From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 June 9 June >
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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Defeating ISIS

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

Another book in a walled-garden of obscure novels. Apparently propping up Malcolm Nance's books in Wikipedia is easier than waiting for coverage. Book fails GNG and this WP article outcovers every source. DHeyward ( talk) 23:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • It's the web of "What links here" that is common and a growing but unsubstantiated synthesized links to Trump/Russian ties. This is one place where the infection is spreading. Take a step back and the author is a notable figure (Malolm Nance). The two books are not independently notable and it appears that these articles are being created to artificially create credibility. Wikipedia currently has the most in-depth coverage of any of the books and that is a red flag since we are coverage of the coverage. Reading secondary coverage also puts a collection of these titles in a set of Conspiracy Theories. The coverage of these books is a paragraph in the authors biography, not a set of seventh grade book reports masquerading as Wikipedia articles. Walled gardens are soetimes okay but not when they become an astroturfing links to heighten what is really marginal opinions. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think your judgement is clouded, and again I will recommend simply avoiding Sagecandor's work. Others can review, there are plenty of us here, and frankly this is a path best avoided. As for the book, I see enough to convince me it passes GNG, enough significant coverage. The bar isn't exactly that high, but the fact that it was a NYT best seller alone shows it is likely notable. The citations are sufficient for inclusion. It doesn't matter if it is fringe or conspiracy or blank pages, we just follow the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 11:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Coolabahapple:You are correct as to WP:NBOOK, which requires two (2) independent reviews. This book has three. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per other keeps - in fact this is SNOW keep as mentioned above. Enough reliable sources for GNG including independent reviews, plus NYT top ten listing. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but I would kindly suggest to the author or anybody else that if the "Background" section is going to be duplicated so many times, you might as well just create an article for the author using that material -- seems like a better idea than status quo to me. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 12:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Aleksander Jovanovic

Aleksander Jovanovic (  | 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 such player is listed on the website of the Bolton Wanderers F.C. and in fact, Google finds nothing for the search "Aleksander Jovanovic"+football. (Also note that he's not one of the people listed at Aleksandar Jovanović) I'm hesitant to call it a hoax but there's definitely a verifiability issue here. Pichpich ( talk) 23:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Nine money personalities model

Nine money personalities model (  | 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 found no significant coverage and the developer doesn't even have an article. Fails WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete – not sure how this article has slipped through the notability policies these past 7 years, but it has no independent coverage and fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be a proprietary model used in commercial training materials published by the Coaches Training Institute, so mentions in books published by that company are not independent. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

U.S. Rail News

U.S. Rail News (  | 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 defunct newsletter service. TheGGoose ( talk) 19:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article is nothing but a lot of vague statements about the purported importance of this newsletter, with nothing substantiated by reliable sources. -- Kinu  t/ c 02:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

William Billy Boucher

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

WP:NOTNEWS only this event is notable, not the person. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser414 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Tanga.com

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

No reliable source to establish notability. Full of LinkedIn, official website, blogs. Full of advertisements.It is nothing just a corporate spam. Mar11 ( talk) 18:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I would have to disagree. I stumbled upon the company (tanga) the other day when I was looking to buy something online. I googled the company & looked it up on wikipedia, & to my surprise there wasn't a wikipedia page on it. I figured other people have probably run into the same situations, so I made an article about the company. Instead of putting the page up for deletion, why don't you tell me mechanisms in which i can fix it, or delete the parts that shouldn't be there? & I would like to ask that you please review the information below, and reconsider.( Kaygee906 ( talk) 18:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)) reply

— Note to closing admin: Kaygee906 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Notability
Primary criteria

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization

See also: WP:PSTS and Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline
Shortcut

Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

Shortcut

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

Shortcut
Shortcut
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
Shortcuts

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete This is obviosuly an advertisment, most of the references are either a personal blog, linkedin, or the company website. Alexf505 ( talk) 18:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As mentioned above:
  • "Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." ( Kaygee906

( talk) 18:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)) reply


  • K.e.coffman Why do you consider this page corporate spam? This is the first page I've ever created so, I may not have written it in a manner that it's supposed to be written in. What things would you suggest changing? ( Kaygee906 ( talk))
  • Response -- the article is full of laudatory and puffy language, such as:
  • "Tanga and CEO, Jeremy Young, have also come to be the center of positive praise amoung the business community. In 2016, Tanga’s CEO was spotlighted for being awarded Entrepreneur of the year. [3] [15] Additionally, Tanga has been mentioned in several well-known publications including the Phoenix Business Journal, [3] [16] [17] Denver Business Journal, [18] Success (magazine), [19] as well as an episode of Startup Grind, powered by Google for Entrepreneurs, in which Jeremy discussed his bootstrapping business approach at the inception of Tanga.com. [12]" Etc.
Does this clarify? BTW, Phoenix Biz Journal is not a "well-known publication". K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply


Do Not Delete

  • Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."
  • "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."
  • "Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. Smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable."
Shortcuts

K.e.coffman, NickCT, Alexf505, Mar11; How are these resources not proof of notability? Inc. 500 Magazine, Phoenix Business Journal, Startup Grind powered by Google for Entrepreneurs, Success (magazine) Denver Business Journal, Better Business Bureau, ResellerRatings. These are all prime examples of reliable publications independent of Tanga, not to mention it's proof that the company is reaching beyond just a regional boundary.
I may not have sourced everything in the correct manner when I first published the article, but have any of you looked at it recently, or actually clicked on the links? I'd rather not delete it if more work can be done to it in order to fix it. ( Kaygee906 ( talk))

