From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 August 18 August >
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 no consensus. There's no obvious agreement whether to keep, merge or delete and people are starting to yell at each other, so it's best to close this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Levallois-Perret attack

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

    Outside criteria, event not known.page created by User:Panam2014.

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Clearly notable and well-sourced. Icewhiz ( talk) 23:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Icewhiz: The fact that a small article is well sourced does not automatically render it admissible. For the notability, I want proof. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The onus is on the proposer to outline a deletion rationale. Your rationale was stated "event not known". This event is clearly known, and has been covered by just about every major world outlet and can be seen by even a cursory BEFORE - with coverage persisting from the event to today. Icewhiz ( talk) 00:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Icewhiz: No. The event is not know and there are no coverage during the coverage is not persisting today and there are no proof that the coverage will continue in the next weeks and months. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No lasting significance. No one killed. This is a routine crime. Wikipedia cannot document every motor vehicle collision. For inexplicable reasons a couple of other minor, unrelated incidents (some with no credible indication of Islamist terrorism) have been added-on in an attempt to build an article. AusLondonder ( talk) 07:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No indication of any lasting significance. The fact that more than half of the article is about other recent events in France is a gigantic give-away that this simply isn't remotely notable, beyond perhaps a mention on list of incidents page. Editors should learn the difference between 'launching an investigation' (as to whether an incident is terrorist in nature), 'charging someone with a terrorist offence' (which means they think the incident is terrorist in nature), and finding someone guilty of said offence. Trying to establish if there are little green men on Mars does not mean that there are little green men on Mars. None of the authorities or sources are even speculating on an Islamist motive, yet the article treats that motive as fact. Pincrete ( talk) 16:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Pincrete: How about we keep it until the terror investigation is concluded? -- HeinzMaster ( talk) 13:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    It doesn't work that way, the burden of proof rests with those claiming notability. We have no way of knowing that an investigation will establish anything. In my experience, 'non-juicy' outcomes don't get recorded at all.

    Pincrete ( talk) 17:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    @ Pincrete: According to one of the sources, "The Paris prosecutor's office said it was "pursuing perpetrators on charges of the attempted murder of security forces in connection with a terrorist enterprise". Hence while there is no proof it was a islamic in nature, it is still a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks don't have to be islamic you know-- HeinzMaster ( talk) 13:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I have removed the speculated Islamist background, this is pure OR, since no source has even speculated about any possible motive so far and the named accused is covered by BLP. Pincrete ( talk) 16:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Delete - This incident is the latest example of bandwagon creation of articles for non-notable events just because the event is in the media. Sport and politics ( talk) 17:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete - No WP:LASTING impact has been established from the brief news cycle. Any arguments about the possibility of coverage for a trial is WP:CRYSTALBALL. May I also remind everyone mention of the outcome of said trial is WP:ROUTINE. Here is an essential line from WP:EVENTCRIT which !voters should take into consideration: "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally". TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Even though article was created just after this attack, Nom would have done better to have waited a few months as per WP:RAPID. Notable attack that meets those criteria of WP:NCRIME that can be measured at this point: there has been WP:SIGCOV of the attack in both national and international press (I just added two days of reported coverage from Paris in the Wall Street Journal to page). Perp is in hospital in police custody so there will be a trial, no CRYSTALBALL is needed to know that the trial will generate coverage. And Note that this is one of an extraordinary series of similar attacks on French soldiers on domestic patrol duty in France in peacetime, including the June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack, 2017 Notre Dame attack, April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack, March 2017 Île-de-France attacks, Louvre machete attack. Give that we kept each of the previous, similar attacks, I suggest that it is not Groundhog Day and we accomplish nothing by having this discussion this every time a similar attack targets French security patrols. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The problem is the majority of the pages were kept by lack of consensus and a new request is possible for them. The majority have not been heavily covered and the latter has made even less "noise." And that he is in the hospital does not change the eligibility. Nothing says that when you leave the hospital you will hear about it again. This is what comes under " WP: CRYSTAL". -- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Being kept by lack of consensus. It is clear. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 14:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep A car deliberately ramming a group of about a dozen soldiers—in France—injuring six, which has been deemed terrorism by French officials and commented by the Interior Minister, is by no means a "routine crime" or a casual "motor vehicle collision" as another user who voted here suggests. Other comments supporting deletion here are not much better. User2534 ( talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Comment should also be made more clear (which doesn't seem so from comments), that the car/attacker wasn't captured until hours later 260 kilometres north of Paris by an armed police elite unit, and that several addresses were raided by police in connection with the attack later the same day. This has now been added to the article from the sources already available. User2534 ( talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • Despite this, your argumebts does not make the article eligible to be kept. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 19:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
          • That's pretty rich when your original "argument" for nominating this for deletion is "Outside criteria, event not known." Three of the five-word rationale, "event not known" is outright false (if intelligible), and overall it's lacking in any meaningful substance. User2534 ( talk) 20:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
            • No, your argument is irreceivable, and my argument is self-sufficient. You are not questioned about the notoriety. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • There is no point in arguing your legitimate points Panam. You can give them every single policy-based reason this incident does not meet requirements for a standalone article but all they will see is "terror attack". Those who read the guidelines know it fails WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:LASTING, WP:DIVERSE...the list goes on. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ TheGracefulSlick: No, the facts are clear. The contributor has by no means proved the eligibility of the subject to be kept. It is up to him if he wants to convince, but not with this non-argument. Let us recall that it was he who began by using fallacious arguments to discredit my opinion and the demand while nothing in his arguments can prove admissibility. And "terrorist attack" or "attack against solidiers" is not an enough argument to keep the page. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 22:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Panam I fully agree with you. My point was, however, no matter how many legitimate policy-based reasons there are -- and there are -- to delete this article, there will always be some editors who will vote keep simply because it was a terror attack. They do not care if it had no WP:LASTING impact, falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and fails WP:EVENTCRIT among other things. I just do not want you to waste your time trying to convince voters to follow policies they have already chosen to ignore several times before. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ TheGracefulSlick: I know that, and it's unfortunate. The rules must be used to be respected. Perhaps in light of these recidivism, we might have to think about a rule to prevent it from starting again. But as they do not care about the rules, I have told them they are wrong and they will not make these rules disappear. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    If you want to discuss policy, WP:LASTING actually only says that events with lasting events are more likely to be notable, and specifically concludes that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." WP:NOTNEWS is, other than discouraging original reporting and making articles about celebrity news, that "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." How this remotely affects this article I'd like to know. And there is nothing inherent in User2534 ( talk) 09:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    No, it is all to be clear. It's up to you and you alone to prove fame if you care so much about the article. And if not, it should be deleted. Afterwards, if you have a few months later new arguments, it would still be time to start a restoration debate of the article. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note It should also be noted, per what I have quoted above, that WP:LASTING—erroneously—also has been used as the main argument for deletion by a majority of at least three users voting delete here. User2534 ( talk) 15:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • User2534 you falsely claim WP:LASTING is not being used appropriately but here is the section you quoted: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". That does not make a case for notability; it means that is another strike against. Also, WP:NOTNEWS says "For example..." meaning there are other examples that can be used. It does not say "here are the only examples". This unnotable incident still falls under such NOTNEWS guidelines. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      This two week old event is still being covered. Here is a random piece from 3 hours ago(23rd August) - [5]. It was, and is, covered world-wide. You might have a personal opinion on what is notable and what is not - however that does not count for much - what counts is coverage. By any reasonable standard (either as a NCRIME or as an act of war on French soil, or just plain old GNG) - this passes at the current coverage level - which is hundreds of articles, world wide, in the past two weeks - and this has persisted throughout the past two weeks. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Icewhiz: read what I quoted about WP:EVENTCRIT (or just read the whole policy). Also, here are more quotes from yet another page describing why this incident does not qualify for a standalone article: "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time" and "The second sense of recentism—the creation of a glut of new articles on a recent event—can result in a slap-dash approach to the subject and a rambling, disorganized look to the encyclopedia", both from WP:RECENTISM. It also asks you to employ the WP:10YT, something no keep voters here have done. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • This event clearly meets GEOSCOPE, COVERAGE, PERSISTENCE, and DIVERSE. LASTING does require CRYSTALBALLING - as it is two weeks old - thus we have WP:RAPID. RECENTISM (and 10YT) is an essay, not policy - however I'll play ball - yes, in the context of the ISIS/AQ/Jihadist campiagn against France (or Europe) - then at the current level of events this event will be notable in the future either if we see an escalation (to a full blown war/civil strife - in which case it will be cited as the beginning of the conflict) or a return to calm (in which case it will be given as a notable incident (not one of many) that occured during the war). Icewhiz ( talk) 20:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • That is just using inherited notability from the ISIL terror campaign in France overall which doesn't work. Also, ISIL has been attacking the country since 2014. How will this be cited as the beginning of the conflict or a return to calm? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Conflicts are a series of events. As long as the events do not stack up too quickly, then each is notable as each would be mentioned individually in an article covering the donflict and the reader might want to delve into one, or more, in particular. Beyond a certain rate, coverage collapses into casulty lists and counts with occasional human interest stories, alleged atrocities, captivating photos and videos, and coverage of massive events and new tactics and weapons. How do you know when you have progressed to that point? Well, when the coverage collapses to "15 people die in various attacks in France yesterday", buried somewhere in page 11... You are there. When items are still front page news and you have coverage of last week's or last month's events per investigation and trial (as opposed to being ignored as there are no trials, and you are covering today's count anyway) then you are still at a level where individual events are significant both in real time and in ten years time. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • A series of events belong in a list; at least, this one does. You only make a case for why the conflict overall is notable. Certain incidents, like certain battles in wars, merit a standalone page but this one fails guidelines set out by WP:EVENTCRIT. It literally addresses the reason why incidents like these are briefly frontpage news. It looks for post analytical sources or a lasting impact. Not once has anyone addressed that. The policy also urges editors to think differently than the news media but that virtue has been lost by many. WP:RAPID needs to stop being used as an excuse for unnotable subjects having articles. If notability is not established, the article should never be created. A WP:ROUTINE trial and your WP:CRYSTALBALL will not change that. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 04:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Should we place all civil war battles or WWII campaigns in a list? They are a series of events as well. The question of individual event notability is determined by coverage. Here we have abundant and on-going world-wide coverage (persisting to today - 2 weeks after the event), amply passing notability for this event (even without RAPID). What should guide us is degree of coverage not whether individual editors think an event is notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Note - Yet another guideline that outlines why this incident is not notable is WP:RSBREAKING. Since the bulk of the sourcing was published immediately after the attack, this is highly relevant. It says "news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". For those who do not know, we rely on secondary coverage to gauge notability. That will only possibly (but no WP:CRYSTALBALL) be addressed months from now. Until then, this incident fails our requirements. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 04:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • If that was true then any terrorist attack, or event whatsoever of any scale would be ineligible for an article on Wikipedia for several months. This is getting totally ridiculous. WP:RSBREAKING is also, as other policies I've noted, entirely irrelevant to this article as it only talks about avoiding rumour-based breaking news within "a day or two" of the occurence of an event. There is absolutely nothing about this that is relevant to this article as it stands now, and unless you have anything close to a real argument I'd like to urge you to stop wasting our time with these bogus claims about Wikipedia policies. User2534 ( talk) 08:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note I wish to add an argument to those persuasively made by User:User2534 and User:Icewhiz. Writing articles on significant events immediately after the event occurs is a highly efficient way to build a reliable and useful encyclopedia. This is true not only for terrorist attacks, but for everything from the 2015 Philadelphia train derailment and this month's Unite the Right rally. The reason is that in the immeditate aftermath of such events, editors rush to contribute. However, when I have created articles on similar events in the past ( 1996 Paris Métro bombing, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, and others) even though I tend to be writing about events that I have either encountered in an academic article or book, it is an uphill slog to put together the sort of details - order of events, collateral damage, details of immediate impact - that rapidly get built in to articles created on breaking news. Creating these articles as events unfold is highly functional. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to Terrorism in France. That is the place for minor terrorism incidents involving France. There is nothing especially notable at first glance for this particular attack. Elliot321 ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge as above, relatively minor and sadly increasingly routine attack, such items are best covered in a list.  Sandstein  08:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Attempted murder by car-ramming of a dozen French soldiers, a widely public five-hour manhunt and car-chase involving hundreds of police agents, involvement in aftermath by at least three French Ministers. Is this really routine in France? If that's the case I'm sure you can point me to some of the incidents that are just like this that took place recently in France. User2534 ( talk) 17:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of Outrageous Fortune characters. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 03:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Cheryl West (Outrageous Fortune)

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

    Article fails WP:GNG NealeFamily ( talk) 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Stewart Levenson

