the fact of the matter is that it needs a complete re-write and I don't feel like tackling that. ~~So I guess, reluctant delete.~~ ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 22:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

What would you think of stubbing it down to just a couple of accurate, encyclopedic lines, and noting on the talk page that the prior version, while not an encyclopedic article, may potentially be mined for further expansion? TJRC ( talk) 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

That's not a bad idea; reducing it to a stub with a note that previous revisions are ripe for mining. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I've reduced it to a stub; little more than a dic-def. I included some of the sources from the prior version as well as a couple I found myself. I guess now I would say keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 15:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

My immediate reaction on seeing the title was that this was some sort of class project. It's a twist on "This is the State above the Law. The State exists for the State alone." Kipling, A Death-Bed, 1918. I've never heard of "law without the state" before, and am voting delete as WP:OR. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. That poem is now written up: " A Death-Bed". Narky Blert ( talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss ONUicorn's edits and new sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. GBooks hits: 80k for Law without the state, but many are misleading (parts of sentences -> "...law. Without state...", etc.); 8 for transnational stateless law, 27 for private legal orderings. There is something out there, but I am not well versed in legal issues to even confirm they refer to the same concept. I am not sure how much of the gutting from [32] to the current stub is justified, but I am not prepared to spend 1-2h researching this, so from a cursory glance I'll abstain. Hopefully a legal expert who is more capable of commenting on this will eventually take a look at this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- @ ONUnicorn: do you think this is encyclopedic? What you have written seems to pass V, RS, NPOV, NOR, and if you thought the topic belongs, I'd certainly be in favor of keeping. Smmurphy^(
  Talk) 17:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Smurphy: I do think the topic is encyclopedic; but I'm not entirely sure about handling it at this title or in this format. I think the original article was trying to blend several different ideas together and create a unified theory in a way that I'm not sure is really done much in academic literature. I think the stub I've reduced it to is basically saying, "This could mean X, Y, or Z" which sounds more like a dab page. I can see developing this into an article with 4 sections, one for each of the last 4 sentences in the stub I made. On the other hand, I can see individual articles about each of those 4 sections (and indeed, we already have articles on customary law and a whole series on law in medieval Europe - we're missing 2 things: 1. a description of stateless law theory in anarchist political thought, which does look to both indigenous customary law and the legal norms of medieval Europe for its foundations; and 2. any generalized way to handle norms established by non-state actors, which in modern times includes things like the ISO and the Unicode Consortium, but could also be considered to encompass some specialized UN agencies). If we had individual articles to point to perhaps this would better serve as a dab page pointing at those articles, but perhaps not. My biggest concern is with the title. I really don't like having this at "Law without the state". That said I'm really not sure what to do with it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 18:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hmm, ok so I think I kind of understand where the article came from, User:GradInstLWOTSclass2014 was one or more people involved in the Graduate Institute of Geneva class, Law without the State taught by Thomas Schultz probably in 2014 ( here is the 2016-2017 syllabus). If the article is not deleted, I like the idea of a DAB page. Conceptually, each of those 4 things seems encyclopedic and a page comparing each of them could work, but the original page was not that and it doesn't look to me like Schultz' work is that, so such a page would, right now, probably by WP:SYNTH/ WP:OR. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 21:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I like the principle of what ONUnicorn's done to preserve it; but we're still left with the issue that it describes multiple, loosely-related topics. It's not an encyclopedic article at all, despite ONUnicorn's valiant effort. Maybe we just pick one topic, and stub it down to just that one? Or we do that multiple times and make "law without the state" a DAB. TJRC ( talk) 22:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Smmurphy and TJRC: There's a problem with the DAB page idea - anything on it would be a partial title match, so it would fall foul of a DAB page guideline. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:59, 30 March 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) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Antu Yacob

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

This is an autobiography by and about an actress who has association with some notable things, but doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: The article is also missing references, which are necessary to include for WP:GNG. It might stand a better chance if a reference establishing notability could be included. OtterAM ( talk) 12:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
@ OtterAM: It has no references because the author removed them in this edit, stating that she agrees the article should be deleted. I think we can close this as a WP:G7 deletion. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for either actors or directors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete: Thanks, @ Anachronist: I see it now. This should be speedy deleted as WP:G7 as noted above. OtterAM ( talk) 21:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:07, 2 April 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hovnan Markosyan

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 03:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:23, 28 March 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Orlando Ortega-Medina