@ Kaygee906: - Appreciate your position. But notability is establish by direct coverage in mainstream and notable publications. I've glanced at some of your sources, and don't see any which meet that criteria. Looking at Success (magazine) source for instance; it's a mediocre source, but only gives passing mention to Tanga. That means it carries very little weight in establishing notability. And everyone has a BBB listing. That provides no weight.
Do you have a single decent source that grants direct coverage to Tanga? If so, which one?
Scrapping together a whole bunch of very low quality sources, does not produce notability.
Also, so you know, short and concise responses are more convincing than wall-of-text responses. NickCT ( talk) 18:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ NickCT: I was just trying to lay out my point at once so it's all in one location. Anyway, there are more sources above, such as the Startup Grind/ Google for Entrepreneurs conference & Inc. 500 Magazine. Here are some additional sources:

Why does everyone keep saying the wikipedia tanga article is spam? I don't work for the company nor am I associated with the company. I'm actually an RN nursing student, 3,000 away from where this company is located. I made the article because I was shopping online & hadn't heard of the company, so I figured other people have probably experienced that too. ( Kaygee906 ( talk))

@ Kaygee906: - So Inc. 500 might be a semi-decent source, but the reference you've giving is a listing, not an article. That's not real coverage. I'll ask again; can you point to a single decent source that gives direct coverage to the subject?
Spammers aren't always people with conflict of interests. I've accidentally created spam before. I've found some subjects, which weren't necessarily notable, interesting. NickCT ( talk) 19:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ NickCT The Inc. 500 Mag isn't sole coverage, but it's still noteworthy; I understand what you mean though. What about all of the other sources? Startup Grind powered by Google for Entrepreneurs focuses on the company and history of it, Phoenix Business Journal has 2 articles focused on the company & founder, as does the Denver Business Journal, http://www.phxeastvalley.org/splash/wp-content/uploads/Jeremy-Young.pdf, This site has sole coverage: https://mixergy.com/interviews/tanga-with-jeremy-young/ I think relevance probably depends on the person. What a person in the business world finds to be relevant sources, probably differs from that of someone who isn't business focused. For example, in the medical world, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Elsevier are prime resources. So, while mixergy.com seems like it's a good source (to me), it may not be considered to be for someone who deals with business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaygee906 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Kaygee906: - The Startup Grind doesn't really look like a "classical" RS (i.e. not a book, journal, news article, etc). I'm not sure it's really a source for reliable information, so I'd call that a "low value" source. Also, that subject of that source seems to be Jeremy Young. The indirect subject is the company.
Not to be rude, but I honestly don't want to go through all your sources 1-by-1 to tell you what is wrong with them. Good sources are mainstream news outlets, books produced by respectable publishers, highly regard academic journals, etc, etc. If you want to demonstrate notability, find one of these things that gives Tanga direct coverage.
re "relevance probably depends on the person" - We have pretty good guidelines on identifying reliable sources. NickCT ( talk) 13:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Cara Fawn

AfDs for this article:
Cara Fawn (  | 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 pornbio with just nominations and the gng because the two rs in the references are not about her and she is just mentioned, once in each. Further this is a blp vio given unsourced claim of rl identity. Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 18:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Mike Staver

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

Purely promotional page for a motivational speaker. After searching, I see no significant coverage of the subject by reliable secondary sources. Of the 15 references in the article, 12 point back to the subject's own promotional website, 2 are links to buy one of his books, and 1 is from a website called Furniture Today. Rockypedia ( talk) 14:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Olawale Mutiu Olushola

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 07:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Maulin Y Raval

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

Subject is not notable. He was /formerly/ the youngest Microsoft Certified Professional. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 16:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Subject is definitely notable. He was in the year of 2003 and there were no heavy media coverage, technology awareness at India. Please note, this guy is belongs to the town of India and broke the record of New York guy who was 4 years elder than him.

Further, Ayan Qureshi and Maulin Raval having same profile but times are different. Hardikagohel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardikagohel ( talk • contribs) 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G4. So Why 07:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Polly Cutter (singer)

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

The sole citation is to Discogs. A search turned up AllMusic and IMDb as well. None of those is WP:RS. I could find no independent coverage at all. There are some mentions in misheard lyrics sites; but those relate to the song, not the singer. Fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert ( talk) 16:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ ShelbyMarion: Gud spot, or well remembered! Narky Blert ( talk) 22:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Ebele Micheal

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for the contest. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Melissa Center

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of an actress, notable only for minor guest roles in television and short films. As always, an actress is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she has an IMDb profile to "verify" that she's acted -- a person has to have a claim of notability that actually passes WP:NACTOR, and the reliable source coverage about her in media to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat ( talk) 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It's clear from this discussion that there is no consensus to delete or redirect all of them. Individual nominations can be brought to AFD if required but there is no point in discussing 12 completely different BLPs who just happen to be selected for the same program. So Why 07:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Jonny Kim