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

    Possibly notable, but this is advocacy, possibly justifying speedy G11 Does not meet BLP sourcing requirements. Numerous uncited judgmental statements throughout. Created by declared paid editor, and is a prime example of the danger of paid editing. Personally, I think the subject is due a refund. No editor without COI would have created this one-sided defense in this manner. If the subject is notable, an this should be dicarded as a BLP violation, and a proper article substituted. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    As the editor who created the article, I have already made an as-yet unfulfilled edit request to replace the current version of this article (which I agree is offensively promotional) with the one I wrote here. I would have performed the replacement myself two days ago, but as a paid editor, I only submitted it as an edit request. I believe that version of this article is phrased with the correct neutrality. I had submitted that version to the client, and he decided I should submit a new version which he wrote himself. I warned him that this would inevitably create problems for him, as the version he wrote was not neutral and would likely be marked for deletion. He insisted, "My version has the facts", and told me he wanted it published. With great reluctance, I did as he asked. No surprise to me, it has indeed been marked for deletion. Honestly, I must thank you, DGG, because I hated this version as much as you do and my client wanted to hear nothing I told him about why it would get deleted. In light of that, I ask that you please consider the earlier version, the version that I actually wrote, and consider whether or not that version might stand in place of the current one (the irony here is that the version the client insisted I publish is the one he should get his money back for when it gets deleted. Absolutely!). KDS4444 ( talk) 00:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. reply
    • Delete with extreme prejudice because Wikipedia is not here to make you or your client rich and famous. Famous dog (c) 08:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      No, it isn't. But that isn't really the point— the point is that I have been completely transparent with regard to my paid editing here, and have followed all of the policy requirements with regard to disclosure for this article. If it is deleted because I was paid, then you have removed every incentive I ever had to disclose my role, and will have punished me for my honesty. If Wikipedia wants its paid editors to be honest about their roles in article creation, it cannot then punish them for following the rules. If you feel the subject is not notable, then please argue deletion on those grounds. KDS4444 ( talk) 10:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. reply
      Transparency and following the TOU does not exempt an editor from following local policy, which explicitly forbids advocacy or promotion. The fact that you were paid to promote the subject (which is what having the article on en.Wiki does) helps provide context to this discussion. Your compliance with the TOU is the minimum acceptable requirement to use the WMF's servers. Once you've done that, we have to assess whether the actions and the article are acceptable under local policy. The answer here is clearly no: it exists to promote the subject, which is against WP:NOT TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The version of the article that I mentioned above is not, in my opinion, promotional, but I don't get the impression that anyone has taken the time to read it yet. The ad hominem remark about getting rich is pointless and, honestly, a bit insulting. KDS4444 ( talk) 02:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This editor has been forthright with regard to disclosing his connection to the article's subject and has a COI which has been well-documented on his user page if you feel like checking it out. reply
    I never made the remark about getting rich. Re: neutral wording and promotionalism, that doesn't change the fact that this is someone who is at best borderline notable (and I don't consider him to be notable per BLP1E) and who paid you to create an article for him on one of the most prominent websites in the world. An article that if written by a neutral contributor that would likely be substantially different. The article, both in the current and suggested forms is a failure of the policy WP:NOT and thus a failure of WP:N, the overarching guideline which the GNG must conform to. Per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, my opinion is that per current practice on the English Wikipedia, we should deal with the current NOT violation by deleting it. You are of course free to disagree with that and advocate for a different position based on policy. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment "he decided I should submit a new version which he wrote himself" sounds like copyright violation to me. You cannot publish on Wikipedia material you have not written yourself. Refer to WP:COICOPYRIGHT. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 12:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The non-exclusive grant of copyright in this situation was orally agreed to as well as implied by the behaviors of the parties involved; US law allows it in either case. Regardless, I am asking for the replacement of the existing article's text with text which I have previously published and licensed here, as mentioned above. I believe this makes a copyright argument moot. KDS4444 ( talk) 13:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. reply
    • Comment A COI edit request (previously declined) is awaiting review on this article's Talk page. The editor in question says this will answer the concerns. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 14:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The following link has been provided: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/07/15/four-star-case-failure-manchester/n9VV7BerswvkL5akCgNzvK/amp.html jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 23:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete neither Google, Google Books or Google Scholar demonstrate any kind of notability. For Google News, the sources I see are very local and not centered on the subject, and in any case WP:BLP1E applies here. From which I would like to quote: "biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view". Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 14:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Did you notice that the sources include the Boston Globe, which I don't think anyone considers "very local"? KDS4444 ( talk) 20:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. reply
    • Delete per BLP1E and NOTSPAM. Subject is only notable for one event, which means he isn't notable. NOTSPAM excludes articles that are created for the purpose of promoting subject. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    ...Which is why I have asked for the text of the current article to be replaced with a previous version that is not promotional but which no one seems willing to look at. KDS4444 ( talk) 02:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: In case you haven't guessed it by now, I probably have a COI with regard to this subject, though it would be nice if other editors could put that fact aside and look at the earlier version of the article before piling on more delete !votes. reply
    • Delete Is this an encyclopedia or some guy with a placard outside the parliament ? Threeseasonsofwinter ( talk) 22:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I am not familiar with this particular deletion argument regarding placards and parliament. Can you point to a policy or guideline that it represents? Thanks. KDS4444 ( talk) 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. reply
    When you've finished checking out 'Arguments to avoid at AfD' you'll realise that it is a perfectly accurate and legitimate vote. It's another way of saying this is a blatant promotion of a person, and we don't need to be reminded ten times on this page what what the related policies are. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the explanation— that was all I was asking for because it made no sense to me. "Accurate and legitimate"? Who is it that doesn't need reminding? You are implying I should have known what that meant because it was so obvious?? The expression "placard outside the parliament" only gets 23 Google hits, and even those don't make sense here. I was hoping for an explanation "based on policy", not based on a reference to a placard. Too much? KDS4444 ( talk) 01:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Also: note to closing admin: I have a conflict of interest with regard to this article, no doubt about it, and have said so on several occasions. reply
    For a 'professional' editor with autpatrolled and reviewer rights, and an OTRS agent to boot, I would have thought it would easily have made sense to you. I suppose these user rights are compatible with your exploitation of our unpaid volunteer work to enrich yourself and your clients, so I think we can dispense with the disingenuous innocence now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per BLP1E and NOTSPAM. Any 'Get me on Wikipedia and I'll pay for it' vanity page is blatant promotion however neutrally written and irrespective of the number of sources. Sources do not legitimise other breaches of policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Gah. A BLP violation. No inline refs. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete as advocacy. And just to save KDS4444 the trouble of quibbling over my !vote - yes, I've read the requested version and while it's better it doesn't overcome the basic issue that you're polishing a turd. Cabayi ( talk) 05:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete BLP1E if I ever saw one, in addition to the promotion/advocacy issues noted above. While the promotionalism might be addresed with further WP:BOGO editing, BLP1E isn't fixable. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete – Major BLP1E. After reading everyone's stances, I now see that the lone Boston Globe article I posted earlier is not enough to satisfy the issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 23:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: Insufficient in-depth coverage of Levenson. Also, see my comments on my talk page. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: WP:BLP1E. DrStrauss talk 19:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Not notable. For the record, the article creator's preferred version is less promotional than the current version, but the notability is still not there. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Speedy delete per G11. Obviously a promotional page, and the subject is not notable. Elliot321 ( talk) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Empower Texans. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Michael Quinn Sullivan

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

    Created through a paid publishing stint — it reads almost entirely like a paid piece with a list of CV-material to boot Carl Fredrik talk 23:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    *Keep I am seeing enough independent coverage in reliable sources that seem to demonstrate this person is notable. He may not be well liked (according the coverage), but he has garnered notice in the press. I can see how the nominator sees this as a paid piece, because it does seem somewhat like that. Also, I think the less flattering coverage needs to be reflected in this article. The article seems to be one sided. Unfortunately, the press coverage cannot be argued with, unless I am missing something. The coverage in sources does not seem promotional or promotinally worded. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • It is a proven paid piece — the original editor who created it has been blocked for paid editing. Your support of keeping it is exactly the problem with paid editing. No one is going to add that less than flatting content — so it will just keep being a flattering push-piece. There is no alternative to deletion, please reconsider: Steve Quinn Carl Fredrik talk 14:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I am changing my ivote from keep to delete based on the above discussion and the presented evidence, as well as the evidence presented at this User talk page discussion here, and here . Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, promotion, public relations, or a vanity page WP:NOTPROMO, WP:PROMO. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Empower Texans. This person does not need an article (plus all of the undisclosed paid editing which ruins its potential credibility), so the only use would be a redirect to Empower Texans. Elliot321 ( talk) 15:55, 24 August 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. North America 1000 04:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Brent Fultz

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

    Seems not to reach standard of notability Carl Fredrik talk 22:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I assess the article based on the sources present in it. It does not matter one bit that other sources exist (which in fact they do not). So please refrain from such comments in the future, it is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Carl Fredrik talk 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    So you are explicitly admitting to not following the relevant notability guideline, WP:PROF, and not following WP:BEFORE? Why should we be expected to take your nominations seriously, if so? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    This isn't necessarily about notability, but whether the article as it stands is acceptable. Does it actually carry enough information to be an article? 4/5 sources are just listings. Carl Fredrik talk 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Brent Fultz is a full professor and holds a named chair appointment at a major institution of higher education and research ( Cal Tech) and hence clearly satisfies WP:Prof#C5. This is enough to regard him as notable according to Wikipedia standards. The article should be further expanded to contain the full breadth of his work. Jorge.munoz ( talk) 23:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Still requires reliable secondary sources. Carl Fredrik talk 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ CFCF: WP:V and WP:BLP require reliable sources, but not necessarily reliable secondary sources (at least for factual claims rather than evaluation). WP:GNG is inapplicable because this is a case for a parallel separate-but-equal guideline, WP:PROF. So where are you getting this supposed requirement? And for that matter what makes you think the tms and neutronscattering sources are non-secondary? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The single acceptable source is the TMS interview, the rest are simply lists of prize recipients. That isn't generally enough to merit an article. Per that rationale each person on those lists should have an article, saying nothing beyond that they received a prize. Carl Fredrik talk 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    "Merit an article" is an argument about notability, and notability for academics is not about sourcing. So your argument is invalid. Also see WP:WAX. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per WP:SNOW. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications) and #C5 (named chair at a major research institution). — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Nominator might like to withdraw this nomination to avoid wasting further efforts of editors. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC). reply
    • No — The lack of any proper independent secondary sources in the article is concerning. Carl Fredrik talk 14:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Seems to pass #1,#2,#5 of WP:PROF. I would like to see more references per nom, however. Still, this appears to be a matter for cleanup, not AFD. South Nashua ( talk) 14:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    But the issue is that we should delete in the face of too few sources in the article. Just because it can be fixed does not mean it will be. Carl Fredrik talk 15:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    If an article can be fixed and notability has been established, it should be fixed, not deleted. I think the consensus here is that notability has been established. South Nashua ( talk) 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. If the nominator disagrees with policy consensus, the place to argue that is on policy notice boards, not in individual AfDs. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:28, 22 August 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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America 1000 23:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    List of largest cities by area

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

    Nonsense «««  SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 22:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per prior discussion. It's a notable topic, even if it is currently a useless list. WP:TNT could apply, but the list is so short as it is that it's basically in that state already. Cthomas3 ( talk) 22:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    A reference such as this might be a good starting point for this list, if we can understand what criterion they are using. Cthomas3 ( talk) 22:32, 17 August 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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. A lack of sources, having a refimprove template, and not being improved are not qualifiers for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America 1000 23:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Janashakti

    Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Janashakti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article is completely not sourced for years without any improvement from the moment is was tagged in 2009. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 21:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per WP:NEXIST. I'm finding plenty of references online as well, and it seems to get sufficient news coverage from a variety of reliable sources (many are already listed above). Cthomas3 ( talk) 22:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Rogue Rocket

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

    Fails WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 18:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    An Urban Sketchers Guide to Helsinki, Stockholm, Tallin, Turku and Porvoo

    An Urban Sketchers Guide to Helsinki, Stockholm, Tallin, Turku and Porvoo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Google finds no coverage of this book under the Finnish or English title to support WP:GNG, and WP:NBOOK isn't met. The article's creator removed a PROD tag, based on the WP:GNG part of the rationale, on the grounds that the book has an ISBN number and is sold in stores, but the ISBN criterion in WP:NBOOK is exclusionary (not having an ISBN number is a strike against a finding of notability), and the fact that a product is available for sale, or even bought, doesn't make it notable. It can even mean that it's included in a larger arrangement the publisher has with the stores, carrying no implications regarding the individual title. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. A mention on the Adobe Photoshop article would not be untoward, but there's not enough significant lasting coverage for a standalone article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Amr El-Shamy

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

    There is insufficient evidence of notability of this individual. There are brief mentions in local news for a single event only ( WP:BLP1E). There may be a conflict of interest as well, as the page creator is a single-purpose account. Deli nk ( talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Create magazine and Behance (a self-promotion site) are both owned by Adobe. None of the other sources are in-depth critical assessments of his work as an artist, they're all about a single event; the selection of one of his works as the splash screen for Adobe Photoshop. In a way, he has created a well-known work, but we also require that such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. That is not the case here. Mduvekot ( talk) 22:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete lacks good sources to establish notability. Authoring an Adoble splash screen is an inconsequential achievement. 104.163.140.99 ( talk) 01:40, 23 August 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) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Songs from the Heart (Twinn Connexion album)

    Songs from the Heart (Twinn Connexion album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is an interesting and obscure collection of sunshine pop; however, the article is a WP:PROMO piece sourced by the band's website and other unreliable sites. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - no coverage for this release, just listings on Amazon, Discogs, last.fm, etc... nothing found to indicate it meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.  gongshow   talk  03:01, 18 August 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  09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Who's Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges

    Who's Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article is a blatant promotion of a non-notable list with the explicit goal of self-promotion of colleges and universities. None of the references are drawn from reliable unbiased secondary sources in news articles.

    Notability requires /substantial/ coverage in secondary unbiased sources.

    It's not enough that the patron schools are talking about it, other relatively important news agencies must also be talking about it. I did a cursory search, and couldn't find anything. The only thing around are various forum posts asking if this list is a "scam." Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Privately made list to sell directories for profit, notability not well enough established Reywas92 Talk 22:29, 24 August 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. So Why 07:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Ashiyana

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

    No evidence of notability Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep nationally broadcast on a major network as per WP:TVSERIES has some references but as it was broadcast in 1997 and Pakistan's internet was underdeveloped then offline sources would be needed but there is enough for it to survive. Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - per Atlantic. - Mfarazbaig ( talk) 22:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Randall-Reilly

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

    Article is a clear promotion attempt. The business in question has very little, if any, exposure in wider media and secondary sources. There are no inline citations and the only references included are not of a news or secondary source nature. By and large, the references are "profile pages" in business directories. Another user previously stated the article is copied directly from the business's " Our History" page.