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

WP:BLP of a writer and lawyer, with no genuinely strong claim to notability under our inclusion criteria for either occupation. This is based almost entirely on primary sources, with very little evidence of any reliable source coverage that's substantively about him -- the few things here that actually count as reliable sources just briefly quote him giving soundbite about a topic, rather than actually having him as their subject. I also strongly suspect a paid-editing conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "ALMPR" (which corresponds to the name of a public relations firm in California.) As always, neither writers nor lawyers are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their work exists; they must be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat ( talk) 03:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, I wanted to discuss the Orlando Ortega-Medina article to clarify that I do not work for a PR agency called ALMPR in California, I am based in London in the UK. I wanted to ask if there was something wrong with the post in terms of references and citations now? Citations have been included throughout the biography of Orlando, so please do let me know what further we could do? Would really like to be able to keep this alive if possible. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALMPR ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

In order to support notability, citations in a Wikipedia article need to be to reliable source coverage about him in media. Coverage of other things which merely happens to mention his name one time in the process (e.g. [33]) does not support that he's notable enough for an article; coverage of other things in which he's quoted giving soundbite (e.g. [34]) does not support that he's notable enough for an article. His own self-published website does not support notability. Corporate press releases do not support notability. YouTube videos do not support notability. His profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with do not support notability. Event calendar listings do not support notability. Only certain specific types of sourcing — media coverage which is about him — count as notability-building references, and exactly zero of the sources you've used in this article are actually hitting the target. Bearcat ( talk) 13:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable lawyer and writer with no significant impact. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:29, 28 March 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. as WP:G7.Deleted by BU Rob13 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Bop It Test Modes

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

Seems a HOWTO, was prodded, but the prod was removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Kleuske ( talk) 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not clear what this is about, probably the testing of a toy; in any case, not notable and inadequate context. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete; content seems to be about debugging multiple toys in the Bop-It line, but indeed WP:NOTGUIDE applies here and possibly WP:CV if anyone can find the original video the text is 'a text quotation' from, according to the article. Samario: Talk page 11:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Might as well pile on WP:OR here too, as this is something that is of interest to only a select few and we cannot determine if any of this is true. Nate • ( chatter) 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete For several reasons, most notably its lack of notability or sources. But WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:OR both probably apply here as well. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 16:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Basically fails the not a how to guide rules for Wikipedia. Also gives too little context, but even more context would not overcome the other problem. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Author C&P moved the content to Electronic Game Test Modes. This article is now blank. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Politics as Usual

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

Notability. Usually in such cases I would redirect to the artist, but in this case I don't think that most people searching using this phrase would be looking for a hip-hop recording. I guess I could move the article tp Politics as Usual (Album) & then put the created redirect up for deletion. Thoughts?? TheLongTone ( talk) 16:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - Meets the WP:GNG through third party coverage. Dedicated reviews by AllMusic, Spin, Exclaim, AllHipHop, and Rap Reviews, all of which have a consensus for being reliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. I am surprised there's no other articles under the name "Politics as Usual", but as long as there isn't, adding additional disambiguation like "(album)" would go against article titling policy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - The album also received coverage outside of music-specific websites, in publications like the Boston Phoenix. They reviewed it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Just about meets standards based on reviews/press coverage. The Spin review is very short, the Exclaim article is an interview not a review, AllMusic is indiscriminate, but coverage in AllHipHop, Boston Phoenix, and HipHopDX is more substantial. Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the Exclaim source - it's labeled as a review, and the first half of it reads like one, but then half way down it seems to turn into an interview or something? The lengthy opening is definitely third party RS writing though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep per above comments. More sources were added, and it appears to have enough to support its notability. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:08, 31 March 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 as totally unencyclopedic promotional material. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Anti-Mosquito Innovation

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

Non notable guy, totally un-encyclopedic article needs a dose of TNT. No refs, no links, prose. I checked for COPVVIO and CLOSEPARA but couldn't detect anything. Just so much wrong with the article, but Notability is biggest issue. (CSD has no criteria for "garbage article") L3X1 (distant write) 02:09, 28 March 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) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Saanvi Kumar

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Power Cats: The Mission Begins. GAB^gab 01:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I was actually trying to nominate this for deletion when GAB apparently beat me to it. No reliable sources found on Google, and only Wikipedia shows up if you Google the author's name and that of their book. Fails GNG, BIO, and other notability guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete The article is sourced only to the subjects own web page and the publisher webpage. The publisher, RiverHouse, does print on demand and e-book publishing, so this looks to be basically a 9-year-old (although I am not sure the age is verrified), who at her own initiative or with the urgiging of well placed family members (I remember one book where it was somewhat celebrated that a 16-year-old had gotten published by a major publisher, but both his parents were book editors, so some questioned how meaningful this was), who published a book through what is essentially a plat form to self-published. Nothing here at all close to notability. My google search was so stymied by other Saanvi Kumar's I don't think I found anything on this one, nothing indicating notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP: AUTHOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 20:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The Power Cats: The Mission Begins