Jonny Kim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kayla Barron (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zena Cardman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Raja Chari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Robert Hines (astronaut) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Warren Hoburg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Robb Kulin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jasmin Moghbeli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Loral O'Hara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Francisco Rubio (astronaut) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jessica Watkins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am proposing that these stubs about NASA Astronaut Group 22 be redirected to that page until such time as they meet the notability guidelines. Astronauts who have actually been to space are generally considered automatically notable, but these folks were just named to the program a couple of days ago and likely won't be receiving any significant press until they end up in space. Primefac ( talk) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Note that Matthew Dominick was already redirected per an A10 closure, but it should be considered included in this result. Primefac ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep NASA astronauts are inherently notable, especially this class which will go beyond Low Earth Orbit and assemble the exploration gateway around the Moon. Announcement was made in the presence of Vice president Pence, at JSC Houston, and widely covered by mainstream media. Biographies and pictures are available on line and provide enough substance for a significant article. Astronauts are role models for our youth and our young wikipedia users will want details about their lives. Hektor ( talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • No Hektor, notability is never inherent. This essay explains why. WP:NOTINHERITED. Domdeparis ( talk) 07:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • ...this class which will go beyond Low Earth Orbit... (emphasis added) - are you absolutely sure about this? 100%? Because there are plenty of projects that get delayed, extended, reworked (just look at Hubble Space Telescope, which was supposed to end it's mission in the early 2000s, or the James Webb Space Telescope, which has been delayed at least seven years). There are no guarantees in spaceflight. Primefac ( talk) 14:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • And to reiterate my nomination statement - no one is saying that astronauts are not notable, but these folks aren't yet astronauts. Being named will of course generate plenty of press, but people only known for one thing don't get articles. I'm advocating redirection because these people will eventually become notable individuals. Primefac ( talk) 14:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Primefac.-- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 14:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Primefac: I am unaware of a criteria of having to been notable for a certain amount of time before someone was eligible for a Wikipedia article. Please note, at least in my humble observance, that hits in Google are going to often be those most recently heavily accessed. But even with a criteria of being older than the last 48 hours, let's take a look at this query with a max date limit of 2017-05-31: Jessica Watkins" geology - Google Search, May 31, 2017 & before Peaceray ( talk) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
It's more the fact that if someone only gains a huge amount of web traffic due to one thing, they're generally not considered notable. See WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Also, browsing through the most promising hits on the link you provided show passing mentions, unrelated people with the same name, blog posts, and not much else in the way of usable information. Primefac ( talk) 16:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Selection into NASA's astronaut program hardly equals a single event as envisioned in WP:BLP1E. It's ongoing, & anyone selected into the program has always gotten a Wikipedia article, as in anyone in NASA Astronaut Group 1 through NASA Astronaut Group 21. This includes the someone like Theodore C. Freeman, who never made it into space because he was killed in a T-38 crash in 1964 before being selected for any flight assignment. Surely if someone like that gets an article, Jessica Watkins who (1) previously had questionable notability but a number of mentions in the press & university sites, (2) is well on the way to being an established research academic, & (3) in a NASA astronaut program (heretofore a guarantee to getting a Wikipedia article) will have an article. There will be >10 citations establishing notability, & probably bibliography & academic career sections. If I had free time (currently @work), I'd be expanding the article now. Peaceray ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
If you can expand any of the above articles to a point where it demonstrates notability, I will be happy to strike it from the nomination. Also, regarding the other Groups - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm doing the BEFORE to get a bunch of the Group 21 pages deleted/redirected because they're in the same boat as these pages. Primefac ( talk) 18:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see how that's germane to the discussion of whether they are notable enough for article pages. Notability isn't based on whether or not they fly. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
No, you are mistaken. The term "candidate" does not mean "applicant"; they are Astronaut Candidates until they complete astronaut training, in two years. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think that becoming an astronaut candidate makes the individuals meet the notability guidelines. Kees08 (Talk) 02:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • If I expand these articles, would you all be fine with keeping them and not redirecting them? I am working my way towards newer astronauts in my project, but I can also work from the most recent as well. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect until they've flown and gotten their astronaut wings, they are just 1E people (they survived selection) -- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 05:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • We have plenty of articles on astronauts that have never flown, that really goes above and beyond what we have historically considered notable. I think that ASCANs are inherently notable. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to NASA Astronaut Group 22 until any of them is assigned an actual mission. — JFG talk 07:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all, being an astronaut is notable, being in training for one is another matter. The coverage they may get before that is just human interest tabloid material or no encyclopedic value--the policy is nOT INDISCRIMINATE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Jessica Watkins is also a former American women’s national team rugby player for the sevens and she was in the semifinalist team at the 2009 Women's Sevens World Cup. Does that ensure notability as a sports person / rugby sevens ? Hektor ( talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • NSPORTS-SPORTSBIO seems very indiscriminate to the extent of being absurd. We have articles on people who we have no data on and think are "notable". (ie there are articles on people who only have a last name, and a single appearance at a championship, and that's it, there's no other information on that person; that's the entire article!) Those clearly fail GNG and are singularly 1E people, but they exist on claims that various NSPORTS-BIO guidelines say they are notable, when if you use GNG instead, they are not notable. So,... in the case of Jessica Watkins, she appear in one championship without getting to the final... does this meet GNG? It seems to meet the extremely low bar set by NSPORTS-BIO -- 65.94.169.56 ( talk) 05:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
      • yes, but the combination, being in the US Rugby national team at 2009 World cup (and top scorer btw) + being later selected as astronaut, doesn't it combine in terms of notability ? This is quite a story. In addition she participated in other continental tournaments. Plus we have lot of biographical data from her différent carreers ( rugby player, scientist and astronaut), so we are not in a "no data" case. see here for instance... Hektor ( talk) 05:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all or delete meeting the NSPORT or any other subject specific notabilty criteria (excepting maybe WP:ACADEMIC which IMHO should be modified) is only a way of avoiding PRODDING and CSD potentially notable subjects. In the FAQ on NSPORT page it clearly states "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them". None of these pages have sufficient sources to prove they pass WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 07:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep NASA astronauts are notable. There is always great interest in them, and there is always a lot of material generated about them. Hence, they pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Hawkeye7: GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So the "material generated" as you put it, has to be sourced in the article. If it isn't then it doesn't pass GNG. Domdeparis ( talk) 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
No, that is not correct. It is sufficient for the material to exist. The actual condition of the article is immaterial. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I am willing to put work into the articles and get the sourcing inline, but I am not willing to do that if the article is going to be deleted. I think the RfD was a little premature on these. Kees08 (Talk) 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Hawkeye7: I'm sorry but that's nuts. I'm quoting directly from GNG. If the material isn't there then notability is not proven. And these guys are not astronautes yet. How can you be sure that the material exists or will exist? The essay you quote says that if a notable article can be improved by editing then deletion is not necessary. For the moment the question is not the quality but the notability. When these guys actually get up in space there will probably be plenty of material but no one has found it yet. So probably WP:TOOSOON. You cannot presume that an astronaut candidate will become an astronaut so you cannot presume they will be notable. Can you quote policy or at least guidelines that back up your arguments? Domdeparis ( talk) 21:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The material is there, so the notability is proven. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
So which sources are significant coverage and independent of these people as per GNG? There is a single CBS article that is simply routine coverage and a resume and not in depth and the NASA Web site which is definitely not independent. If you can tell me which meet the GNG requirements I will happily change my !Vote to keep. Domdeparis ( talk) 23:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Are you looking for non-NASA sources for these folks? Washington Examiner, Official Navy Blog, Military Times, LA Times, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, ABC, CBS, Schmidt Ocean Institute. I did not try hard at all to find those, there are plenty more where those came from. Let me know if there is a specific quantity per person or specific total quantity. Otherwise, this should satisfy WP:GNG. Let me know thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 05:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Of the sources that you have supplied only 1 (the ABC article) counts as independent in depth coverage in a WP:RS. All the others are either a rewrite of the NASA bios or associated with the person in question or a blog. I'm going to change my !vote to partial keep for the person mention in the ABC article but stay on redirect for the others. Domdeparis ( talk) 07:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Still working, just going down the list. Kees08 (Talk) 18:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
There, done. Let me know if you think there are additional citations needed per astronaut candidate. Kees08 (Talk) 18:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep. The astronaut candidates of the previous two Astronaut Groups (21 and 20) had articles after they were announced in 2009 and 2013 respectively. Having articles for the selectees of Group 22 is simply keeping with the precedent that being a new member of the Astronaut Corps in and of itself passes the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. -- Evans1982 ( talk) 16:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might explain why that argument is not really valid IMHO. every article must be judged individually on its own merits. Domdeparis ( talk) 17:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Let's be clear that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, & states:

As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments related to existing notability policies and guidelines in deletion discussions, and also to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged.

Thus if this essay is cited as a means of reflecting on an article's by notability, then I encourage folks to read it. However,if you are using it to say "because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, precedent and consistency don't count", well, you get no traction with me, because that is a misreading of the essay.
Precedent & consistency need to be considered. If precedent & consistency were the sole factors, then the subject would be not notable. But in the presence of other potential reasons for notability, precedent & consistency must be given their full weight.
NASA seems to me to be a meritocracy. Just getting into the astronaut program is usually an indicator that the participants already have noteworthy accomplishments.
Peaceray ( talk) 18:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I get what you're saying about precedent but simply saying that because NASA is a meritocracy then they must be noteworthy seems pushing it a bit far. They have been chosen to follow the training programme on their qualities and capacities not because they are noteworthy. Skilled doesn't mean notable. If they had not been selected for training then would they be notable enough for a page? They are geologists, soldiers, doctors etc but no one has dug up sources to prove them as being notable before selection. If they are already notable as per WP definitions then why are the sources not there? They have not yet completed the training programme have not been selected for a mission. All of that is 2 years away at the earliest. Is being selected enough to pass GNG without other sources? Domdeparis ( talk) 21:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you that you are reading something different into what I wrote than what I intended. I interpret indicator, as in "a pointer or index that indicates something", as something that connotes probability, not certaintude. Peaceray ( talk) 22:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator, keeps outweigh deletes ( non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 07:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Herbert H. Harwood, Jr.

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

Does not appear to be a notable author. While he has published several books and appears to be an expert on American railways, a search for coverage in reliable sources resulted only in passing mentions. No coverage about him or his book appear to exist, at least online.

Also pinging Domdeparis. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn per sources given below. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think you may have been a little quick with the deletion nomination as you were with the original reviewing without tagging. I unreviewed it because as is it didn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and I tagged it for improvement and notified the creator that it needed more sources and that I was going to look too. I'm starting to find a few sources notably here here. Domdeparis ( talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete - Non-notable, no sources found to support. Morphenniel ( talk) 13:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment First time I've tagged an article as being non notable and then had to defend its deletion against it's creator...anyhow here are a few sources for perusal [2]

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Domdeparis ( talk) 13:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep - There are a number of results about him at newspapers.com [8], including full book reviews. I'm not sure how many book reviews are needed to satisfy NAUTHOR, but book reviews and citations I see on gscholar, gbooks and newspapers.com are all positive and many suggest that he is considered an expert in his field (here are the first two citations I find which speak positively of Harwood's scholarship: [9] [10]) Smmurphy( Talk) 14:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep as per the different sources found by self and above. Domdeparis ( talk) 16:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Boaz Tsaban

Boaz Tsaban (  | 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-written article, lack of secondary sourcing for notability, editor is busy spamming their carpentry around WP too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. Not sure this self-written to begin with (by usernames, it is self-edited). I think he probably meets PROF after a google-scholar search (1254 citations, h-index of 21). Article isn't terribly promotional. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC) struck Weak due to comments below (personally - I'm never quite sure of the appropriate h-index for each field). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Pure mathematics is quite a low-cited field so an h-index of 21 is exceptional. Some people get passed on 10. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC). reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.ams.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/mathscinet/search/author.html?mrauthid=632515
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Zac Woolford