    I don't believe this business is notable enough to merit inclusion, but even if it is notable enough, this article almost certainly would require a massive overhaul to comport to neutral POV requirements. Deletion is the pragmatic, ethical, and proper thing to do. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Also, as I just noticed, the article was previously proposed via PROD for the reason "non-notable company." I believe the author disputed the PROD without making any substantial changes to the nature of the article. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. North America 1000 04:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Spindrift (company)

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

    Promotional article about a company that doesn't have extensive coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, thus failing both points of WP:N. All of the coverage that is extant is either connected to the subject, a brief mention of the product, or a mention of a sponsorship. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- bordering on "speedy delete" as G11 with promo language such as:
    • "All of its products are made without the use of artificial sweeteners, natural flavors, or added sugar and are distributed nationally through stores such as Costco, Target, Trader Joe’s, and Whole Foods Market!" Etc.
    No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure or investor prospectus. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:43, 17 August 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. So Why 07:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Lea Thau

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

    While this is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, the depth and quality of reliably sourcing hasn't actually improved at all. As always, a podcaster is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because primary and affiliated sources verify that she exists — she needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:GNG, and does not get to primary source herself into a Wikipedia article by having staff profiles on the websites of her own employers. But the few references here that actually count as reliable sources rather than primary ones all just namecheck her existence and still aren't about her to the degree required — they might count as valid sourcing for an article about the podcast, in which Thau could certainly have her name included, but they aren't adequate sourcing to support a biography of her as a standalone topic separately from that. Bearcat ( talk) 19:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The Moth is a big deal, and programming is widely broadcast on public radio. This is more than just a podcast editor and there is enough outside sourcing; it's more than a Namecheck, IMHO. The question of the program or the individual is sort of hair-splitting, IMHO. Montanabw (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Nothing present in the article is adequate sourcing — every single source here that does anything more than namecheck her existence is either a blog or a primary source, neither of which are classes of sourcing that can assist notability at all. If there's better sourcing available out there about her than this, then bring it on — but exactly zero of the sources present here are doing the job they need to do. Bearcat ( talk) 15:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Montanabw's keep argument, which essentially boils down to "exempted from having to have reliable source coverage just because she exists", is not a valid one. Bearcat ( talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Radiotopia#Strangers (or Strangers (podcast), if it isn't redirected). Determining the subject of coverage is the point of AfD and certainly not hair-splitting... All reliable, secondary sourcing here points to the Strangers podcast as the item of media attention, not its author. (If Thau played an important role in The Moth, it isn't reflected in the sources either.) I don't see enough coverage of even the podcast to warrant its own article, so I've expanded the section at Radiotopia, the parent company. Both the author and podcast article titles should be redirected to the section in which they are covered. They can always split out summary style. czar 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. She is an award-winning producer and radio host. Gamesmaster G-9 ( talk) 04:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of adequate reliable source coverage about those facts in media independent of her own web presence in self-published or directly affiliated sources. Bearcat ( talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I had expanded on Strangers at Radiotopia, but Gamesmaster9 continues to revert the edit and split the content (without attribution, mind you) to a separate article that was then WP:PROD'd. Discussion at Talk:Radiotopia. czar 19:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep for the reasons listed. There are sufficient references showing coverage, and she is an award winner. Ross-c ( talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    No, there aren't sufficient references showing coverage, and the only notable award mentioned in the article isn't one that she won in her own right — it's one that the show won after she left it, and she was not named as the awardee. Bearcat ( talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep -- affiliated with two notable entities; article seems ok. I deleted some of the 'cruft. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    "Affiliated with notable entities" is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about her. Bearcat ( talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The Peabody would be nicer and more notability-assisting if it actually had her name on it at all. Bearcat ( talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Extremely disconcerting that so many editors are taking promotional copy as fact... (1) The "-winning" construction should be an immediate peacock flag to any WP editor. (2) The Peabody went to The Moth Radio Hour, of which she was once a part, not Thau. If that infers notability on anyone, it infers it on the show, not individual producers, hosts, participants. For what it's worth, she's not even mentioned in the show's long list of Peabody acknowledgments, and I'm finding it very hard to find any source on The Moth's acceptance of the award with Thau's byline of "Peabody Award-winning" used with every introduction of her name, which brings us to... (3) We have Thau's "Peabody Award-winning" claim sourced to Thau's own website. If you want to say that this affiliation is notable—as many have tried to do above—then show a reliable, secondary source that explains the award in relation to Thau. (I.e., still lacking the sources to do justice to the topic.) czar 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Even without a Peabody, Thau is a seasoned and notable radio producer who's work bringing The Moth to millions of ears has fueled an international live storytelling phenomenon with many Moth-like events all over the globe. (Sidenote regarding the Peabody: Thau had just left The Moth in 2010 when The Moth Radio Hour won the award. In her acceptance speech, Thau's successor accepts the Peabody Award "on behalf of ... The Moth's staff ... both past and present." [6]. This is explained in the 2015 interview with Thau on The Wolf Den. [7]) Morganfitzp ( talk) 17:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that those claims are original research, not claims made in our reliable sourcing. czar 00:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Most every article and interview with Thau mentions her Peabody. I wonder if frustration around this stems from a feeling that this could be "fake news" and that all these people and organizations could be lying. Public radio is a reputable source on Wikipedia, and that's the sphere that cares about Thau's work. A source like FOXNews isn't going talk about Thau, nor are they going to go to her house to see if there's a Peabody hanging on her wall and then report on it. More important than these minutiae is that Wikipedia is here to provide a more equitable platform for article presentation than one would find in corporate media: Bill O'Reilly gets his page, and Lea Thau gets hers. Our work here is to improve them both. Morganfitzp ( talk) 12:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Czar's point about original research was referring to the claim that "her work bringing The Moth to millions of ears has fueled an international live storytelling phenomenon with many Moth-like events all over the globe." That's an unsourced assertion — for one thing, just because something is similar to something else doesn't automatically mean the second one was inspired by the first one, as it's entirely possible that the second person simply had a similar idea without even being aware that the first one existed at all. So one needs reliable sources to explicitly say that The Moth set it all off before we can say it here, because the mere existence of superficially similar things does not prove all by itself that The Moth sparked an international phenomenon.
    And as for the Peabody, it has to be sourced to media coverage about the Peabody win itself, explicitly naming Thau as a recipient, to count as a notability claim — it's not enough that it can be referenced to sources in which she's talking about herself, such as interviews or her self-published staff profiles. There is no notability claim that anybody can make that exempts them from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but there's no evidence that Thau has the depth of reliable source coverage about her that's required. Catherine Burns getting a Peabody and accepting it on behalf of the podcast's past and present staff is not the same thing as Thau winning a Peabody. Bearcat ( talk) 15:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Also, the logic's obvious next step: If Thau being on staff of The Moth Radio Hour prior to its Peabody means notability (which it doesn't, by any stretch of the notability guidelines), then why wouldn't the rest of the staff also be Peabody Award-winning and thus "notable"? And that interviews introduce individuals with their preferred bio is not an endorsement or a reliable vetting of those facts. No one contests that The Moth, if not its additional radio show, influenced storytelling in the US—I'm sure there are sources for that—but WP has a saying, " notability is not inherited": the show won the award and the show had the influence, not the individual producers/performers unless reliable, secondary sources discuss someone's specific influence. If reliable, secondary sources do not discuss Thau's role in specific depth, then her relation with The Moth should be covered in The Moth's article (n.b. it doesn't even mention her currently...) czar 17:27, 19 August 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. North America 1000 04:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Sprayed in place pipe

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

    Newly created article that appears to be sourced to one archived online source. Accuracy questioned, by editor who keeps removing content. Per WP:WEB article may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Creator has been blocked indef. — Maile ( talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Keep and improve The history of this article is assuredly problematic. The original author had registered a company username, and was blocked. Said user then requested, and was granted a name change, but the block does not appear to have been lifted. Said user then created a new account (see this discussion) to repair the mistake made when he added information about the CIPP technology rather than the SIPP technology that this article was meant to describe. Although the author's sole source is a poor one (and perhaps not even available), there are many sources to be found about this technology, and I believe it merits inclusion. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- Sprayed in place is another in a list of rehab technologies already described in Trenchless technology. Add sprayed to that list, then convert this article to a Redirect. Rhadow ( talk) 13:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and improve per WikiDan61 Erin93 ( talk) 16:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I noticed WikiDan61 promised to work on the article. Shankrupss professed a desire to work on it. It's counterproductive when editors propose solutions without dates, so articles just hang around forever with no resolution. Rhadow ( talk) 16:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Comment No, you noticed that I said the article could improve with work. I did not promise to be the one to do that work. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • There would appear to be some potentially useful sources in academic journals listed here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Notice the IP's comment above.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:43, 17 August 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. So Why 07:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Laura K. Inamedinova

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

    Zero independent coverage in reliable sources. Promotional, almost certainly undisclosed paid editing. SmartSE ( talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep As the one who improved the page and challenged the PROD, I believe the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent media sources ranging from Forbes to the Huffington Post, VentureBeat and Entrepreneur and the list goes on (references section). I don't really want to be judgemental, but I left a message on SmartSE's talk page after improving the page asking for suggestions and if the issues raised are removed to which I got no response other than nominating the article for deletion. Also, to say there is undisclosed paid editing, that is very serious accusation without a tangible evidence provided. Lukasds ( talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Huffington Post, Forbes and Entrepreneur are all unreliable sources that anyone (including the subject of this article) can submit content to. They're of no use for conferring notability and they don't even contain any biographical information about her. Venturebeat is slightly better but it contains a slight mention of her in an article about the company she worked for - zero use for demonstrating the notability of her.
    And RE paid editing: A brand new editor creates a fully-formed article with images uploaded 4 days earlier by a different account that's highly suspicious. When then, you turn up and as your "first" edit remove the PROD (you're down with the lingo I see) and try to salvage the article that's even more suspicious. SmartSE ( talk) 19:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • If Huffington Post, Forbes and Entrepreneur are not reliable sources, I'm not sure what is. Even following my heart, I feel these sources do confer notability of the subject. Regarding the VentureBeat article, try searching using 'Inamedinova' instead. You will see almost all the article giving a report of her about Plag. These are not the only sources. There are nich-specific ones where she receives significant coverage as well.
    Not really, there are many scenarios to this other than being on a paid mission and I guess you would know that. The same goes to down-with-the-lingo thing. Me defending the article is suspicious? Seriously? Again, these very serious accusations without a tangible evidence provided even when you are an admin. Lukasds ( talk) 01:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • The HuffPo and Enterpreneur articles are interviews with Inamedinova; she is a columnist for Forbes. None of these sources meet the "independence" criteria of WP:GNG. The VentureBeat source isn't about her, it just quotes her. Same for ArcticStartup. The other sources which might demonstrate notability are in Lithuanian, and I'm not really qualified to judge the, but the English-language sources cited in the article are not by themselves sufficient to show notability. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 09:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, at best WP:TOOSOON. Renata ( talk) 19:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - This skirts the GNG boundary; it's a reasonably close call. Jump ball goes to deletion based on he fact that this was created of by a single-purpose account that smacks of having been an undisclosed paid editor. When will WMF get serious about installing some sort of real registration process to make generation of sock accounts extremely difficult verging on impossible? Carrite ( talk) 11:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Notable. Plenty of sources reporting on her. Erin93 ( talk) 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Hot Topics in...

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

    Cannot find websites for these journals. "Official website" is dead link, as are both references. No other direct links found, just some non-informative indexing, confirming at best that these journals once existed. WorldCat indicates that "FB Communication" was the publisher, but cannot find any info on this publisher either. Journals seem to have disappeared without leaving much trace... No indication that this meets (or has ever met) WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 14:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 09:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Admittedly, I got a lot of false positives when searching for the titles "Hot Topics ...", "Hot Topics in Cardiology", etc. Nevertheless, I really couldn't find any information about these journals. Consequently, I think deletion is the best way to go, but I am happy to change my mind of other editors present relevant evidence for keeping this. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 15:10, 18 August 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. On first look, this might seem like a case of "no consensus", however, when the argument that she meets NHOCKEY, PROF or GNG was challenged, those in favor of keeping did not offer any more arguments. So Why 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Sera Doğramacı