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saanvi Kumar. GAB^gab 01:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete This book is published by a publishing house that says it does "on demand publishing and e books", not exactly shouting it is an indepdent publisher. Even if it was, not every book published by an indepdent publisher is notable. I really could find nothing on this book in my google search. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per above. Unnotable, self-published book with no reliable sources. The Wikipedia article on the book's author was recently deleted after an AFD discussion, and this article should follow suit. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 20:06, 5 April 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Bernard Anton Bandara Goonetilleke

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no inherent notability in being an ambassador, even to/from a "major" country. The references cited are either mentions in a list, a flickr photo, and an article written by him - no reliable independent sources establishing notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

delete no inherent notability in being ambassador. A gnews search without his middle names doesn't reveal any coverage with him as a subject. LibStar ( talk) 11:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Challenge: There is no inherent notability in being an ambassador, even to/from a "major" country:

Category:Ambassadors of the United States. Regesta ( talk) 13:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ambassadors still must meet WP:BIO. There have been numerous ambassadors from "major" countries deleted. The existence of a category does not establish inherent notability. LibStar ( talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Sandeep Pampally

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

Non notable film director. Fails WP:GNG. Seems to have directed 1 short film which got some publicity but still fails WP:GNG for the person. Also the page and that of the short film is maintained by an editor whose only purpose is just that, hinting there could be WP:COI. Jupitus Smart 09:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Sandeep Pampally is currently working as director of a malayalam movie, which is under production. It will be released within 3 months and the citations will soon be available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.58.120 ( talk) 07:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Got Talent (season 7). NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Spencer Horsman

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

Notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Agreed, being a contestant in a talent show does not make one notable. An option is to redirect to America's Got Talent (season 7).— CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

the suggested redirect seems a sensible idea. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect to America's Got Talent (season 7), no independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Tentative Keep I googled around and found a boatload of reliable secondary sources on the subject: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Criss-Angel-Stunt-Goes-Wrong-North-Brunswick-New-Jersey-Hospital-327732351.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/escape-artist-spencer-horsman-describes-close-call-death/story?id=32103701 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/obituaries/bs-md-ob-kenneth-horsman-20160517-story.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3236091/Escape-artist-hospitalized-drowns-stunt-promote-Criss-Angel-New-Jersey.html http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20151012/NEWS/151019900 http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bs-ae-kuwait-dog-rescue-20160928-story.html http://www.digitaljournal.com/a-and-e/entertainment/escape-artist-spencer-horsman-discusses-the-supernaturalists/article/436089 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for a source review from the latest post here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The secondary sources are generally WP:RS, but I think they are WP:1E. Unless I misread, the articles that are actually about this person (the dog rescue ones and obits are not) are about a performance where he nearly drowned during an escape stunt. I would like to see more than that for WP:GNG. It might just be a case of WP:TOOSOON and a redirect makes it easy to recreate the article if there are future sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Sangamithra

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

Movie has not started principal photography (which is expected to start only in July 2017 per [35]). Fails WP:NFILM and is WP:TOOSOON. Also per the article itself, the movie has undergone many prospective cast changes since its announcement, meaning the existing cast could also walk out of the project and put the project in jeopardy during the time till the actual shooting starts. Jupitus Smart 09:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The Liquidator (2017 film)

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

No indication of notability. No citations. Even imdb does not list this film. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep because ~~contrary to Onel5969's odd claim,~~ there were citations before they put the article up for deletion. Furthermore, film has been covered here and here. All this seems to establish interest in an upcoming film and demonstrates notability. Lack of IMDb page does not necessarily mean anything, especially considering that IMDb is English-language and may focus a lot more on Western films. Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 17:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment, actually, the correct difference would be this one, prior to the article's creator removing the original AfD tag. But thanks for pointing out the brief mentions you link to in the references above. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

My apologies! I've struck out that part. Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Just to note that plenty of upcoming non English-language films do not have pages on IMDB. There were several films competing in the main section of the last Berlin Film Festival that did not have an IMDB page until after the festival. IMDB is essentially a wiki, with editors on that site waiting for their own reliable sources (press releases, etc), before adding a new title to their database. Hope that helps. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Appears to be in post-production. Definitely notable, several bankable actors + popular novel adaptation = likely box office success. Timmyshin ( talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 28 March 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. More sources added. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Yosi Ben-Dov