Zac Woolford (  | 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've declined speedy A7 on this as IMO a credible claim of significance is made. However, as far as I can tell, it doesn't meet either GNG (Google indicates coverage is pretty sparse) or RLN (I don't think he's played in an NRL game yet, though I might be wrong - others will have a better idea of where to find such information). GoldenRing ( talk) 10:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Whilst the NSW Cup may be a high standard of rugby when compared to both codes of rugby around the world, he is not a professional, does not play in a professional league and has not played international rugby league. Fleets ( talk) 05:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails RLN and doesn't meet GNG. Mattlore ( talk) 22:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Saturday AM

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

Local organization with no inherent notability and no national or regional news coverage. Fails WP:ORG Rogermx ( talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. According to the Toastmasters International article, the organization has nearly 16,000 local clubs. There is nothing to suggest this particular one is in any way notable—the article is full of broken links and "references" that don't actually discuss the topic, and I can't find any evidence of notability on my own either. Camerafiend ( talk) 20:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Usher's Island (band). -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

John Doyle (musician)

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

Musician who may not meet notability criteria. GNews doesn't offer anything more than performance announcements, interviews, and blogs that I can find. Article was entirely unsourced and promo. Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, unless I'm missing something? Waggie ( talk) 16:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Tom Crone (politician)

Tom Crone (politician) (  | 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 be an individual who is simply a local councillor who ran for a regional mayoralty and failed to retain their deposit in that election. The articles in the page are not articles which confer individual notability on to the subject. The subject is incidental to those articles. As such the subject fails the notability criteria for political office for inclusion on Wikipedia and does not meet the general notability coverage for inclusion as they sources are mainly incidental or are primary sources Sport and politics ( talk) 09:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While Liverpool is certainly a large enough city that a councillor would be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2 if he could be sourced as passing the "who have received significant press coverage" part of the equation, the sourcing here isn't showing that at all. The article is based mostly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and of the two sources that do represent media coverage, one just namechecks his existence in an article whose core subject is the party rather than him, and the one that is substantively about him is only just barely long enough to escape being dismissed as a blurb. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this is not the depth or volume of sourcing that it takes to make a city councillor notable for being a city councillor. Bearcat ( talk) 17:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As per above. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Pedro Malta

Pedro Malta (  | 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 reference provided here is IMDb, which is not considered independent. None of the awards appears to be a notable award. Most of the television programs in which has had a role are themselves of dubious notability, and his role in each is not made clear— he may have only minor roles in these programs. The Portuguese Wikipedia has no references at all, and so is of no help here. I was not able to identify any reliable independent sources in English that discuss the subject non-trivially. KDS4444 ( talk) 16:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to I Should Have Never Gone Ziplining. So Why 07:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Zazarino

Michael Zazarino (  | 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 NACTOR and GNG Chetsford ( talk) 19:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 01:56, 23 May 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) 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. So Why 07:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Unconditional Love (Tupac Shakur song)

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

The song has not appeared on a major music chart. No reliable sources are provided or appear in searches. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I haven't found much in the way of detailed coverage, but the song's interesting backstory (a song written by Tupac Shakur for MC Hammer) coupled with some rather high level sources mentioning it briefly ( ABC News, MTV News) makes me think there's probably more sourcing out there. (This was a 90s song, so it could be locked away in paper sources.) I'm actually probably leaning keep... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 20:16, 23 May 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) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm going to comment because of the clear lack of participation in this AfD discussion. A work by Tupac is as notable in some communities as a work by Shakespeare or Picasso. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 08:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Richardcavell that is not a keep rationale. This Tupac song needs extensive secondary coverage just like any other work by any other artist and it clearly fails to do so. It is briefly mentioned it articles about the artist himself but nowhere does it have standalone sources like notable Tupac songs do. Please rethink your vote with a policy-based reason in mind. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Amiya Kashyap

Amiya Kashyap (  | 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 significant coverage in reliable sources and I also don't see if he has played a major role in any of the film listed in the article except Jat Jatin and Chauhar which are not notable. Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 08:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Inferno requiem

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

Band that does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. All the Some sources appear to be user-generated, and don't demonstrate the notability required under GNG or provide evidence of a pass under WP:NMUSIC. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep they actually meet WP:BAND 1. as they have multiple published reviews and are described as the "leading metal band in Taiwan". Nominator seems to have done a very sloppy WP:BEFORE B.2. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Newimpartial: are you referring to any of the sources in the article? I checked those and did Google. There are no in-depth reviews from the article, and the largest mention they get is one paragraph in Noisy, which doesn't look to be from a staff writer (not self-published though, so I have updated the nom to reflect that.) Other than that you have a blog (Heavy Metal Tribune). Three show listings (Metal Injection, the Bejinger, and the non-English source), and Encyclopaedia Metallum. The final source is the groups website. I did an additional Google search while doing WP:BEFORE and just repeated the steps there again, and couldn't turn up anything else. I stand by the nomination that it does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG currently, but if you have found other sourcing, I'd be willing to look at it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
http://www.metalunderground.com/reviews/details.cfm?releaseid=1544
https://uniteasia.org/taiwanese-black-metal-band-inferno-requiem-release-new-ep/
http://www.maelstromzine.com/ezine/review_iss63_4700.php?sid=&page_rs=11
And those are literally from the first page of Google. Sure, they are niche, but they're the biggest in their niche AFAICT. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks, none of those appear on Google for me with or without quotes, which is why I didn't see them. Uniteasia appears self-published (look at the about us). I also don't think Maelstromzine or Metal Underground would meet our normal requirements of reliable sourcing in terms of strict editorial control, etc. Anyway, thank you for bringing those here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I know Google can get absurdly personal lol. Those sites are WP:RS for the Asian Metal scene; you aren't going to be able to use the New York Times for that. :) Anyway, the band clearly meets WP:BAND 7. as one of the primary examplars of Asian Metal. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The only non-user-generated and reputable source I could find was:

    1. Henley, Joe (2017-04-17). "Taipei's Extreme Metal Scene Provides an Unlikely Home for Its Misfits". Vice. Archived from the original on 2017-06-12. Retrieved 2017-06-12.