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

    Fails WP:HOCKEY. Contested PROD and disruption caused by Smartyllama. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Per WP:ATHLETE, "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Hmlarson ( talk) 04:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Not sure if you indentended that ref to prove notability, but it was written by the subject herself.... - DJSasso ( talk) 10:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. As for NHOCKEY #2, that applies to leagues that existed before professional hockey existed in the 1800's etc. And in the communist countries where "professional" leagues did not exist as their "amateur" leagues were essentially their professional leagues. Professional leagues exist in the world now and she isn't prevented from moving to play in them (as citizens of the communist countries were), so she has the ability (if she had the skill) to play in them. This is spelled out in the link NHOCKEY provides to show what leagues meet each criteria. Secondly WP:NHOCKEY points out that you must play on a senior national team at the highest level of competition, she did not play on a national team that competed in the top level of the world championships or at the Olympics. Thirdly, while failing them does not mean they must be deleted, failing WP:GNG which this subject does, does mean they should be deleted. I can find no sources that provide notability. - DJSasso ( talk) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 03:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Why is this AfD focussed on hockey? The subject's academic papers, although inappropriately referenced in the article, seem to have references which can be easily found and as far as I can tell have been cited by others a decent number of times. The subject is/was also on the editorial board of a journal. I suggest there is enough for a case for a low level of compliance with WP:ACADEMIC. That combined with the subject's second string but not trivial hockey activity I believe is sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy WP:GNG. A subject does not have to pass any specific SNG if over all they pass GNG. Aoziwe ( talk) 04:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: While the article writing could use big improvements around some of the sourcing issues, subject appears to pass WP:GNG based on Epoch Times, Iceland Review, Sondakika, Haberinola, Visir, Doğan Haber Ajansı, Inner West Times and El Diario Montanes. Coverage comes from Iceland, Turkey, Brazil and Australia. The challenge her is most of the best sources about her to prove her notability are not in English, which can make notability less apparent. Notability would probably be more clear if someone more familiar with the Turkish language could find additional sources to clarify these. -- LauraHale ( talk) 12:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced (ignoring the unnecessary seven references to confirm she played for one Australian club), however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. For example, keep votes above cite Icelandic sources as an indication of GNG. Aside from the fact that these sources are articles on here team, not her, the first one doesn't even mention her, whilst the second is a very brief match report where she is mentioned in one sentence. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. As an aside, I would also note that here scientific career does not add weight to notability as she fails WP:NACADEMICS. Fenix down ( talk) 08:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: Passes WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. AaronWikia ( talk) 20:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: @ AaronWikia: She does not meet any criteria of NHOCKEY. What specific sources are you claiming meet GNG? Yosemiter ( talk) 22:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per Fenix down. Deadman137 ( talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete It's clear she doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see that WP:NPROF is met. That leaves WP:GNG. At first glance it appears that there are plenty of sources, but after clicking on each one I don't see any that I believe qualify as significant and independent. There are lots of stat sheets and routine sports reporting, but nothing that shows WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 02:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: Despite the erroneous assertions of others, there is no element of NHOCKEY the subject meets, none at all. The subject also fails WP:PROF, and I'm afraid this is just another of several recent AfDs on female Turkish hockey players where LauraHale just grabbed casual namedrops and roster listings off of Google (in one, she actually cited as a source of notability a mid-term grade online posting from a university course the subject had taken!!!), so at this point, I'm taking nothing on faith here: I want any keep proponent to identify the specific cites they claim satisfy the GNG. So far that's a challenge the keep proponents on these articles appear unwilling to address. Ravenswing 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of Macross characters. Per nom. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 03:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Britai Kridanik

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

    Minor fictional character with no real world significance, fails WP:GNG. Deprodded with suggestions of merge to List of Macross characters which no-one has bothered with for months if not years. Suggest soft deletion through redirecting to said list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge into or redirect to List of Macross characters seems like the most appropriate response. I am not opposed to the soft deletion and redirecting suggested by the nominator. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:40, 17 August 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. Meeting WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to keep an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Canadian College of English Language

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

    I considered PROD, but because it is an institution which provides education, I think this would benefit from a full discussion. While this institution clearly exists, there is little to no discussion of it in reliable sources. If stripped of the detailed, near-advertorial program information, the article would be a sentence long. The only sources I could find were [8] (a single paragraph buried deep in the article) and [9] (an interview with the owner). In my opinion that simply isn't enough coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. I know normally educational institutions are given a pass but I feel that because this one is for-profit, it (and others like it) should be given more scrutiny. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete. Unreferenced except primary sources. Unclear if this is a high school, private supplementary classes school, or such. In either case, fails WP:GNG - no indication of importance, etc. Likely spam/yellow pages type of an entry. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    It's definitely not a high school, it's private supplementary English classes. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ SwisterTwister: Link 1: already mentioned in my nom, single paragraph buried in a piece clearly about something else. Link 2: same as link 3, which I assume is an error. That piece also has the same author as link 4, which per the GNG makes it count as a single source: multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Michael McGuire (actor)

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

    Delete: as insufficiently notable character actor. Quis separabit? 11:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete I think he just about fails the WP:NACTOR test; he's had non-trivial supporting roles in a few mostly not very significant films (the acclaimed Bird, the minor cult The Streetfighter aka Hard Times, and some apparently without WP articles like Operation Undercover) and was in 20 episodes of Dark Shadows (the original TV series). Multiple major roles in notable films/TV? It's debatable, but I'm not certain any of those come into that rubric. A redirect to List of Dark Shadows characters might be a possibility; that seems his most noteworthy/memorable appearance. I've not attempted any kind of archive newspaper search, and if anyone can make a good claim for his career, it might still be a keeper. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 15:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    International Institute for Young Musicians

    Sources I can cite: http://www.iiym.com/IIYM/International_Piano_Competition.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimerman1 ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

    There are no sources on the article and I could not find anything that provides significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I do not see that this meets notability guidelines. ~ GB fan 11:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Cengiz Gök

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

    Fails WP:HOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY is not met. Papaursa ( talk) 03:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Mahmood Haider

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

    No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete The sources given demonstrate this is a respected, but non-notable, working member of their profession. Nothing available in searches demonstrates their career has been significantly exceptional or noted in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:58, 20 August 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. So Why 07:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    The Woody Show

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

    Fails WP:GNG. Only source I find that speaks to notability is the SFGATE source and that is barely. It was deleted in 2009 and I don't see much more here to show notability. Some passing mentions, some staff change announcements, but nothing in detail. John from Idegon ( talk) 06:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Keep WP:RPRGM is a guideline here. The article has content issues, but LA is a big enough market that morning shows are likely notable; and [10] is some (gossip) coverage. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I removed about 50% of the article, all completely unsourced that was massively promo and somewhat in-universe in nature, prior to nomination. After removing that, there is hardly anything there, and much of what is is also unsourced and unsourcable to anything other than a primary, connected source. A piece of gossip, essentially one unqualified and one qualified opinion, do not really speak much to notability, do they? John from Idegon ( talk) 21:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I agree that it's a very weak case. A claim of notability for one of "Woody, Ravey, Greg, and Menace" would be interesting if anyone has one. Power~enwiki ( talk) 05:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete unless the article sees significant sourcing improvement. While it's certainly plausible that a major media market radio show might be able to clear WP:GNG, RPRGM provides no automatic presumption of notability for a radio show just because it's in a major media market — the article has to demonstrate that there's enough sourcing to get the show over GNG, but the sourcing here is far too dependent on the station's own self-published press releases about itself and not nearly enough on reliable source coverage in unaffiliated sources. Bearcat ( talk) 21:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Another one of many iHeart's 'cover all the bases' morning shows for markets who can't afford local talent. What isn't said at the start of the article is it pretty much bombed in 2006 as part of the failed Free FM hot talk format, and since then it's stayed on the edges of radio where it's not popular enough to merit attention outside cheap stunts. There just isn't the sourcing here to pass WP:N. Nate • ( chatter) 21:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete There are thousands of local radio stations and shows around the country. This one being syndicated still does not prove notability. Reywas92 Talk 22:30, 24 August 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    67th Annual Race of Champions 250

    67th Annual Race of Champions 250 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:TOOSOON Meatsgains ( talk) 02:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep/Protect - I did notice this was created a day before a NASCAR race for Richmond taking place for September. I would suggest protection until maybe 9/26/17 when we know more about this. 47.208.20.130 ( talk) 03:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Laura Lundy Wheale

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

    I'm not finding any sourcing that would, in my estimation, push this article over the threshold for notability, specifically WP:NACTOR. Available coverage does not seem to rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV, as it seems that only local outlets have covered her to the extent that she's been covered. Marquardtika ( talk) 01:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:39, 17 August 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. So Why 07:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Cameron Beccario

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

    Non-notable programmer who created a slightly interesting but still seemingly non-notable webpage that just pulls data from elsewhere and doesn't do anything original. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete a non-notable computer programer. The nominator pretty well sums up the situation. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Zephyrtone

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

    Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Prod removed by creator but no reason given. Deleted a couple of weeks ago, recreated by brand-new WP:SPA. Boleyn ( talk) 18:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Artistfan, you are new, so you may not realise that you are not allowed to remove the AfD notice at the top of the article; I will restore it. You just comment here: keep, redirect or delete, with your reasons. Reasons linked to WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG are likely to be given more weight. Boleyn ( talk) 05:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - mentions and unreliable sources. Can't find in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 19 August 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. All content is apparently already in the main article.  Sandstein  09:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Sydney Trains Remodelled A set

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

    My proposed deletion tag with the following concern has been removed by an IP without explanation:

    All of this info would better go on the Sydney Trains A set page, which is already there now. And so, we could either redirect this page there or delete it entirely, but considering the only pages that link to the present page are via Template:NSWLocos and that the title "remodelled A set" seems to be only arbitrary, it would make an implausible redirect topic and thus I am asking for the present page to be removed. «««  SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete article makes like a news article or press release except it is completely unsourced. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Obvious deletion per nomination, and agree a redirect doesn't seem warranted -- Whats new? (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge anything useful with Sydney Trains A set and delete. No redirect. Definitely not notable in its own right. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Chintakindi Srinivasa Rao

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

    Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx ( talk) 19:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:38, 17 August 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. So Why 07:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Resource Guru

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

    Per source searches, not finding enough coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America 1000 21:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The current references in the article are all WP:SPS. Basically promotional cruft, which even includes the pricing: $2.50 per month per person. Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue nor a replacement for a corporate web site. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep -- Added additional source, removed pricing. I can understand the reasons for deletion but looking back at my comments from the last deletion nomination and I still see a number of similar companies with far worse articles not even nominated. It is not an excuse (still) but this is a strong company making improvements, growing with new sources. ~ Ablaze ( talk) 15:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Projecturf

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

    Per research and source searches, this project-management tool does not meet WP:GNG. North America 1000 23:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 01:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Varanasi Ram Mohan Rao

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

    Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Edwardx ( talk) 11:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:36, 17 August 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. Alex Shih Talk 04:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Charles B. Goldstuck

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

    CEO of a minor non-notable company. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Awards are vanity or trivial. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx ( talk) 11:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Per nom --- MassiveYR ♠ 15:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - music executives and producers are all too common, and I see nothing this person's done that shows notability. Bearian ( talk) 15:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Xue MA

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

    Struggling to find anything in English, and none of the things she is supposedly associated with have articles. Basically just an online CV. Edwardx ( talk) 10:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Support per WP:N. Don't help me, help the bear. 04:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Hanif Tarin

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

    Heavily sourced from Shair. No significant coverage. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Anjum Sultan Shahbaz

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

    No name check in WP:RS that he is a notable individual. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete a non-notable historian who does not meet inclusion criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment -- He may have written enough to be a notable author, but I do not know enough of the subject to be able to judge this stub. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Pakistan Chipboard (Pvt) Ltd

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

    No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I went ahead and replaced or updated references on this article on 13 august 2017. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 15:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - The factory was attacked and burned down by a mob in 2015. This was widely reported in media but only once by its name (see: Express Tribune). - Mfarazbaig ( talk) 04:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Then, event is notable not the company. Greenbörg (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:36, 17 August 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. Alex Shih Talk 06:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Akhtar Hussain (writer)

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

    Non-notable writer, appears to fail WP: BIO and WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. CataracticPlanets ( talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • My searches make it fairly clear that there was a writer/actor of this name active in the sub-continent in the 20th century, that he was part of a family of notable actors and people active in the film industry, that at least one young relative of his is now a fledgling film producer, and that he not the same person as Akhtar Hussain (musician). On the other hand, I know very little about Bollywood, so I will not attempt even to put up a stub on him. And I can see the sense in WP:DELETEING this unsourced article. Merely, this should not inhibit the writing of a solid article by someone with the expertise and some really solid sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

    I would really appreciate if no one deleted this page as Akhtar Hussain is my grandfather and I feel he has been short changed by the industry because he wasn't as well known as his more famous siblings. It is hard for me to find sources for this outside of IMDB because he wasn't as well known as them. All I have is my word, and I don't see the problem because it's such a harmless Wikipedia page. But I really want him to have more of an online presence. It hurts me that he doesn't.

    Vishal Hussain ( talk)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 02:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist. Should grab attention.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Vysotska L. Ol’viya

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

    She might be notable, but I can't find much in English. No clear claim to notability and no references. Edwardx ( talk) 00:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Delete because Wikipedia is not a repository for academic CVs. She should use her departmental webpage like the rest of us. Famous dog (c) 07:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Purely an academic CV of a seemingly non-notable academic. Carrite ( talk) 11:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Murdoch Murdoch

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

    Web series, seemingly un-notable outside of white-nationalist websites (and apparently an anti-fa one). The sources offered cannot be considered reliable, unbiased or independent, and I cannot find any on my own. Doesn't pass GNG, or WP:WEBCRIT in my opinion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. (Indeed, zero significant coverage in reliable sources at all.) Neutrality talk 03:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Siddharth Mehta

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

    Not notable businessmen and article is look highly promotional. All sources look like PR work. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Vanity WP page for a second generation businessman. Carrite ( talk) 11:22, 18 August 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. So Why 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Anthony T. Rinaldi

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

    There is some edgy notability, but I think he does not pass WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete. The article is basically a puff piece and I'm failing to see the notability. PureRED ( talk) 19:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Note. By the following message left on my talk page - "Anthony T. Rinaldi Is an renowned engineer and businessman from us he is selected and interviewed by FOX Business news." looks like author of the article has connection with it's subject. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 19:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete This is an overly detailed and undersourced biography. No sources found in a Google search to support notability. Alansohn ( talk) 20:04, 17 August 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  09:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Fatih Taygar

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

    Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter ( talk) 18:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Yavuz Karakoç

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

    Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter ( talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 21:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    The Katana's / theKTNA

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

    Only source that supports any article content is this one. CBBC, BBC, Manchester.gov.uk don't mention them. Rest of material is unsupported. Google news search pulls up Daily Mail and Metro saying "they grew up" (which hasn't been an accomplishment for a few centuries now), or like this piece that makes predictions back in 2013 (without following up for some reason). WP:COI vanity page that fails WP:GNG. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Justin Michael Jenkins