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

Principal of a secondary school, CEO of a company pushing educational tech products. Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability requirements for either role. Plutonium27 ( talk) 00:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, at least for being a CEO and teaching at Michigan State University. RoCo^(talk) 18:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, at least for teaching at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Also, CEO of the largest and most prestigious preK-12 School in Israel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebande123 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Request relist I have just sorted it into a couple of lists. I suggest relisting this for one last time as this needs more visibility. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
KEEP reali is very significant. Lots of sources in hebrew and some in english. He meets gng on coverage. Also passed hebrew wiki. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

KEEP The article is supported by the references which is a necessary condition for WP:GNG. (The referencing could be improved a bit, but it is at least adequate.) In other terms, the subject of the article seems notable enough for several aspects of his life. OtterAM ( talk) 12:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. My guess is that this will be "keep" by vote-counting, but the references are mostly web ephemera. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC). reply

The Hebrew referencing is much better - though missing in the English article. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

So, why not add it? Agricola44 ( talk) 17:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

You have a point. I added a few. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:02, 31 March 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) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 23:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Ozark Adventist Academy

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

there are no citations backing up the content on this article except for the first sentence therefore you cannot back up the claims also an article on Ozark adventist academy violates WP:ORG there is no evidence that the school itself is notable there is not much coverage of the school in newspapers TV or otherwise Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 02:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep - Schools do not have to meet ORG. This school is in the NCES database and at least some coverage in local media can be assumed, satisfying GNG. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

citing the NCES database which i have checked here^[2] and here ^[3] however being in a database does not establish notability as this school also having an article on Ozark adventist academy also assuming coverage is not good enough the supposed coverage must be citied also schools do in fact have to meet WP:ORG-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 20:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

You are incorrect. See WP:NSCHOOL, which is a subset of ORG. Also, sources do not have to be cited in the article to satisfy WP:N, they simply have to exist. See WP:BEFORE, D3. John from Idegon ( talk) 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- but in any case, here are two articles that mention the school from two different sources. ^[4]^[5]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage as demonstrated above . The recent RFC on School Outcomes was very divided and poorly advertised ( have only just found it) so WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be thrown out IMO. Atlantic306 ( talk) 05:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

References

^ https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Prof.+Daniel+Odin+(Ph.D.)
^ "Search for Private Schools - Search Results". nces.ed.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-21.
^ "Search for Private Schools - School Detail for Ozark Adventist School". nces.ed.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-21.
^ "OAA students spruce up Gentry". eagleobserver.com. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
^ "Koontz, Fogle power Knights past Calvary". heraldmailmedia.com. Retrieved 22 March 2017.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 28 March 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. Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Social Empires

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

Non notable game - fails WP:GNG. TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 14:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom (I just PRODed it, as WP:GAMEGUIDE applies). — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

At least one review here; it looks like a few of the others are passing mentions. There's an interesting article about trends in Facebook games it looks like. -- Izno ( talk) 11:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - I'm tempted to vote "Delete" just on the WP: TNT principle, because the article as stands really is little more than a poorly written game guide. However, a brief search turned up two articles ( [36], [37]) which strongly imply that the game is notable. I think we have enough here to throw together a passable article. I may get to work on that myself in a day or two (but don't hold me to it).-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 16:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per TNT; can be recreated if Martin IIIa or others do get around to writing an actual article, but currently it's only a poor game guide. Sandstein 11:03, 6 April 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Arjun Weds Amrutha

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

See film notability guidelines. This is an unreleased movie, and unreleased movies are only notable if the production is notable. This article says nothing about the production and is purely promotional. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - non-notable unreleased film Spiderone 13:38, 1 April 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. Two in-passing mentions, even in the Times of India, are not sufficient to establish notability. Randykitty ( talk) 15:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Minderjeet Yadav

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

Unknown non notable personality Uncletomwood ( talk) 18:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep : The subject is notable chairperson of the council consisting of members from Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh UT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: Please refer the below mentioned sources for the subject before taking decision. I think we shall keep and allow the article to grow.

These are all websites that very briefly announce the assignment of officers to various posts or simply aggregate their names (among whom, Yadav is just one) . This is not equivalent to multiple coverage by independent sources. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 23:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete--Non-notable.Bar council chiefs come in national newspapers only at the time they are elected!Rest of the sources are govt. listing of lawyers etc. Winged Blades^Godric 12:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak keep: The (very short) Times of India article about him (just barely) provides sufficient information for notability. I don't think that this means we have to go write Wikipedia articles on all Indian bar council chiefs now, but since this is a case-by-case decision, I think Keep is right. If another reference could be found, perhaps something not easily Google-able, that would be useful. OtterAM ( talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence that the subject is notable. There are some sources that report him being elected as the chairperson of the bar council for the Indian states of Punjab and Haryana in 2012. Then there is also an article that briefly mentions that he is being investigated (among other former chairmen) for financial irregularities during his tenure. This is a case of WP:BLP1E, and apart from these brief reports, I couldn't find any other sources. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Bansal Learning