      The article notes:

      One band that has always been there in one form or another, lurking in those proverbial shadows, is Inferno Requiem. The band, which is the sole creation of a man going by the name of Fog, plays black metal for the purists, with themes dwelling on the myths, legends, and folklore of this part of the world, putting a misanthropic bent on traditional Taiwanese orchestral arrangements. Make no mistake, though—this band could be dropped headlong into the bleak, snow-covered mountains north of Bergen and not sound out of place. Fog seems to emerge from isolation once every few years or so, putting a band together just long enough to record his songs and play a few shows, before dissolving the lineup yet again, slipping back from whence he came.

    If another reliable source can be found, I'd support retention. The Vice article was published two months ago in April 2017 so the band has received recent coverage. It is possible that the band will receive significant coverage from another reliable source in the near future. I would support recreation if that happens.

    Cunard ( talk) 04:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

MXE Entertainment

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

Vast majority of references are primary (their own site). Article creator seems to have conflict of interest. The company was literally found two months ago and has no coverage in any reliable sources (fails WP:GNG). Their claim to fame is the "Choralation Choir" which won some singing competition, but if at all notable the notability would be for the choir and not this company ( WP:INHERITORG). Blue Edits ( talk) 07:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Alan Cox (musician)

Alan Cox (musician) (  | 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 itself admits that his one album is "local and virtually unknown" and no releases have charted. No reliable news coverage that I can find. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Blue Edits ( talk) 07:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Joey B videography

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

His works are not passing GNG and full of unreilable sources as this should be deleted as well the artist's article is at AFD. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 07:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 07:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 07:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Inanna Sarkis

Inanna Sarkis (  | 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 do not see any notability, but this is not at all my topic of interest, and may be reliable sources could be found. Ymblanter ( talk) 06:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Political movements in China and America during the Cold War

Political movements in China and America during the Cold War (  | 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 had previously PRODed this under another account I use for work - so disclosure there. This is ultimately a student essay that while well written as an essay, it's just not suitable as an encyclopedia article. The student removed the PROD, so I'm taking this to the next step in the process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Shrewsbury International School Hong Kong

Shrewsbury International School 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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Hasn't opened (and doesn't plan to for over a year, the reality is this may never open). See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - this is just a proposed primary school. Also only edited by those proposing it for deletion or WP:SPAs - worried we're being used for promotion here. Boleyn ( talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: An article created and edited by two WP:SPA accounts on a planned venture about which I am seeing nothing better than press releases. Essentially a propositional page and even if it was complete and active, a primary school would not be notable. AllyD ( talk) 06:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Arnoldas Bosas

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Donatas Kumeliauskas

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Pijus Rulevičius

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 06:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 07:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Milan Luković

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 06:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Cengiz Akyıldız

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 06:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 06:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

BallisticNG

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

Does not meet general notability. No sources are offered to indicate how this free game is notable. My search could only find places to obtain the game. 331dot ( talk) 09:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Brian Johnston (Trombone)

Brian Johnston (Trombone) (  | 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 autobiography has no footnotes and no independent references. Does not appear to satisfy musical notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It was created by the subject, who is 24 years old. Notability is not provable. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 08:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While "Freelance Trombonist" is a delightful job title, I can't see any evidence of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources: the refs are to social media, event listings, or other people associated with the subject. No other grounds for notability (awards, sales, historical importance, etc). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 08:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. I'm hesitant to close an AfD less than a day after it was opened, but the comments in this discussion are convincing and it's unlikely that keeping this discussion open for the whole seven days will change the direction of consensus. If anyone disagrees with this closure, feel free to leave a message at Wikipedia:Deletion review. ( non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

List of titles by Pink Pineapple

List of titles by Pink Pineapple (  | 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 parent article for Pink Pineapple; could be G8 subpage deleted but decided to leave this in more knowledgeable hands Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While many of the titles they released are not notable, enough of them are blue-linked to make this worthwhile as a navigational list per WP:LISTPURP. Also, this is absolutely not a candidate for WP:G8 speedy deletion, and I am shocked that Ten Pound Hammer as an experienced editor doesn't seem to know what a subpage is. There is nothing in the deletion policies that would allow a list of a company's works to be deleted just because that company doesn't have an article. No valid deletion rationale has been presented. Calathan ( talk) 02:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Calathan makes a good case. This is a valid list article. Dream Focus 03:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Richard Cavell ( talk) 10:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The company its-self is not notable but many of it's works are. I don't think getting rid of a useful navigation list is the best idea here, a category or template might be preferred though. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The only delete !vote after two relists and three keep !votes based on darthbunk's sources criticizes the "tabloid-like" coverage but does not dispute that those are reliable source nor that there is such coverage. So Why 06:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Wiska