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

    I don't think this meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Kept at previous AfD, but that was in 2007 when we were much more lax about what was included and many felt it should have been deleted then. Boleyn ( talk) 17:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  17:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  17:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I don't see anything resembling significant critical attention. Looking at the news section of his own website, https://www.imaginativepencil.org/news/ the most prominent news item appears to be the announcement of a new Instagram account. The reviews section, https://www.imaginativepencil.org/reviews/ gives something like "celebrity endorsements" that might qualify as criterion 1: "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", but I can't find that these quotes are published anywhere, except on the subject's own website. I can see that the article was probably a good-faith attempt, but there's nothing that I can see that would make it pass WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot ( talk) 18:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, even though he appears to have had a very brief moment a decade ago when Chess Daily News ran promo for chess T-shirts he designed and there was a feature article in his local newspaper, "Jenkins wins award for Web site," Katie Mcdowell, The Dominion Post, Morgantown, W.Va.22 Dec 2005. It is a real profile, the website promoted his work on "themes of chess, anatomy, the mind and spirituality" which was described as commercial art. He was swilling to design t-shirts, mugs. He had "won a Gold Award for excellence in design for imaginativepencil.com from the American Association of Webmasters. And it's a pretty big deal - - less than 15 percent of applicants are awarded the prize, according to the association." Bio info. that lone article is real, but it's not enough. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete lack of diverse reliable sources to establish notability. A cheesy website design award has no impact on his status as an artist, unless we are also calling him a notable web designer. Which he isn't. 104.163.140.99 ( talk) 01:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Planeta (film)

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

    Fails. WP:GNG. None of the cited sources are credible. Two online forum sources and one blog sources. Quick google search doesn't bring up any credible either. Jamie Tubers ( talk) 17:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: The only references online are those from the Nigerian internet forum, Nairaland which were obviously not independent and certainly unreliable. Nothing from a WP:RS. Darreg ( talk) 11:34, 20 August 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) 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Jinyoung Englund

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

    Considering the Manka Dhingra page was deleted because "We should have an article about the race, not about an unelected candidate." (Cullen328) The Jinyoung page should follow the same rules. GhostDraggin ( talk) 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The subject was profiled by the Korea Times, the Hill, and the Northwest Asian Weekly prior to her campaign for office. In addition, her campaign received international coverage from the Korea Daily. The international coverage of the campaign, and multiple profiles in national papers (especially before 2017), lend itself to a WP:GNG pass. Additionally, each subject needs to be evaluated on their own merits. -- Enos733 ( talk) 21:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The most comparable article, the one about Dhingra, also had national news sources such as Politico and the Hill -- 172.58.41.202 ( talk) 17:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL. A candidate for a state legislature will almost never be notable as a result of their candidacy. I don't see a case for notability based on her Bitcoin work either. Power~enwiki ( talk) 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I agree that the subject doesn't meet WP:NPOL. However, the subject was profiled by multiple national outlets each from different angles - politics, business, and as a community volunteer/activist (all prior to the campaign). This coverage should lead to a WP:GNG pass. Also, WP:POLOUTCOMES recognizes that local politicians may become notable if they receive "national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." While the subject is not a current officeholder, the international coverage/profile of her candidacy, I think, should be considered similar to that of a local politician that is profiled in an international paper. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    How do you respond the the fact the Dhingra had similar qualifications, but had been deleted? -- GhostDraggin ( talk) 17:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The article doesn't contain much evidence that she was substantively profiled in national or international sources — apart from one article in the Korea Times, which isn't enough by itself, what it contains for extralocal sourcing is glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of either the overall race or Bitcoin, not nationalized sources that are substantively about her. Bearcat ( talk) 22:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Every candidate in any election is always going to garner some degree of coverage, because covering elections is a big part of what the media is for, but candidates are not automatically deemed notable just because that coverage exists — candidacy-related coverage is run of the mill for election candidates, because it's simply expected to exist for any person who's running as a candidate whether she has a substantive and enduring notability claim or not. What we've got here, however, is almost entirely a mix of routine and almost exclusively local candidacy-related coverage of exactly the type and volume that matches what's expected, primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and glancing namechecks of her existence in references that aren't substantively about her. The only source here that actually establishes any real notability at all, by passing all three of the "substantively about her", "from a reliable source" and "not just about her candidacy" tests, is the Korea Times article — but one source doesn't singlehandedly confer a WP:GNG pass all by itself. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins the seat, but nothing here constitutes a compelling reason why she would already qualify for an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 21:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    If the "Korea Times" article were the only profile, I would agree. However, she has a short profile in " the Hill," published in 2015. Also, I think we cannot discount the (yes campaign) coverage in the " Korea Daily." This international coverage is beyond the normal scope of a candidate for a state legislative race. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The "profile" in The Hill is a blurb in a "50 most beautiful people in politics" listicle whose other finalists mostly don't have articles either, not a substantive profile for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG. And yes, we can discount the Korea Daily piece — as you note, it's campaign coverage, not offering any evidence that her candidacy has unusual noteworthiness over other candidacies. The rule is not that a candidate gets a special case exemption from NPOL the moment one source beyond the local takes notice of her existence as a candidate — that coverage has to explode to Jon Ossoff or Christine O'Donnell proportions, which this hasn't done, before it makes her special. Bearcat ( talk) 18:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I think where we are finding disagreement is whether NPOL or GNG is the appropriate standard for evaluating the subject. I think we agree that in general, unelected candidates for office do not meet the criteria for notability. The electoral contest may be notable, and in this case, I am convinced the Washington 45th legislative district special election, 2017 would meet our inclusion criteria. Details about the candidates could be included there. We also agree that campaign coverage, in and of itself, would not automatically confer notability to a candidate (or even the existence of non-local coverage), because the subject is involved in a single event., with the event being the campaign (recognizing the extraordinary exceptions of Jon Ossoff or Christine O'Donnell). Where I think we differ is what happens when a subject does not quite meet our notability guidelines prior to candidacy, and gains RS coverage through an election campaign. My sense is that in these cases, similar to the circumstances in this AfD, that the electoral coverage adds to the conversation of whether a subject passes the general notability guidelines. (Meaning, just because we discount campaign coverage under the standards expressed in NPOL with common outcomes described in WP:POLOUTCOMES, does not mean that the campaign coverage is entirely discounted when accessing notability under GNG).
    To me, looking at this subject holistically, we see a subject that is profiled by an international paper, local press, and a publication with a national reach (all prior to candidacy), served as a spokesperson for a notable non-profit organization with a worldwide scope, and details of her biography and issue positions are covered by numerous local and (some) national and international papers. While none of these activities would lead to notability by themselves (or even two of the three), I assert this combination does. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Candidacy for office always brings a level of coverage that which focuses on the race and candidates at large. I do not see the sources here providing substantial coverage of the individual above that of the thousands of people who run for office. Laughable to think that a 50 most beautiful listing makes the person notable just because it is a major reliable source. This is a campaign ad that can be recreated if she wins. Reywas92 Talk 22:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus is that the existence of this person is not verifiable.  Sandstein  08:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Grand Duchess Elizabeth Nicholaevna of Russia

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

    Recently deprodded. Argument for retention was that children of monarchs are notable, but notability is not inherited. There is very little information on this infant and all information in this article is already in the parents' and siblings' articles. Celia Homeford ( talk) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. She was the daughter of an emperor. That makes her notable in her own right. Just like any other child of a monarch (or at least one of a major country). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    I've searched a bit more. I could find no trace of her in English outside WP clones. No trace of her whatsoever in Russian. I think it might be a hoax. I'm looking forward to be proven wrong. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete Like the above IP, I can find no evidence on either Google Scholar or Google Books that the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Nicholaevna even existed, let alone is sufficiently notable to have an article on wikipedia. At best, she fails GNG; at worst, she is a hoax. Re. Necrothesp's argument, even if she were the daughter of an emperor, WP:NOTINHERITED (only an essay, though commonly accepted) and WP:INVALIDBIO (part of a guideline) both specifically reject the idea that being the child of a notable individual confers notability. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 09:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I think there's a very pronounced difference between the child of any old notable individual and the child of the monarch of a significant country. If you don't agree then try to get an article on any British prince or princess deleted and you'll see what I mean (all such attempts have failed miserably). Consensus is generally that such people are notable by dint of membership of the royal family, which confers inherent notability. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here. The same would seem to apply to children even of some politicians (e.g. US Presidents), who aren't even members of an established dynasty. Although I do agree that proof of her existence (in online sources, at least) is sorely lacking and someone does need to find some references. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I have found a reference to her baptism in The Times. She definitely existed. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Thanks and a question for Necrothesp Thanks for the precise reference. Are you sure that the Times record does not refer to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna of Russia, born on 26 May 1826? I still find the complete lack of any record in Russian very perplexing. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 11:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
            • That is possible, I suppose. It merely says "on occasion of the baptism of Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Elizabeth". -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
              • Thanks. It seems the article is going to be kept, although in my opinion it is a rather obvious hoax. I am adding a warning to the Times' reference, lest it be taken as definitive proof that the girl existed, which it certainly is not. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 05:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
          • I see the reference in the Times, but how do you know it is for Elizabeth Nicholaevna? Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Elizabeth could equally well refer to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna of Russia, who was born in the same year. An uncertain primary source reference and an argument which basically boils down to Other Stuff Exists seems pretty unconvincing as an argument to keep to me... (ec: I see you have already said that you don't have any proof that the Times article refers to the Grand Duchess Elizabeth in question, which makes the claim of notability even weaker.) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep as I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment There is no trace of her except for the ambiguous reference in the Times. But if the Times article did indeed refer to our girl, there would be two Grand Duchesses Elizabeth, Nicholaevna and Michailovna, born a few days from each other. Nicholaevna would die three years later leaving no trace, either in English or in the immense online material about the imperial family in Russian, but the Times' hint. She would not be buried with her peers at the St. Peter and Paul Fortress. For some reason her tomb, assuming her body was not just thrown into the Neva by her devastated parents, would be totally unknown. The Britannica 1911 would blunder into negating her very existence and hence the tragedy of her death: " The emperor was a kind husband and father, and his domestic life was very happy. He had seven children: (1) the emperor Alexander II. (q.v.); (2) the grand-duchess Maria (1819-1876), duchess of Leuchtenberg; (3) the grand-duchess Olga (1822-1892), consort of King Charles of Württemberg; (4) the grand-duchess Alexandra (1825-1844), married to Prince Frederick of Hesse-Cassel; (5) the grand-duke Constantine Nikolayevich (1827-1892); (6) the grand-duke Nicholas Nikolayevich (1831-1891); (7) the grand-duke Michael Nikolayevich (b. 1832)." Imo this is a hoax. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 05:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment she is listed here [12]. Regardibg the 1911 Britannica entry we need to be careful in drawing conclusions as stillborn and infant deaths were often disregarded in the period. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC) If hoax or no lausible sources it should be deleted. If we have proof she existed I would say it should be kept. Haven't made up my mind here yet (still looking). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Here is a detailed list of the Russian empresses' children, including infant deaths and stillbirths, which are listed in the second column. There are numerous kids who were less than three years old when they died in the 18th and 19th century, e.g. 2-year-old Anna Petrovna. Even Pavel Petrovic, who lived only one day, has a tomb in the Peter and Paul Cathedral. Needless to say, no trace of our girl. "You'd also think that cousins wouldn't be named the same". Yes, and if they were (indeed very unlikely in an imperial family), the Times would not refer to either of them simply as "Grand Duchess Elizabeth". Anyways, the fact that this hoax has been on WP for six years is quite amusing. Perhaps it even makes its subject notable. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 07:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC) 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 07:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No substantial sources she existed. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- I cannot believe that an imperial princess, who died aged 3, achieved anything of note, apart from being born. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - There is no conclusive evidence she ever even existed. I understand she may have been (assuming she is real) a daughter of a monarch but we need actual sources to support this. Ping me if the situation changes. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete A lot of the arguments provided by the IP convince me that this is a hoax that has lasted for six years on this wiki and wasn't noticed until right now. Since this article has remained largely unsourced (save for one reference that might actually be referring to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna of Russia) since its original creation in 2011 and there is no actual evidence to support that she even exists (as pointed out, there is no mention of her in the Russian Wikipedia), I'd say delete this article as a hoax. 98.209.191.37 ( talk) 20:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- the article of the purported father (Nicholas I) does not list a fourth daughter: Nicholas_I_of_Russia#Issue. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      @ K.e.coffman: It was there prior to the AFD. I removed it as I was convinced it was a probable hoax. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No substantial RS sourcing, not shown definitively that she existed; and not notable in any regard for stand alone article, if she did. Kierzek ( talk) 16:16, 23 August 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 Golden Sun (series)#Plot. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    List of Golden Sun characters

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

    Lacks secondary sources per WP:VGSCOPE point 6. In effect, this list seems like a large WP:NOTWIKIA violation due to several unnotable subjects being present. (Also, redirecting to Golden Sun (series) may be inappropriate due to that article not containing a list of characters.) Steel1943 ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Nominator comment: Per WP:VGSCOPE point 6, it may be appropriate to redirect this page to Golden Sun (series)#Plot, but I am still leaning on deletion being a better option for this page due to lack of in-depth information about the characters in the series article. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete or Redirect to Golden Sun (series)#Plot, whatever the admin thinks is best. Either way, the characters seem non notable and the information better suited to Wikia. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to Golden Sun (series) per nom and WP:ATD-M. All this information is clearly not needed in the target article, but the basics would be reasonable to include. Nothing in the content is harmful, just excessively detailed, so there's no reason for a deletion to hide the history of the article. Jclemens ( talk) 05:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge to Golden Sun (series) per nom and Jclemens' post above. I am in complete agreement with Jclemens, and I do not have much to add to that. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Golden Sun (series)#Plot: straightforward alternative to deletion was was originally redirected—this AfD wasn't necessary. czar 06:43, 20 August 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. So Why 07:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Ruthie the duck girl