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

Doubtful notability, and completely promotional in nature, to the point where even if notability were demonstrated, WP:TNT would be a better option. Vanamonde ( talk) 13:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Bansal Classes Articles for deletion/Bansal Learning Articles for deletion/Bansal Tutorials

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP and simply promotional. KGirlTrucker81^{huh?
what I've been doing} 14:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment:While I cannot comment on the WP:TNT part, Bansal is a known entity in this part of the world. Jupitus Smart 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
comment Too bad form of the nominator to not mention that there has been a previous AFD for this article, which is at Wp:Articles for deletion/Bansal Tutorials. The talk page of this article was deleted erroneously and never restored. My opinion is that we should consider all articles about these Indian coaching institutes together -- they all have basically the same level of notability, are well-known names here in India, and are usually promotional (unless someone has bothered to do a clean-up). Discussing articles individually results in inconsistent outcomes which is not at all helpful. 103.6.159.81 ( talk) 01:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- For convenience, here is the list of all AfDs about Indian coaching institutes - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) - outcome was to keep in each case. A more recent AfD is this where the outcome was delete (though a very rough consensus). 103.6.159.81 ( talk) 01:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: All promotionalism removed. 103.6.159.81 ( talk) 02:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

An admin please restore this page's talk page, now that it has only a little chance of being deleted. 103.6.159.81 ( talk) 02:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep--These instituitions which operates at the 10+2 level are a major part of the education scene in India esp. if one considers the craze for getting into good institutes like Indian Institutes of Technology etc.well documented and well covered in national media and passes WP:GNG].AFD is not cleanup. Winged Blades^Godric 12:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Bansal Classes is "known" by many in India, no doubt. However, apart from brief mentions in articles that appear during the JEE results season, it's impossible to find neutral sources that can be used to write a NPOV article on Bansal Classes. I also see many such articles on Wikipedia -- Techno Herald, Resonance Kota, FIITJEE, etc. Whether the arguments presented in WP:NHS ought to be extended to these institutions is something that can be thought about, but as per the current policies, I don't see how this article can be written in a way so as to pass WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

There are three institutes named Bansal:

Bansal Classes Private Limited - website, founded by Vinod Kumar Bansal, based in Kota, notable - covered in WSJ, Reuters, and also PaGaLGuY (note that all three of these mention the founder)
Bansal Learning Private Limited - website, founder unknown, also based in Kota, non-notable.
Bansal Tutorials Private Limited - website, founded by Dr. T.K. Bansal, based in Delhi, definitely non-notable

The subject of the article we are discussing is uncertain, though it uses the logo of #2. The article mentions the founder as Swati Bansal, but a Google search shows that there doesn't seem to be anyone called Swati Bansal who founded any coaching classes. The subject of this article, at its creation, was actually #3, though it changed over time to #1, because #1 seems to be only that has any sources. In the two previous AfDs, Wp:Articles for deletion/Bansal Tutorials and Wp:Articles for deletion/Bansal Classes, the result was keep/NC only because the keep-voters were looking at the sources of #1.

I note that there existed an article Bansal Classes which mentioned Vinod Kumar Bansal as founder and hence it is explicitly about #1, only that it was recently G11'd. RickinBaltimore, please restore it, the promo stuff can easily be removed/repaired as I did with this article. Its restoration would allow us to decide properly whether to keep this article or that. It has already survived 2 AfDs. 103.6.159.85 ( talk) 10:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It was promotional in nature, and did not indicate why it was notable. I am not restoring it, and further requests to do so should be done at deletion review. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete -- a promo page on an unremarkable private company. The article fails to establish notability, and the fact that the company specialises in education does not absolve it from meeting Wiki's notability guidelines, such as WP:NORG & WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:10, 2 April 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. Notability not established. Note that FaceBook may exceptionally be used to source information about subjects themselves, meaning that FaceBook mentions do not convey any notability (editorial control and such, see WP:RS). Randykitty ( talk) 14:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Bass Player's 100 Greatest Bass Players