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

Failed asylum claims are not bases for wikipedia blps - especially when the source is the discredited daily mail. No other claim for notability. Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ( T/ C) 20:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ( T/ C) 20:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ( T/ C) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ( T/ C) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Hmmm. Sorry, is that a comment on the links I provide? if so, I can not understand a word of it. If not, feel free to clarify it for other readers, if you want to be sure to be understood.darthbunk pakt dunf t 20:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Darthbunk Pakt Dunft: "rs" = reliable sources ("not rs" = WP:NOTRS); "blp1e" = WP:BLP1E. @ Spartaz: WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Of course! Thanks for the light. But of course these are reliable sources (Yes rs). Die Tageszeitung+ O Dia+ Ansa=RS! & blp1e (a person known for one event and one event only) does not apply here, it's not one event, it's her one life (failed asylum, Femen support, iconic status, not to mention her porn career, etc). See other wikis, for example the German one.darthbunk pakt dunf t 08:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 06:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The Mason Brothers

The Mason Brothers (  | 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 sources in this article are a collection of press releases following the release of a trailer notably in blogs. Several are identical in every way on 2 podcasts here and here. Identical press releases 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 or translated press release from here to here. The Tampa Bay article is on PRLink or press release page. In short almost all of the links are from press releases with the exception of a couple of blogs and podcasts. Fails WP:NFILM and is clearly promotional. Domdeparis ( talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment I just found the LA times review...I now know why the creator didn't add it, here is an extract "but this lifeless serving of soggy pulp packs all the gritty authenticity of a gummy vitamin." hahaha I wonder if it should be added! Domdeparis ( talk) 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Just found another review..."There was very little that I liked in this rather boring film, including the story and the characters. The run time was just under two hours, but it felt longer." I think we can agree that there are enough elements to prove WP:GNG. Domdeparis ( talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
That said I will not withdraw the nomination to give others the possibility to !vote delete (including the filmmaker himself he may want to see this article disappear rapidly). Domdeparis ( talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep It doesn't have much coverage from the bigger critics/publications, but just about has enough to pass WP:GNG. If there was an article on the director, a merge might be considered, but as it stands, with no obvious merge candidate, keep. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 08:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
year/type:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director/star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that topic (the book) meets notability criteria (NAC). – S. Rich ( talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The Plot to Hack America

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

Fails GNG. The topic is notable but that doesn't confer notability to every article/bookinterview. This book does not receive significant third party references and is generally mentioned as an advert plug when the author is interviewed. We cover the topic and authors and this is content and POV fork. This shold be deleted with noted, verifiable facts merged into the main topic. DHeyward ( talk) 02:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • For one week at 7th place only in the e-books category. Probably the week the e-book was released or when it was hawked on a talk show. It's print version wasn't on the list and it didn't stay on the list. Books that finished higher don't have an article because they aren't notable. There are books that are notable on that list nut they also made the print list, multiple weeks and lasting notability. This book is not notable as an article separate from the author or the topic. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sure it is. Notability is lasting, not passing. Notable books are also independent. This book doesn't get noticed beyond the interview with the offer and might deserve a paragraph in their bio. That's how we handle books of this type. The requirement is generally the subject of "two or more non-trivial published works." The single list you found is the definition of trivial as it a single week at an arbitrary place in the list. More importantly, Wikipedia shot not be the main source for a review of the material. The article as it's written here is fancruft with significantly more detail than any source. Wikipedia is the opposite of that. You made my point and seem to almost realize it's the author that's notable since you added a number of Wikiprojects that have no connection to books topic. Did WSJ keep a copy of their weekly list or even their criteria? --07:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • NYJB is not a notable reviewer of books and in fact, won't review any book that has already been published. Pre-punlished only. They did not review the ebook that was #7 on an ebook list for a week. Nor did the version they did review make it to any lists. NYJB only reviews pre-punlished books because of marketing and money, not notability. They review on request. Their reviews are not an indication of notability but rather an indication that the author is unknown and their works non-notable. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Finnusertop: where was the second review and how is a self-requested, pre-published review by NYJB non-trivial? -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: On second thought, per DHeyward, NYJB is not independent of the subject. The second item I was referring to is the Wall Street Journal bestseller list (hence not a review, but probably meets the bestseller criteria of the guideline, though this can be debated as DHeyward has done). Delete pending non-trivial independent reviews. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Finnusertop:The claims by the nominator are false. Please see this fact from Publishers Weekly about New York Journal of Books: "No one associated with the site is being paid". Sagecandor ( talk) 13:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: DHeyward hasn't really shown us anything that backs up the claims made about New York Journal of Books, which undermines all arguments made based on its nature. I've struck down both of my votes; I can't arrive at a position. See also related discussion on my Talk page: User talk:Finnusertop#Thanks for noticing !. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • For the same reason Wikipedia doesn't write articles by request or take money to do so. These review sites are like pay-for-play journals. They lack the rigor and independence expected of an objective reviewer. This author had the pre-election book reviewed by the only company he uses for reviews. The author is notable but his books are not independantly notable. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps you can provide citations for your claim that NYJB is like pay-for-play journals, or that they are somehow not independent (of the author or publisher). Failing that, you should expect your arguments to be heavily discounted.- Mr X 20:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article meets notable book Criteria: 1 The Wall Street Journal "Best-Selling Books," and the New York Journal of Books in depth review. NYJB is a notable reviewer of books. “Only reviews pre-published books” is not a limiting criterion. With some 250,000 new titles and editions issued each year many reviewers limit their work to new books only. JeffFive ( talk) 10:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, the author is notable. He wrote three other notable books, published by two (one is a major) well established notable houses. The book is included reading in a course at Pasadena City College, founded in 1924. JeffFive ( talk) 10:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 15:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor ( talk) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The reviewers are apparently not paid. There is no indication in sources I have examined that the reviews are edited. (I looked because I had never heard of this book review before.) In other words, this review may stand somewhere in the grey area between Goodreads and "real" book review journals like Los Angeles Review of Books and Claremont Review of Books. Because some of the reviewers are independently notable (authors, retired college professors) the reviews have some value. But I do not believe that it counts the way a review in a "regular" book review journal or in a general publication that reviews books would count towards WP:BOOKCRIT #1. I have posed this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Update: I just got an email response back from New York Journal of Books. Question: Do you just let book reviewers post live whatever they want, or do all book reviews go through an editor first ? Their official response: "All professionally edited. And books to be reviewed are curated." I've forwarded the correspondence to WP:Contact us for confirmation. The ticket number for future reference, logging the email correspondence, is 2017061410000609. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Malcolm Nance. (1) There is an article on Malcolm Nance and we've established that this phrase is a useful search term for him, so outright deletion should be out of the question. (2) Usually we look to three solid reviews (not the brief blurbs from PW/Booklist/Kirkus) to justify keeping an article on a contemporary book. Is NY Journal of Books really the only review under discussion? I've excluded that source before simply because it doesn't have a pedigree—you can argue at RSN that it has been mentioned by other sources but it isn't even near the level of a review from the NYT, NY Review of Books, or other major magazine/newspaper... And even if there was to be a consensus that NY Journal of Books is somehow a peer of those publications, it would only be one review. So on one hand, bravo on its article expansion, but the RSN discussion isn't even close to a proxy discussion on this book's independent notability (also the expansion easily falls apart as a collection of author bios and unreliable sources). (3) Nance has written other notable books before (see Sage's comment for specific reviews). In comparison, this topic's article is based mostly on a C-SPAN primary source that should be used as a source in the author's own article, and the summary is source primarily to the book itself with the NY Journal of Books thrown in as a side-ref without specifying what the source even confirms. The Reception section is a pile of mentions from various publications, which do not together amount to reviews. The other interviews reveal more about Nance's career than they provide backdrop for the book. The author's article makes a good target for what can be salvaged from this article, but as of now, there is no indication that this book was itself the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Happy to revisit if more coverage (esp. reviews) specific to the book is uncovered. czar 02:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and selective merge to Malcolm Nance. Sourcing is far too thin to support a stand-alone article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Consensus appears to be forming at WP:RSN that New York Journal of Books meets the standards for reliable book reviews. [16] Sagecandor ( talk) 14:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 06:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Smile and Wave