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

    Biography of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is being a local oddball in a city that's full of local oddballs. This doesn't suggest any reason why the rest of the world needs to know about her, and it's not sourced to anything like the depth or range of media coverage that it would take to clear WP:GNG -- the few sources here represent exclusively local coverage, not evidence that she ever attracted notice beyond her own local area. As I've pointed out before, if all you had to do to get a person into Wikipedia was show two or three pieces of local coverage regardless of whether that coverage existed in an encyclopedically noteworthy context or not, then our permitted article topics would have to include every fire and police chief on earth, every president of an elementary school parent teacher association or a condo board or a church bake sale committee, every teenager who ever tried out for his high school football team six months after having a toe amputated, the woman who lives a mile down the road from my parents who got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard, and me. There simply isn't enough substance, or enough sourcing, here to make a person encyclopedically notable just for walking around her hometown with a duck. Bearcat ( talk) 15:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:12, 18 August 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. Not a single delete !vote besides the nominator who did not even argue for deletion. Consensus is slightly in favor of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E not applying in this case and thus keeping it as a stand-alone article. This might change but then a merger can always be discussed at the talk page. So Why 07:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Jason Kessler

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

    The subject of this article is clearly not notable per WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. When a "Background" section starts with "Prior to 2016 Kessler was virtually unknown" and provides no information to suggest he has become less unknown, that's a good sign it shouldn't be an article. The article contains three sources, one an "extremist file" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, not a news report. All coverage is in the context of Unite the Right rally, and this page should be a redirect to that location, where all of the relevant information already is. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Keep- The media has been talking about the Unite the Right rally non-stop for the past week. Kessler is the main organizer of the event. All the information about his background does not appear in the Unite the right article and adding it would lengthen an already really long article. As for the southern poverty law center source, it is the most comprehensive summary of his background I could find and shouldn't be a problem given the southern poverty law center has been used as a source multiple times in the Unite the Right page.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • You made my point for me. The media has been talking about the rally. The rally organizer isn't therefore notable. He's notable if there's sufficient coverage of him, and there isn't. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • If you ask the simple question, why did the rally occur? The answer is Jason Kessler, who whatever reason has been focused on protesting the removal of the Robert E Lee statue for over a year. A rally of this magnitude would not have occurred, if he did not organize it. It was not the KKK or neo-nazi groups that were mainly responsible for the rally as the media wants you to believe (although these hate groups were certainly part of it).-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
          • His organizing the rally falls under WP:BLP1E. And "as the media wants you to believe"? He's part of those groups. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge - merge the page into the page on the rally itself unless he is notable in some other way as well. Ross-c ( talk) 16:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge per Ross-c. Booyahhayoob ( talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep the Unite the Right rally is about a RALLY, not an organizer. I agree with @ Rusf10: about the length of the Unite the Right rally article. Since the event is so important, the organizer's motivations need to be examined in depth. The right place to do that is on a dedicated page. Spem Reduxit ( talk) 00:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • "Examnining the organizer's motivations" goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not a newspaper and we don't do original research. News organizations aren't covering him, so we don't either. Not on his own page. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • What is "original research" in this article? everything is cited. And the motivations for the rally are important, the media doesn't want to discuss that because it doesn't fit their narrative that the reason for the rally was anything but pure racism. However, the events leading up to this rally go back over a year. However, despite being part of the "mainstream media", the CBS affiliate and the local newspaper there in Charlottesville did do some reports on this guy and that's what I got information from.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge into Unite the Right rally. Kessler is known solely for his role in that rally, his contribution can be handled adequately in that article. Classic BLP1E. WWGB ( talk) 01:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I really don't see how BLP1E applies here. The three conditions are met:
    1. He was covered more than just the one event, the one source about his assault charge I used was written back in April (I just corrected the date), long before the rally happened.
    2. Being that he organized a massive rally, I don't think his intention is to keep a low-profile.
    3. The event he is known for is certainly significant and his role in the event as the organizer was certainly substantial (and well-documented)-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Except his assault charge was a local one. Not a national one. Remove that charge from the equation, and it still boils down to the same point: he is only nationally notable for the rally. Nothing else. If he starts getting national attention for events other than the rally (a la George Zimmerman), then it can be argued he deserves his own page. Booyahhayoob ( talk) 02:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • BLP1E doesn't say anything about being nationally notable at the time an article was written.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • WP:NOTNEWS. "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Booyahhayoob ( talk) 03:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge into Unite the Right rally: There is no displayed independent notability, with the only inherited notability being his participation in the riot. Additionally, this article appears to be in violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV, as it reads as a newspaper article and one seeking to defend the subject matter at that. DARTHBOTTO  talk• cont 04:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • The article certainly is not a defense of him. It is merely an attempt to give his background and so the reader can understand why the rally was organized. And the only two conclusions I can come to are either he is insane or he is actually a Democrat plant.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    There's no need to reply to every vote. DARTHBOTTO  talk• cont 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    In other words, you have no response. Next time, don't make accusations if you can't defend them.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 12:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Nobody is going to try to interfere with you making ridiculous arguments without evidence like "either he is insane or he is actually a Democrat plant". Your bias is showing (only the right uses "Democrat" as a pejorative) and you're not doing yourself any favors. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Your bias has shown since day one. You didn't even want to have this discussion. Instead you wanted to circumvent the rules by blanking the page, then expressed frustration that we actually had to go through the proper process when you said "We could've done this the easy way but you insisted on this." So now I got him saying I wrote an article to defend the guy and you're saying I'm attacking him. Makes sense right. Regardless of what I think the article is written to state facts, not opinion. Also you failed to respond to your accusation that the article contains original research when it clearly does not. So either prove that it does or retract your previous comment.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Unite the Right rally. I believe that Kessler would go back to relative obscurity. His "alt-right" career appears to be over. WP:BIO1E situation and a separate article is not required. I've seen some coverage of Kessler's life and career prior to the rally, but it's been in local sources, such as "Kessler described as one-time wannabe liberal activist", in a Charlottesville newspaper, The Daily Progress. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • That newspaper seems to be the only source that is accurately covering this, I will use that link as a source, thank you.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Unite the Right rally. BLP-1E at this point... Carrite ( talk) 11:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I am glad @ Muboshgu: has calmed and we can have a somewhat more rational discussion. Who said anything about WP:OR? If you read up the page, it is a red herring introduced by, you guessed it, user @ Muboshgu:. I have reconsidered my vote and wish to change it, for the reason which follows. The SPLC is now being quoted as a reputable source on the Jason Kessler page, to ensure that Kessler is tarred as a "white nationalist". I have no opinion on this issue, but he may feel oppressed by the repetition of a libel on wikipedia. It may be unwise to put WP via participatory libel into Kessler's sights, as he has proven to be a resourceful and tenacious (I might add victorious on 1st amendment grounds to this list) courtroom adversary, and thus WP donors might prefer that it abstain from participatory libel. I believe that is what WP:BLP policy is designed to avoid. Isn't that right, @ Jimbo:?
      • The SPLC gave a comprehensive and from what I can see accurate account of this past, but I can certainly look for other sources to replace it.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • For the record, Spem Reduxit claims ownership of the unsigned post two above that ends in an appeal to Jimbo. To @ Rusf10:: Other sources would go some way to alleviate my concern, although if you found another source that also referred to him as a "white nationalist" and if he felt oppressed by that terminology, in his eyes the source of the libel (be it SPLC or say the NYT) would matter not a whit, and WP would be pursued for participatory and aggravated libel just the same. Why do you feel such an urge to keep a Kessler WP page? Let him twist in the wind for now, write your own personal notes, and in a year's time if ~~he makes the national news once again, then he will have attained notoriety enough for WP standards and you can say I told you so on Hannity, assuming that the latter hasn't shot himself twice in the back of the head or anything silly like that. Is anyone reading this? Derp derp booyah! Spem Reduxit ( talk) 22:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
          • That's exactly how I felt about it. Right now, he's nowhere near notable other than organizing the rally. If he does something else that's notable (as I mentioned above, a la George Zimmerman), then it'd be a good idea to make a page about him. And yes, I did solely reply to this because you essentially summoned me with your last sentence XD. Booyahhayoob ( talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge with Unite the Right rally. Quis separabit? 14:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Vote changed to KEEP Quis separabit? 21:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Merge Kessler has gotten some coverage independent of the rally from mid-2016 to early 2017. However, the coverage was generally local or bordered on a trivial mention of his participation in various events. I just don't think there is enough here to justify a stand-alone article. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Weak Keep Kessler has gotten a lot more coverage in the days since I originally voted merge. I generally prefer for article subjects to have recieved coverage for a longer period of time, but it does not appear like Kessler is going to be leaving the news any time soon. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 20:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep I fear that deletion or merging of this page will be a way that much sourced and useful info is lost.-- Yalens ( talk) 22:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge with Unite the Right rally - no one is talking about this guy except for his involvement with this one rally. Rockypedia ( talk) 05:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Due to the biographies, etc. published of him; articles about him and of course his involvement in the rally. Editosaurus ( talk) 09:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge with Unite the Right rally. This guy is only (in)famous because of it, and it's quite likely that he won't organize anything so notorious ever again; at the same time, this information is important and should be kept somewhere. LahmacunKebab ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Merge He is infamous for one event, so let's merge this with the article about that event. Any important stuff about him can be included there. This is Paul ( talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per GNG. MB298 ( talk) 04:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Merging with Unite the Right rally will lose important information. Many WP:RS have investigated Kessler's background in detail, particularly his conversion from the political left to the right. There's lots of information that goes beyond the two sections in the Unite the Right rally article that (1) has been reported by many WP:RS (2) is important to understanding Kessler's role and (3) is essential for giving all sides of the story and maintaining WP:NPOV. For example, his tweet, “Heather Heyer was a fat, disgusting Communist. Communists have killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback time.” Is that significant? Will that go into the merged article? -- Nbauman ( talk) 18:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep -- change from 'redirect'. The man does not know when to stop talking. There's already sufficient coverage of him for a stand alone article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Even if his notability only derives from the rally, that is enough under the circumstances to make him "interesting," and there is enough information to justify a separate article rather than bloat the rally article. Mewulwe ( talk) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep a few days ago "merge" was a possibility, but this just keeps getting more and more coverage. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:08, 21 August 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:G5 So Why 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    The Garbage Can Man Show

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

    Self-promotional page for a non-notable web animation (fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, WP:NWEB, and WP:PROMOTION). The article has been deleted/recreated several times in the recent past, but there's no indication anything has changed (as Garbage Can Man and The Garbage Can Man Show, along with several related and similar non notable articles). The creating user has likely been previously banned for sockpuppetry relating to the article subject (see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Daveydolphin). It should be noted the sockmaster tends to cite seemingly-credible user-generated content to create a false appearance of notability (which is the case here), as well as using socks to participate in deletion discussions for his own articles. The present article appears to now be offering false viewership statistics (these videos for the most part have <100 views, not millions). GretLomborg ( talk) 14:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment the creating user is now a confirmed sock-puppet and has been banned. I am going to G5 this. - GretLomborg ( talk) 19:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Jab Harry Met Sejal 2 (2019) (film)

    Jab Harry Met Sejal 2 (2019) (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable film lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. No evidence that filming has started. reddogsix ( talk) 14:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:38, 17 August 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 Heavy Heart (band). So Why 07:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Keepsake (Heavy Heart album)

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

    When I first encountered this article I redirected it to the band, since I cannot see a credible assertion of notability and the sources are hardly impressive. The article creator has (twice) undone the edit; I'd welcome more input. As can be imagined, I favour turning this to a redirect rather than deletion. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Brodie Trent

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

    Non-notable person. Most significant claim is selling out "750+" venues and opening for notable musical groups. PROD was declined by article creator without comment. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: whoever wrote this has massively overhyped Trent's claims to fame. "HLF" were Her Latest Flame, who Trent did indeed play for. The "opening act for The Killers and Muse" claim is based on HLF playing the same festival (on a completely different stage) at the Big Day Out 2007, and only then in Adelaide, not any of the other Big Day Out venues. [13] I suspect that might go for the other notable acts that HLF "opened for". Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete A puzzling entry that in one sentence claims to have performed as the opening act for big name artists, but the next sentence states his only performances have been private? And, yes, wikipedia is full of resume-padding verbiage such as “opened for…” or “shared the stage with…” among acts that are merely one of dozens of bands that fill out the rosters at multi-day music festivals, performing on side stages or in the filler slots while crowds are filing in, muling about, and in general indifferent to what is happening on stage. But… all that aside, I’m voting delete because there are no references and a google search turns up nothing beyond social media. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete WP:TOOSOON if anything. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:09, 18 August 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 under WP:A7. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 08:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Sarmad Sindhi

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

    It doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines of WP:SINGERS. Also, it doesn't mention which songs are sung by the singer. SahabAli wadia 13:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep as I added sources few days ago that makes him notable. Greenbörg (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per Greenbörg. Mar4d ( talk) 16:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Greenbörg: OK. But please mention some famous songs sung by him so that it can meet WP:SINGERS. Sources addition it's not a new thing but as it has no any section, it lacks since notability. According to. WP:GNG's criteria, the singer if has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself, then he might be notable. SahabAli wadia 17:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Go Ask Alice!