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

An article on a special issue of a magazine, Bass Player, itself a possible subject for deletion. There are many "lists of greatest bass players" to be found when trying to find sources to support this article (so I am attempting to satisfy WP:BEFORE but thus far nothing usable has come up. Article creator has said this is analogous to similar best of lists put out by Rolling Stone and NME, but those are long-standing, influential publications, and their special issue "list of" issues have been the subject of reliable source coverage. This one has not. The issue itself, would be fine to use as a source for other articles, but to have an article for itself, I just don't see the justification. ValarianB ( talk) 12:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete It's a bit of a puzzle saying what notability this fails. It appears there are no independent reliable sources that have coverage of this articles subject article. Fails general and WP:NBOOK. Articles not in some exception category require significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Gab4gab ( talk) 17:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Don't agree with argument made for deletion. NME & RS cited as "long-standing, influential publications." Bass Player is in print almost 30 years. How do we define influential? All 3 mags are notable and influential to the audience they are intended for; NME & RS widely regarded in rock music world, BP widely regarded in bass world (all musical genres, not just rock). Also, a quick Google search on NME Greatest Bass Players does not appear to reveal any more significant independent reliable source coverage than Bass Player's. I can add some of those sources to article if needed for consensus. Rsooch ( talk) 22:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Rsooch, the article currently has two references and one external link. All of them lead to the same source: Base Player magazine. That's not independent coverage. The point made above by ValarianB is that the other publications "list of" issues have been the subject of coverage by independent reliable sources while no independent coverage of this list has been identified. So, if you can, certainly it would be helpful for you to at least identify significant independent coverage by reliable sources here before this Afd closes. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Gab4gab, I'll edit article to include independent coverage. Please note that all 5 external links on NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time lead back to NME, and 2 of the 5 references also lead back to NME. By that standard, I'll update BP article to include at least 3 reliable independent references... please hold off deletion for now. Rsooch ( talk) 19:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Gab4gab, Independent coverage seems to be only references to the fact that specific players made this particular list, for example Beta Entertainment or Yamaha Group and several others, but none seem to address the actual premise of the article itself. I was under the impression that a published list by a widely regarded publication could warrant an article based purely on the publication's influence, but will defer to my dissenting Wiki editors here if consensus is for deletion. I'm in agreement with ValarianB that the magazine issue itself would be fine to use as a source for other articles, and therefore those who made the list could have a mention of their Bass Player's list ranking in their own Wiki articles. Would like opinions on this as well. Rsooch ( talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTMIRROR, and this article is about a point of view of one magazine. Ajf773 ( talk) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ajf773, This is not a mirror (replica of another), any more than NME's list is a mirror of Rolling Stone's. Since NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is also the point of view of one magazine, this doesn't seem to be an argument for deletion. Rsooch ( talk) 22:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It's a link to one particular magazine article and that's it. The depth of coverage is nowhere near enough to be notable, not even close to the Rolling Stone magazines. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ajf773, How do we define "depth of coverage"? Quantitatively? NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time lists only two independent reliable sources of coverage out of the 10 references & links listed, with all others pointing back to NME. Also, consider this Wiki article: Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century which lists no independent coverage, so what is its notability based on? It appears the influence of the publication may factor in, and should. Rsooch ( talk) 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Read the notability guidelines. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Added category "Magazine articles" and additional citation to BP article. Would like other opinions here. Another example of a Wiki magazine list article: Financial Times Global 500 Rsooch ( talk) 19:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Considering this statement from Wikipedia:Notability: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article". Here are some additional sources:

http://www.radioswissjazz.ch/en/music-database/musician/577504634b313264d4293560d3b452efef7a94/biography https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBrandX/photos/pb.1715531621998359.-2207520000.1488568923./1832603373624516/?type=3 https://www.talkbass.com/threads/the-100-greatest-bass-players.1262596/ http://www.betatinz.com/2017/03/richard-bona-named-among-100-most.html https://www.facebook.com/Oteil/posts/10155756224914057 http://shorefire.com/releases/entry/nathan-easts-new-album-reverence-streaming-on-allmusic http://www.mtdguitars.com/news/2017/1/10/february-loves-andrew-gouch Rsooch ( talk) 19:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Facebook is NOT a reliable source and the others are questionable. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Just going to make one last comment here, and then will defer to my fellow editors on decision. Ajf773 Regarding the reliability of Facebook as a source, here is the specific Wiki guideline from Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources, listed under Exceptions in section header Self-published sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field... these requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." The criteria / requirements are listed in the section, feel free to read. The two FB sources I listed above are from self-published pages of two players on the 100 Greatest list, and whose comments would seem to verify the notability of the list (the subject of this page's article). Perhaps others would care to weigh in on this discussion so we can make a determination? Rsooch ( talk) 17:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note to Rsooch you cannot make a vote more than once. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Corrected. Rsooch ( talk) 21:55, 4 April 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) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Bradley's Law

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

Fails WP:GNG. There's actually several different "Bradley's Laws", none of which match this article.