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

Completely lacking in available reliable secondary coverage, failing GNG. Although it is not a policy, if all an editor can scrape together is a track listing, the album probably is not notable. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss recent additions by MrLinkinPark333
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While I struggled to find in depth reviews on line, there are many references to the Juno Award nomination, which convince me that reviews must have existed at the time of the album's release. Rlendog ( talk) 20:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've found a few sources where the album was referred to "Smile & Wave". And looking in Proquest with an ampersand made a difference in looking for sources. I've been adding what I've found from ProQuest. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The Words and Music source from the 2nd link looks promising even though I can only see a snippet, so I think that makes me more comfortable with keeping. The source in the 1st link though seems to be referring to the song, not the album, unless I am missing something. Rlendog ( talk) 19:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Page 638 of the first link is about the album, and pg 639 is about the song by the same name off of Smile & Wave. I have a physical copy of the book as well with me. I've also added reviews from newspapers as well. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

William Nixon

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

Bog-standard Washington lobbyist. The "article" is a standard "About Us" CV page, with no indication of WHY the subject rates an article. Calton | Talk 02:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

William Nixon himself would like the page deleted. It was set up by a subordinate years ago and he agrees with @Calton that it should be taken down at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5F5:E501:7471:64D2:7938:7F2B ( talk) 22:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Harmony drive

AfDs for this article:
Harmony drive (  | 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 band. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Laurence Joseph Browne

Laurence Joseph Browne (  | 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:SOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Kris R Degioia

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

No indication from sources of notability, sources are marginal at best and I can't find anything better except press releases. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
do recommend to keep this page since it is true that she is the founder of WTF MultiMedia that can be found on ist website and also the CSI Awareness publish her story and changed her name. The podcast interview also states that she was a former google employee and changed her name due to event of cyberstalking.

Can be found in thier featured story https://www.thecsiawareness.com/featured-story. Besides the CSI foundation is its infancy. Bonvallite ( talk) 03:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

That page does not appear to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, and therefore does not support notability. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I am stil on the process of adding more sources. Can you just still wait?

Bonvallite ( talk) 05:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia means definition of reliable source is " (Redirected from Reliable source)

For the use of information(reliable) sources on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. An information source is a person, thing, or place from which information comes, arises, or is obtained.[1] That source might then inform a person about something or provide knowledge about it. Information sources are divided into separate distinct categories, primary, secondary, tertiary, and so on.[2]"

Bonvallite ( talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The AfD process generally lasts a week minimum except in cases of speedy delete criteria (which is not the case here), so there isn't much danger of immediate deletion. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I think she is enough notable to be on Wikipedia, just her article is not managed properly. Prof.Marlin ( talk) 17:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 06:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Mafaz (Editor)

Mafaz (Editor) (  | 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 references seem trivial or inappropriate and not reliable sources (facebook, wikipedia, etc). Non-notable person. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Uncontroversially deleted via G5. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The Garbage Can Man Show

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)

Contested PROD. Beyond the bare existence of this web animation, there seems to be little or no coverage indicating any level of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

( talk) 08:28, 10 June 2017 - struck out comments from sock of article creator - GretLomborg ( talk) 19:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

( talk) 10:58, 10 June 2017 - struck out comments from sock of article creator - GretLomborg ( talk) 19:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply

At the risk of stealing someone else's thunder, it would mean that the sources aren't independent of the subject of the article, which is the exact opposite of the kinds of sources an article needs to establish notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_June_8&oldid=1142618217"