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

    Source searches are not providing enough coverage to warrant a standalone article; does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. North America 1000 01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Go Ask Alice! is a good educational website; I've used it as a source in some Wikipedia articles (usually as an adjunct), but, looking for sources for the article, it doesn't seem that I can save this article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Magnificentist 12:59, 17 August 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) 01:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    The NewStandard

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

    Contains lots of peacock and promotional language, makes a tenuous claim to notability - a quick Google search "The+NewStandard" finds few independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 10:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Magnificentist 12:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, not really per nomination, as I can't actually see anyting in their WP:BEFORE search. Such a search, however, indicates almost no depth or persistence of coverage in third-party sources that are actually independent of the outlet itself. The only coverage is primary and their own articles which, of course, demonstrate existance rather than notability; So the article fails the most WP:BASIC criteria. — fortuna velut luna 15:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I agree, DrStrauss, and I was originally going to say per nom  ;) but, bizarrely, your BEFORE only shows- well, only shows me- the Google homepage @ [14]. See what I mean? It was most odd. — fortuna velut luna 16:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Very odd, I just linked https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="The+NewStandard" from the search bar. Eh, technology :P DrStrauss talk 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    IBL-Unisys

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

    No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Magnificentist 12:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article is largely unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate website. -- HighKing ++ 15:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- just a directory listing, yet manages to be 100% promotional. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. ( WP:SNOW close). North America 1000 09:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    List of Underrated Indian Authors

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

    Pointless list. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete as OR essay from one POV. Mangoe ( talk) 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - can never satisfy NPOV. — swpb T 19:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, not an encyclopediatic article. -- Soman ( talk) 02:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Article is subjective and written like an essay. Any useful information present should be moved to their appropriate pages JaneHillervene ( talk) 06:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - No objective inclusion criteria possible. Carrite ( talk) 11:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. List topic fails WP:NPOV. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Per everyone above. Created by a new user who is not aware of our rules. Jupitus Smart 10:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete concur with everyone above. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:50, 21 August 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 entire unsourced content was "Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Maharashtra is a splinter faction of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) in Maharashtra. The party was classified as a moderate Naxal outfit." A sourced recreation is possible.  Sandstein  09:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Maharashtra

    Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Maharashtra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    All of these "splinter party" articles (there were a bunch of them created today) should either be deleted or merged into a single list of such organizations or redirected to the Communist Party of India. Having a dozen unreferenced stub articles is pointless. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom. Also happen to bundle the remaining stubs into this AfD and support deleting them as well. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Speedy Delete. The author flooded with dozens of articles without any sources. Nonthing suggests notability. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, merging articles to the CPI article would be very, very wrong, not the least considering the amount of bad blood between CPI and the Naxal factions. CPI and the CPI(ML) factions have very different developments since the splits of the 1960s. As per sourcing, CPI(ML) Maharashtra is one of the Naxal factions that was active in the years preceding WWW (to my memory it is a group active in the 1990s). It was an underground party, thus not publishing much detail about its organization and leadership publicly, and was active in the phase when academic/journalistic interest for Naxal movement was relatively low (there was a phase of writing in English on Naxal groups late 1970s/1980s and again after 2004...). So sourcing would certainly be complicated. That said I think that low google hit counts should not be taken as immediate proof that CPI(ML) Maharashtra and similar groups would have been irrelevant. -- Soman ( talk) 21:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. and try to source. There is no indication whatsoever that WP:BEFORE was carried out here, and it's part of Deletion Policy. We do not delete articles just for being unsourced. It might for example, turn out that they haver run candidates in elections--and we always keep such political parties. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Unsourced stub about a faction, not a party. Carrite ( talk) 11:35, 18 August 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. North America 1000 09:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Stellar Phoenix Mac Data Recovery

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

    Unremarkable software program. Refs are entirely from its own website. No evidence of independent notability offered or found. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak Keep. I see full editorial reviews in PCmag and TechRepublic. That's has usually been considered sufficient secondary sourcing for notability , but I'm not an expert in this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    @ KDS4444: @ DGG:@ CAPTAIN RAJU: Thanks for your time to share feedback on my page, I have added more helpful resources please have a look Amitpandeys0281

    Red X I withdraw my nomination The references still need to be placed following the claims they are meant to be supporting, but the review in PC Magazine appears to be enough to qualify this program as notable. KDS4444 ( talk) 07:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    @ KDS4444: Thank you so much for your review and trust, It would be great if your please also remove the deletion notice from the page Amitpandeys0281

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page is a copy violation from http://caspian.ut.ac.ir/en/%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%DB%8C/-/asset_publisher/JCSEXaYl6FDF/content/%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7-42?p_p_auth=wqCaN4QP&p_p_state_rcv=1 RickinBaltimore ( talk) 13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Caspian Faculty of Engineering

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

    Unremarkable university department. Either delete or redirect to the university. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:04, 17 August 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) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Harrison Byers

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

    Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources (despite how many are listed, they are all just name drops and stats sheets). Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship. Yosemiter ( talk) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Playing in some lower tier IIHF events (and junior ones at that) does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. His coverage is routine sports reporting, so WP:GNG is also not met. Papaursa ( talk) 02:57, 22 August 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. So Why 07:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Cheryl Najafi

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

    I am unconvinced that WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR are met. This essentially boils down to whether Houston Lifestyles & Homes and Arizona Foothills Magazine are considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Given their local scope I'm inclined to say that they don't. SmartSE ( talk) 09:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: The questions raised by the nominator warrant some more discussion
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Per WP:NOQUORUM and WP:PROD the removal of a BLPPROD does not prevent a soft delete close. So Why 07:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Alf Terje Hana

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

    Procedural nomination. This article was PRODded by User:Jac16888 as a BLP with no references. However, the article contains a number of external links which could be construed as references, and the PROD was removed repeatedly by the article's creator and principal contributor User:Athanaguitar. Given the contention it would be good to get an AfD consensus here. A Train talk 08:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, none of the links constitue reliable or useful references-- Jac16888 Talk 21:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Bittu Kumar

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

    Non-notable individual. I am unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. SmartSE ( talk) 09:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I unfortunately cannot find anything in major newspapers. I did find a twitter account with 102K followers, but weirdly there seems to be no news about the person. Some of the links in the article are not accessible.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 17:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 08:29, 17 August 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) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Akash Mehta

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

    No evidence of notability independent of that of highly notable cricketer Chris Gayle. Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- promotional 'cruft and WP:TOOSOON. Has all hallmarks of being created by someone with a close association with the subject. Notability not inherited from Chris Gayle. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 08:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    St. Pats Socialist Students Federation

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

    No coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 08:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Short-lived Pakistani student organization, not a political party. Zero footnotes in the piece pointing us to potential non-English sources. Tiny Google footprint, relating largely to this WP article and a previously deleted piece about one of the group's organizers. Fails GNG. Carrite ( talk) 11:44, 18 August 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  09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Muhammad Ali Naqvi

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

    No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. While an article might be acceptable here if it could be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, that's not what the sources here are doing — as written, this is resting entirely on one primary source and one glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of one book. That's not enough. The potential notability claim here took place long enough ago that valid sourcing for it would not be expected to show up on a simple Google search. Better sources might exist in microfilms or archives, certainly, but we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because better sources might exist — we keep poorly sourced articles only if and when somebody does the work to demonstrate that better sources do exist. Bearcat ( talk) 18:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Are there sources in Urdu?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 08:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    National Engineers Training Services

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

    No coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 08:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Djokovic–Wawrinka rivalry

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

    Per WP:NPSORTS, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. There's nothing to indicate these players have a particular, notable rivalry. Not in the least through Wawrinka's inconsistent form in major tournaments. They do not have had an unique amount of encounters in tennis terms. They are merely competitors. T v x1 09:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete. Wawrinka just doesn't have the sustained record to elevate their meetings to a noteworthy rivalry. A New York Times article says it all with the title "An Overlooked Rivalry: Novak Djokovic and Stan Wawrinka". [15] Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - I didn't realize this rivalry article existed till now. It is inherent in the sport that players of similar caliber will meet many times. That does not a notable rivalry make. Per NSport, "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." They have to really be special and have significant coverage. Obviously, pre-1970 tennis rivalries will have a harder time in finding the relevant sources, so we have to allow some leeway there. But Djokovic-Wawrinka is routine. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - per nom and Fyunck(click), this rivalry is not particularly notable, at least not enough to justify a separte article.-- Wolbo ( talk) 08:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Pak Education Society

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

    No coverage found for this society. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete: Only mentions found are in passing or do not establish notability -- Hazarasp ( talk) 11:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 07:58, 17 August 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. Ultimately consensus is that there's no uniqueness to umbrella repair in Hong Kong as opposed to elsewhere and therefore no reason for a stand-alone article. A larger article about umbrella repair in general might be suitable, so no opposition to undeletion for the purposes of retrieving info/refs to build a more general article. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Umbrella repair in Hong Kong

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

    I'm not sure what this article adds to Wikipedia. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom. A non-notable topic, for our purposes. Created and edited by what looks to be about three SPAs that I daresay may be sock accounts. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete WP:SNOW delete. This one is so absurd, plus created by an SPA, that I wonder if it was created as some sort of gag. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Non-notable article. Trivial. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 22:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per wet SNOW, unless they repair umbrellas differently in HK. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and expand. There's a substantial amount of mainstream news coverage about various umbrella repairmen in Hong Kong: [16] [17] (HKEJ), [18] [19] (SCMP). There's also e.g. this article from a cultural website. Deryck C. 12:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Fair, but what exactly would the article add to Wikipedia? "In Hong Kong they have repaired umbrellas for a long time. However, now there are very few umbrella repairmen left." Couldn't the same thing be said about elevator operators or other dying professions? Further, why is Hong Kong special for this? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    We seem to have articles about all these things: Cooper (profession), Elevator operator, Fast food in China, Taxicabs of New York City so I don't see your arguments as making sense. The question should be whether the topic meets the notability guidelines.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Is there an article on Coopers in Hong Kong or Elevator Operators in Hong Kong? No, and there shouldn't be. There is no reason that repair in Hong Kong is more note-worthy than repair anywhere else. Just because there are articles about a topic in regards to a specific region of the world does not mean that there needs to be an article on that topic specifically related to that specific region. Something being covered in depth does not mean that it warrants an article. You can find in depth coverage on Lawnmower repair in Kansas, but having an article on it would be frivolous and unnecessary. Not to mention every profession does not need an article - umbrella repair is in no way a unique skill, it is applying other skills to a specific instrument. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps it is appropriate to create a Umbrella repair article, and migrate this content under a "Hong Kong" tab. Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 12:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The first four refs that Deryck links to seem to be reliable sources. I still don't think the article in its current form passes muster, but colour me neutral. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Covered in sufficient depth in reliable sources.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and expand If this is a particular tradition that goes on in HK, but not other places, then it is worthy of note Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete. There's nothing (as yet, but I'm open to changing this opinion if something turns up) demonstrating that umbrella repair in Hong Kong is somehow special and distinct from umbrella repair in Djibouti, Finland or Uruguay. One of the external links makes the point that umbrellas have become symbolic of the protest movement in recent years, so there may well be something out there which could be added to show the notability required. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and expand Hong Kong umbrella repair is a traditional form of industry and art. It has been covered in the past by newspapers such as the SCMP. The article as of now is very poorly written, however it can definitely be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    It is not a traditional form of industry and art, it is just a modern-era service repair industry that has all but died out, like radio repair shops. There is nothing to suggest a particular notability or uniqueness for it in Hong Kong - there is no no historical "umbrella-repairers district", for example. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I'd be hesitant about claiming that it's a modern industry. Umbrellas have a very long history in China (I've never thought about it before, but I'm sure I've seen them in many historical dramas and artworks); and in previous millennia they must often have been expensive objets d'art that were worth repairing. And that matters, because it means we're less likely to find online sources. Matt's talk 09:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Umbrellas (and parasols, etc) have been around for much longer than radios. Comparing the two is irrelevant and inappropriate Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 12:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The type of umbrella this article is about concerns a modern-era object. Modern-era is anything after the medieval period, i.e. 16th-century or later. And HK itself is a modern-era creation. There is nothing to suggest that there is something HK specific about the concept of, or practice of, or notability in repairing umbrellas. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 14:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Not a notable subject or one suitable for an encyclopedia. Nothing would be lost by deletion: it has negligible content, none of which is deserving of any merge. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete. Normally we complain that people are abusing coverage of a topic to create an article about a person. In this case, there seems to be significant coverage of the talented Messrs Ho and Yau, but not of this topic. And as Tiptoethrutheminefield has said, there doesn't seem to be anything specifically HK about this. I have found a few other references to Chinese umbrella repair men behind paywalls; perhaps this is another case where HK has preserved customs that have died out on the mainland. I do wonder whether someone may be making a ( WP:SOAP) point about the Umbrella movement. If we keep it, I would rename to Umbrella repair in the hope of expansion. Matt's talk 09:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Important Note: The umbrella movement (HK political protest) has absolutely nothing to do with this industry. Please do not suggest merging or renaming this article to relate to that. Hyungjoo98 ( talk) 12:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 07:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This article is of perceived importance based on the political importance of umbrellas in Hong Kong (read 2014 Hong Kong protests for more information.) I cannot see any relevance beyond this and must say that if umbrella repair was for some reason a relevant notable craft and therefore a topic, it ought to be an international topic. not a HK specific topic. A Guy into Books ( talk) 13:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. If this was a culturally significant industry in Hong Kong, an article Umbrellas in Hong Kong could be created based on the sources mentioned above, but the current content is just trivia. And so far nobody seems interested in improving it.  Sandstein  09:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Umbrellas are important in Hong Kong, and repairing them is a thing, but it doesn't follow that repairing them is important in Hong Long. Umbrella repair in France is even notable. I see zero improvement to the article since nomination. Bearian ( talk) 12:41, 25 August 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 a hoax RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Schlophanne

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

    This appears to be a neologism as a non-existent mythical creature mentioned in sources that contain urban legends. Wikipedia should not cover it unless reliable sources discuss it as fictional. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete per WP:G7. So Why 07:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Kino tanabe

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

    Run-of-the-mill musical performer. References appear to be to an unrelated album. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits. No independent sourcing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Delete - the whole page seems bizarre. It's not just the references, but all of the page that is about the American band The Format. I can't see anything worth saving. Ross-c ( talk) 13:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep.  Sandstein  09:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Kostas Karras