isi.org "If, in the course of commenting on any particular blog article, a commentator exceeds 600 words cumulatively in either defense of or rebuttal to a published article, that commentator must cease commenting and write an article in response to the piece that has provoked so many words from him, and publish his own article." - See more at: https://home.isi.org/bradleys-law#sthash.g2tdHRWM.dpuf
firehouse.com an actual law, so name in honor of a firefighter.
Physics (temperature)
Ditto (refraction) Kleuske ( talk) 14:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per CSD G11 Maybe its a spam of the article speedy requested as a spam 2607:FB90:6640:6BA0:9200:E422:A42F:72F4 ( talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete I can't find any evidence of this meaning, although as already mentioned there are certainly many other Bradley's Laws. Not at all notable, I'd strongly suspect it was created by an employee of this Bradley. Fails WP:NEO as neither widely used nor discussed in secondary sources. Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - a bit of neologism mixed with a but of soapboxing. Bearian ( talk) 01:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 3 April 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) 22:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Aeon Rivals

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I looked for coverage using the WikiProject Video Games custom Google searches (both reliable and situational) and found no useable sources. Metacritic shows no critic reviews, either. Woodroar ( talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar ( talk) 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as non-notable game with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. For sources, it exists, but that's about it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 11:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - The complete lack of sourcing says it all.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 14:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - couldn't find in-depth coverage to suggest it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 4 April 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Note that the redirect !vote was placed by the initial nominator for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Saddar (Hyderabad)

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

There are not enough reliable sources to back up this page. Since it is about an area in a city, it may be included in the city article as a section. The article is also a stub and no efforts have been seen to improve it. Yashovardhan ( talk) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Could not find reliable sources establishing notability. I don't think this is appropriate even as a section of Hyderabad, Sindh. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 01:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - Saddar is a commonly referred to neighborhood in google news and google books searches (also see: Saddar bazar). I don't know what it means to be legally recognized in the sense of WP:NGEO, but it is referred to commonly in newspapers. In particular, here is a 2005 article in dawn which mentions a proposal to merge the union councils of Saddar and Civil Lines. This implies Saddar marks a intra-city electoral district, which seems to satisfy NGEO. I could be wrong, of course. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong keep - Saddar Town is one of localities/neighborhoods in Hyderabad, Sindh governed by the Hyderabad Cantonment. See: DAWN, Express Tribune, Express Tribune & The News International. mfarazbaig —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - This article should be kept and improved; maybe use the article format for Sunset, Vancouver district/neighborhood or Nashik district. The map is excellent work. -- Oskinet ( talk) 03:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect I know I'm commenting on my own nomination. I'd suggest improving the article and adding reliable sources. Until then, this article could be redirected to Hyderabad itself. Later, when this is developed enough, the redirect could be removed Yashovardhan ( talk) 04:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - Is a recognized town. Article improvement, which even the nom advocates, is a matter of just that - article improvement, not deletion. -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Afterhours.FM

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

Delete. Internet radio service with no strong claim to passing WP:NMEDIA and no strong reliable sourcing to support it. All of the footnotes are to blogs or user-generated discussion forums rather than to real media -- and while there's one external link to a piece of real media coverage, it's a Q&A interview with the station's founder. But that's a class of sourcing that can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after WP:GNG has already been cleared by stronger sources, but cannot bring the GNG in and of itself because it represents the subject talking about himself rather than third parties objectively assessing his impact (and even if we did accept it because magazine, it would still take more than just one legitimate source to pass GNG.) There's simply not enough substance or sourcing here to make it notable. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not enough depth of coverage to be notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 06:54, 28 March 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) 22:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Buster Keaton television work

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

This subject doesn't deserve an article as it is non-notable as per WP:GNG. It ought to be deleted and merged into the article about Buster Keaton. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete His TV work is already covered in more detail in Buster Keaton and Buster Keaton filmography. I'm concerned that these entries are not mentioned in his IMDb filmography or the other articles on WP, while many TV appearances listed in IMDb and elsewhere on WP do not appear in this article. If material was missing from other articles and can be supported by references, it should be added to one of the existing articles. These appearances are not supported by direct references, and should be deleted. Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per above. It's a bit of a fork, and synthesis as well - I don't know where the authors got their numbers. Bearian ( talk) 01:09, 30 March 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 06:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Types of research methods and disciplines

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

Reason see talk page. Earlier on I suggested a merge, now a next editor suggested a delete with good reasons. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete What a strange hodgepodge, with a completely non sequitur lede. This looks like a (failed) attempt at WP:SYNTHESIS. The two articles mentioned on the talk page have this area covered.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 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) 22:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Techno Herald