    Kostas Karras (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Delete as insufficiently notable actor; Google search provided scant results. Quis separabit? 02:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • To be fair, potential sources are far more likely to be written in Greek rather than any language that uses the Latin alphabet, so nominator's failure to find Google results isn't determinative in and of itself — although I'm at a total loss to evaluate them for reliability or lack thereof, the number of Google hits explodes if you search on "Κώστας Καρράς" instead of "Kostas Karras". But this does make a claim — "was a member of the Hellenic Parliament from 2000 to 2007, representing the New Democracy party" — that passes WP:NPOL #1 if it can be verified (it's not enough to just claim it without a source, because we have seen cases where article topics were falsely claimed to have held political offices they didn't actually hold.) So it will need to be kept if somebody who can read the Greek sources can find one which verifies that he actually did hold that role, but can certainly still be deleted (albeit without prejudice against future recreation) if that's not provided. Bearcat ( talk) 17:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: I added a reference which confirms the subject as a parliamentarian, so meeting WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1, aside from his acting career. AllyD ( talk) 06:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Something of a celebrity in Greece: [20], [21], [22] and many more. Google Translator is pretty terrific. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 20:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: A very popular Greek actor, also involved in the main stage of Greek politics, as he was twice elected MP (2000-2007); cf To Vima of May 6, 2012. —— Chalk19 ( talk) 19:58, 18 August 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  09:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Advertising account executive

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

    Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article - maybe suitable for Wiktionary. (The first source cited is an advertisement, the second leads to a 404.) Maproom ( talk) 07:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 05:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • delete self-explanatory, plain English term. Not encyclopedic topic. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:20, 24 August 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. If 95% of the sources are related to a single event, then logically 5% are not, which means WP:BLP1E no longer applies as a reason for deletion. The subject's notability has not been questioned otherwise. So Why 07:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Ike Kaveladze

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

    WP:BLP1E person. Nothing of value to preserve. Redirect to Trump campaign–Russian meeting. — JFG talk 07:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep A quick google search shows that there is enough coverage of him, and not just the event, to justify WP:N. Moreover, considering the continued coverage, he is not likely to remain low pro-file. Casprings ( talk) 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - He has risen to the limelight due to BPL1E (the meeting). However subsequent coverage is on other issues as well (e.g. the 1.4 Billion USD he allegedly move for corporations per NYT, dating back to 2000). As he is connected to the whole "Russia/Trump" angle - it is unlikely that coverage of him will die out soon. Per WP:RAPID (all be it modified for the slow-moving "Trump/Russia" angle) - it is probably best to keep and reassess notability (if it is an issue) 1-2 years from now. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 05:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Snow keep - Google shows a ton of sourcing for him; WaPo, Newsweek, NBC News, NPR, CNN, Independent, and Guardian, among others, have reported on this. Jdcomix ( talk) 16:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Yes, tons of sourcing, 95% of it related to the Trump campaign–Russian meeting. He is not notable independently from this event (BLP1E). — JFG talk 08:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • keep and improve -- makes sense to keep with above comment and lots of sourcing. But the article needs a lot more sources itself to back up and prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSF 323 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 August 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is essentially only proposing a merge in stating, "this needs to be incorporated into one of the reparations articles ..." I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America 1000 05:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Guarantees of non-repetition

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

    This needs to be incorporated into one of the reparations articles (which probably need to be merged themselves. This isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. Pariah24 ( talk) 06:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 05:13, 17 August 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) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Saturn Electronics

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

    Basically an advert and fails WP:GNG. I know the previous AfD provided a link to news sources but (a) that link doesn't work now and (b) I think it may have been confusing the Romulus-based Saturn Electronics with another Michigan firm of the same name, based at some point in Coopersville and elsewhere, and taken over by Flextronics a few years ago. (That other firm is actually mentioned on the talk page.) Searching on "saturn electronics romulus" doesn't get much beyond trade directories, WP:SPS and interviews such as this, plus the item I've just added to Further reading.

    I can't see a lot of US-based newspapers but I have grave doubts about this being a policy-compliant article or, indeed, capable of becoming one. Sitush ( talk) 08:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:10, 17 August 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) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    The Very Best of the 13th Floor Elevators Going Up

    The Very Best of the 13th Floor Elevators Going Up (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I am a huge fan of The Elevators but this compilation is so indistinct that it does not even have an AllMusic entry (with a review, at least). With no significant coverage, it clearly fails WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 05:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete: There are a variety of 13th Floor Elevators compilations and I see nothing to demonstrate that this one is important in its own right. Fails WP:NALBUM. (I am also perplexed how any Elevators compilation can lack "Roller Coaster", especially the Avalon Ballroom version?) AllyD ( talk) 07:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 17 August 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) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Cover Wallet

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

    Promotional article for non-notable Insurance agency that sells insurance, not an insurance company that provides insurance. The refs are the usual mentions and notes and press releases. Awards are trivial, or one of many in a listing. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep
    @ DGG: Cover Wallet is not an insurance agency but part of insurtech companies which are introducing a new way to get insurance online. please check here if you dont know about insurtech [ here] & Financial technology. HmmNinja ( talk) 17:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ DGG: Coverwallet was called the best fintech solution in 2017. HmmNinja ( talk) 17:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. The references are poor: two are to the firm's PR; the Forbes and Inc. items are brief mentions of individuals at the firm. Nor do the Entrepreneur listing and the Benzinga Global FinTech Award appear distinctly notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 07:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep
    @ AllyD: Benigna it's not a mass media, it's an online magazine specializes in investors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.65.56 ( talk • contribs)
    • Whether Benzinga aims for a mass or a specialist audience is not really relevant: there is no automatic notability inherited for its awards and their recipients. Also, if this IP is the same person as the editor who used the same format when responding to User DGG above, you should not be providing a "Keep" opinion twice. AllyD ( talk) 20:49, 22 August 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Hussain Industries

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

    No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG, references do not establish notability. -- HighKing ++ 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The company is listed on Pakistan Stock Exchange and is a large textile manufacturer. I added 7 new references today. It was unreferenced since 2009. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 22:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Being listed is not a guarantee of notability. The references you added fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as they are normal business-as-usual references and company announcements. Can you find a reference that doesn't rely on company-produced material? -- HighKing ++ 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Note that seven new sources were added to the article on 16 August 2017.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Majority of the sources added are showing that the company is listed which has nothing to do with notability, especially of a company. Greenbörg (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Reply I ask both of you gentlemen to please reconsider. I myself have been trading stocks on the New York Stock Exchange since 1983. My impression is that these stock exchanges review the company's records before agreeing to list them on the exchange. Pakistan Stock Exchange, admittedly very very small compared to the world's largest NY exchange, still has a company review procedure in place before they agree to list them. Would a major business newspaper like Financial Times of United Kingdom give it any coverage if the company were not sizeable and notable locally in Pakistan? All my given references are not local. One given reference is a German website about the company exhibiting at the Frankfurt Textile Fair. It's eventually your judgement and decision. I thought I would write a few words to defend my edited work. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 19:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Reply On a second thought, I just clicked on your above-given Wikipedia link about 'Depth of coverage' and read it. I did not see any mention of stock quotes from international markets being called 'a mere mention' or 'trivial'. We all know business stock quotes are very brief for all companies - large or small. I am asking you for a suggestion for my future editing whether I should discontinue using them ? Thinking back, I recall that I only decided to edit the article because it was 'unreferenced' since June 2009. If asked by Wikipedia, I will suggest in their online surveys not to even accept articles without references to begin with. It will lighten everyone's workload here on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Avocado Green Mattress

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

    I declined the WP:G11 proposal for this article because promotional tone was addressable by copy editing it. However, sources searches are not demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH is met. North America 1000 04:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete non-notable business where the coverage that exists does not meet the standards of WP:N. Promotional to boot too. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    LearnStreet

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

    Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America 1000 02:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:59, 17 August 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. So Why 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Archimedes-lab.org

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

    Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. North America 1000 01:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Speedy keep. Not-notable? What are your arguments beside 'not-notable'? I simply cannot believe that this award winning website's page is being considered for deletion. I really don't see how it fails the criteria of WP:WEBCRIT! The claim that the website's content, which is mathematics and recreational mathematics, is not-notable in my opinion is biased. This educational website/project is free, it is a source for many students and scholars since 1995, it has been cited in many academic papers, such as Scientific American, Smithsonian, Neural Correlates, On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), etc. It has received a long list of accolades from the world of education (see its references). I think this site has its place in WP in comparison to other similar sites.
    To conclude, this website is used as an external link in many WP articles, so there must be some editors who believe that the website's content is valuable. I really think that the site as a whole is an exemplar for mathematical education for both children and grown-ups. -- Ruotailfoglio ( talk) 04:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)— Ruotailfoglio ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (This includes Gianni A. Sarcone, on the website's founder). Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Just for your information (regarding verifiable sources):
    a) List of educational & academic books citing/mentioning archimedes-lab.org: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=archimedes-lab.org
    b) List of papers (PDF format) citing/mentioning archimedes-lab.org: http://www.pdfsearchengine.org/results.html?cx=016703912148653225111%3Aosmuvcrimei&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=filetype%3Apdf+%22archimedes-lab.org%22&qfront=%22archimedes-lab.org
    c) List of entries citing/mentioning archimedes-lab.org in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences: https://oeis.org/search?q=archimedes-lab.org&language=english&go=Search
    d) Award Archimedes Lab won in 2003: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2003-scitech-web-awards-m/
    e) Award Archimedes Lab won in 2011: http://illusionoftheyear.com/2011/05/mask-of-love/
    f) Award Archimedes Lab won in 2014: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/illusion-chasers/the-best-illusions-of-2014/
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruotailfoglio ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. Ruotailfoglio ( talk) 18:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:56, 17 August 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) 00:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Teletrac Navman

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

    Non notable company. Fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Completely generic. Fails WP:ORG. scope_creep ( talk) 00:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No indication of anything beyond WP:ROUTINE press releases and corporate directory information available. Nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH present in article or searches. 22:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Swati Bhargava

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

    Was listed as a speedy; relisting here because of claims of notability. Borderline case. Coverage in secondary sources appears to be anecdotal and incidental and possibly the result of professional placement by PR firms. I was unable to find coverage that was clearly editorial in character. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nominator. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:04, 17 August 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) J 947( c) ( m) 06:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Stanley M. Burstein

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

    Unremarkable Emeritus professor Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - Emeritus professor, recognized expert in the history of the ancient world, author of A Standard Text published by Oxford University Press. Carrite ( talk) 04:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Also the lead author of one of the basic Ancient Civilization textbooks, published by Houghton Mifflin. Passes the SNG for academics based upon being a recognized expert in his field. Carrite ( talk) 04:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. High GS cites for a low-cited area passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations in this area. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC). reply
    • Keep per WP:PROF#C1, the books cited by Carrite above as well as the awards mentioned in the article and his citation record clearly show the subject is highly influential in his field. –  Joe ( talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep -- Being head of department and awarded an emeritus title point to notability, but the article is a mere stub, so far. I would like to know about his reseach and publications. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:31, 19 August 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) 00:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Monmouth Film Festival

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

    Deprodded without improvement, with the rationale, "issues with claims of "advertising" are best dealt with using a technique called :editing" (rather than "deletion")".

    Local festival. While it receives local coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom. Local event that does not rise to the level of WP:GNG. MarnetteD| Talk 05:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Soft delete as this looks plausibly to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only substantive coverage of the festival itself I found when I went looking for sources is either from small local papers or not independent of the festival. A shame Alansohn (or someone else) hasn't yet removed some of the promotional tone, but that may be moot if nobody wants to work on a draftified copy of the article. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 03:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • GrammarFascist, you might want to take a look at this edit, in terms of promotional tone. Alansohn ( talk) 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • That edit took out some of the worst of the promotional tone and content, Alansohn, but plenty still remains, making the article look more like a travel brochure than an encyclopedia article in places. I don't consider promotional tone necessarily a deletion-worthy offense, but the article currently fails the WP:GNG, and that's what I based my !vote on. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 04:00, 21 August 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. Will undelete on request if any in-depth sources are located. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Emre Faner

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

    Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:55, 18 August 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. Will undelete on request if any in-depth sources are located. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Gürkan Çetinkaya

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

    Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:54, 18 August 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. Will undelete on request if any in-depth sources are located. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Barış Coşkun

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

    Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:54, 18 August 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) 00:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Cengiz Çıplak

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

    Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: Fails NHOCKEY by a country mile, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 07:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    List of american cartoon broadcast in Italy

    List of american cartoon broadcast in Italy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of trivia. Any television show produced in any country can be aired in any other country, and by definition American shows are going to be a big part of that -- so there's simply no need for comprehensive lists of every show from one country that was ever broadcast in another one. Bearcat ( talk) 03:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list; if it's in English, most likely its been dubbed into Italian. Nate • ( chatter) 05:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 ( talk) 05:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I would have thought most American cartoons are in syndication somewhere in the world. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, the list inclusion criteria are poorly defined. It's not clear whether it refers to currently aired shows, historical, or whatever. Diego ( talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, per nom. The article holds no encyclopedic value. Shellwood ( talk) 21:18, 18 August 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) 00:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir

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

    Cited sources are an organization on whose board he served (not independent) and a brief news mention of his death in a car crash. Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, ProQuest, and Questia found: other variations of the car crash story, a brief mention, [23] and a short quote on VOA. [24] This is not nearly enough to demonstrate notability. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Worldbruce ( talk) 01:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 01:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 01:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete I've literally only been able to find the Daily Star source already quoted in the article. There don't seem to be any other mentions of the subject in English, so barring some undiscovered trove of sustained coverage in Bengali, I do believe that the subject fails WP:ACADEMIC. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:39, 21 August 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) 00:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Caryn Larrinaga

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

    Per WP:AUTHOR. Just debuted her first novel this year, and while she was nominated for an award, she has not won any just yet. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro ( talk) 23:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Delete - Very few results on her, thus likely would fail GNG. 47.208.20.130 ( talk) 00:51, 17 August 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.
    Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_August_17&oldid=1142619932"