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

No coverage by independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Article has been created to promote a little-known, for-profit organization that prepares students for competitive exams in India. Previous CSD and PROD were contested by the creator of the article, whose username suggests a possible WP:COI. Though there is a claim in the article's talk page that this institution has changed the educational landscape of the Indian state of Bihar, I see no independent sources to back this up (in the article) or anywhere else on the web. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 20:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 :(UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to met WP:GNG. A search does not yield suitable independent sources that cover this organisation. Arunram ( talk) 14:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Very weak keep: There are no citations. If authors can improve the article with citations, keep the article for now. -- Oskinet ( talk) 03:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Improving the article "with citations" can be done, but on what basis should this article be kept? This article does not in any way pass WP:GNG! And the reason I nominated this article for deletion is because I couldn't find any reliable sources to cite. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 09:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly corporate spam on an unremarkable private company. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:14, 2 April 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. While the rationales for article retention include "weak" and "modest", overall consensus is nevertheless for the article to be retained. A notion for moving the article to draft namespace was presented, but nobody else concurred with this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Cameron Judge

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

Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and is very thin on sources. Donnie Park ( talk) 21:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Very very weak keep. As a college player, the appropriate notability guideline is WP:NCOLLATH; he does have a little coverage independent of the team, as a captain/starting linebacker, that could put him over the bar. That said, the article needs to be updated (he has already played his final year) and rewritten to remove excessive personal details. ansh 666 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Modest keep. Since it isn't known whether he will someday play in the NFL, keep for now. Revisit the issue later on. -- Oskinet ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep (or move to draft) - Probably an even weaker keep vote than Ansh666, but keep nonetheless. Realizing that Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTAL, the likelihood of him being an NFL player is pretty good based on the coverage here. Of course we will know more in a month which is why moving to draft is a good option. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 00:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 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 06:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Nargiz Orujli-Samadova

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO $Tushi Talk To Me$ 00:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete no indication that the subject is a notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:03, 2 April 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) 22:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Juliette Longuet

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

Advertisement. There may be some notability here, but the basic principle of WP:NOT is that we do not include promotion, regardless of the possible notability or importance. I see no way of improving the promotionalism from this article without removing the basic content. Examples of promotionalism : continual use of adjectives of praise, extensive name-dropping, and uncited statements like "Longuet decided that she was in need of a new adventure" ; "Her use of ... creates an ultra feminine look with European sensibility" "She began freelancing with the magazine in 2011 where she shares her secret addresses around the world and her favorite products". "Her overall mission is to bring forth well-rounded awareness strategically and creatively to luxury brands,"-- all this would be more than a little excessive even on her own web site--puffery of this sort is singularly unconvincing.

and I see no clear evidence of notability -- most of the references are from her own web site or written by her or author blurbs, and the rest are mostly notices or press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Regardless of the article's quality, puffery belongs to fashion. For notability, you may consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 07:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Overly promotional article on a non-notable figure in the fashion industry. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: this does look to be purely promotional, both in tone and in content. This impression is reinforced by the editing history: the article was created and many times edited by an SPA, then briefly by a second SPA, then by a user named JulietteLonguet, now blocked. Notability is not established, either within the article or on the Internet. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Puffery and usage of adjectives of praise do belong in fashion (also stated above), therefore the commentary and description of a figure within the industry in that manner is necessary. This article is solely speaking of Longuet in a way in which others within the industry do, therefore is not "purely" promotional via content. As for tone, any article speaking of any public figure's successes and career titles should do so in the same, praiseful manner. Praise does not necessarily have to equal to promotion and advertisement. This article and its various notable references serve as no violation to WP's principles, and should therefor be removed from a deletion consideration. Cprosper1( talk) 00:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Overly promotional, but delete as non-notable; the only possible demonstration of notability is via Forbes, and even that was written by a contributor, not a staff writer/editor. ("Forbes" is a community content platform.) JSFarman ( talk) 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - either on the grounds of not passing WP:GNG, or as an advertisement. Either way, doesn't belong here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Monterey County Skeptics

AfDs for this article:

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

trivial local organization with no general reach. Only the most local of refereces, and even these are mere notices. Despite clean ups of the worst of it by several good editors, there remains no fundamental notability, DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - not finding enough to show they pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete -- not only local, but at least one editor has a COI and promotes advocacy on Wikipedia. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Roshani Shetty

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR even after several years since article creation. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Can't find enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and clearly don't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom Spiderone 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

[1] ttps://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Prof.+Daniel+Odin+(Ph.D.)

[2] "Search for Private Schools - Search Results". nces.ed.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-21.

[3] "Search for Private Schools - School Detail for Ozark Adventist School". nces.ed.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-21.

[4] "OAA students spruce up Gentry". eagleobserver.com. Retrieved 22 March 2017.

[5] "Koontz, Fogle power Knights past Calvary". heraldmailmedia.com. Retrieved 22 March 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]