From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 November 21 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Realtor University

Realtor University (  | 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 promotional organization that calls itself a "university" despite no accreditation. Flagged for notability for two and a half years. All sources are from the "university" itself; no coverage in third-party independent sources.

It appears to have been created by a COI editor on behalf of the subject of the article; note that the original article title includes the “®” symbol, and only the National Association of Realtors does that.

It’s currently under a proposal to merge to National Association of Realtors, but the reality is that the “university” is non-notable, and deletion is more appropriate. It rates at most one line in the NAR article. TJRC ( talk) 23:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It's a professional association's training program and of no special significance, and this primary-sourced article is indistinguishable from an advertisement. At MOST, one line in the NAR article, and, frankly, what there is about training in the NAR article should be cut back. -- Calton | Talk 00:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hamburger University has more academic significance. This is basically just a whole bunch of seminars and training sessions; most large companies have something like this. On another note, I could have sworn I pruned something Realtor-related a few months back because of major WP:PROMO concerns (it was Realtor.com), but the NAR article needs major help itself. I feel like we have major WP:COIs with Realtor-related articles that need addressing. Nate • ( chatter) 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looks like unanimous consensus to delete the two pages in the original nomination. A bunch of additional pages were mentioned during the course of the discussion; please bring them to a new AfD if desired. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3

List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, and a violation of WP:NOT. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Also nominated:

List of PlayStation games compatible with PlayStation 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both Unlike the current approach that Sony does, where they have brought selected PS1/PS2/PS3 games forwards to the PS4 through emulation, the original PS3 was to have "generic" PS1 and PS2 compatibility - no extra software required. Yes, some games did not work well or at all, but that's where the original research from the nom comes in - there's no reliable sources for this information. We already summarize this generic compatibility elsewhere, so the lists aren't needed. -- MASEM ( t) 02:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both - I brought this up to the WikiProject months back and people generally agreed with my concerns, but we never got around to taking action. Sourcing for these 2 lists simply don't exist. Unlike most "List of video games for X platform", where websites report every time a game is announced, both of these lists are scenarios where the company just said "most games are compatible" at once, and then the exceptions and limitations were documented by editors themselves - WP:OR of course. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both WP:OR for sure, and further more, the topic for these two lists seems not to meet WP:N. There is no real reason that anyone would need to know what PlayStation 1 and or 2 games are compatible with the ps3 for research purposes, this just seems like a page to answer the question of "is my copy of __for the ps1 or ps2 playable on my ps3?". Wikipedia is not an answers site and this list is certainly not encyclopedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapefruit17 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Should these similar lists be also nominated for deletion for the same reasons exposed by Grapefruit17?
  • Comment What about these?
Yes, I believe any of these "alternate display modes" articles should be deleted as well, per WP:NOTMANUAL and my original !vote above. The sourcing is terrible and simply doesn't exist, so it's not a matter of cleanup... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Masem: List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 is WP:OR for everything except the list of games Microsoft has released. There is no sources for 50Hz PAL, 60Hz PAL, Widescreen and the list of issues with the emulated games on the list. Most of the issues noted on List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 and List of PlayStation games compatible with PlayStation 3 were copied directly from Sony's website when they maintained a database detailing 90% of emulation issues for the CECHA/B & CECHC/E models. There are some games that have their issues sourced via alternate means. So for the PS3 related articles the lists should be condensed down to just games with known & sourced issues. Its not fair to leave List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 untouched while discussing the removal of List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 because of WP:OR ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The difference between the "PS1/PS2 playable on PS3" and these other lists, fundamentally, is that the former ones are just lists of all PS1 and PS2 games, with a few noted compatibility exceptions, simply because the feature was highly generic. That's indiscriminate information. The "Xbox 360 on Xbox One" list and the others, for example, require that some groups spend actual time and effort to get it to work for each game (it's not plug-and-pray (sic) as it was for PS1/PS2 on PS3), so there is a substantially limited set. And thus when a new set of backwards compatibility games emerges, it gets noticed and fanfare from external sources, so compiling the limited list makes sense. Now, I do fully agree some of the data columns are indiscriminate info ( 50/60 Hz PAL, for example) and should be removed, but the list of such games as a whole in these cases is fine since this is routinely tracked by sources. -- MASEM ( t) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree with you because of the nature of backwards compatibility on the PS3 there shouldn't be lists detailing every PS2 and PS1 game playable on PS3. However, these lists are nominated on the grounds of WP:OR and that is what is being discussed. My point is the PS1/PS2 games that have issues being played on a PS3 system came from Sony themselves when they maintained a database about every game on their website which is long gone now. Microsoft never listed how an Xbox title played differently on Xbox 360 they just had a general disclaimer. I'm saying that if the result comes down to these two articles in question being completely deleted then List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 needs to be stripped of all unsourced content and needs to look more like List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox One because it has a similar problem of WP:OR that the two PlayStation articles up for deletion have. Now I would support a merge of the two and listing just the PS1 & PS2 games that have backwards compatibility issues with the PS3 if sources can be found and looks like one editor has been trying to find sources for some. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox One is exemplary here, effectively just stating "it exists" and any notes (eg like the one case of a game also in the Rare Replay collection). Any further tech specs on these lists are likely wholly unnecessary - but that doesn't meant they should be deleted. But something like List of Xbox games with alternate display modes is both indiscriminate information (it's too "techie" for WP) and principally unsourced. -- MASEM ( t) 06:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm slightly confused my main point was the "Notes" column List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 which is breaking down the glitches when running Xbox software on Xbox 360 hardware. There are some games on List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 & List of PlayStation games compatible with PlayStation 3 that have these notes as well. If those are the items you are referring to as keeping then wouldn't a simple cleanup and merge of the two PlayStation articles with only the games that have those note suffice? ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 08:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Documenting glitches or partial incompatibilities or video modes is original research and would require a viable source, and my experience is that this type of information is not documented in RSes. Notes about the availability of a game in a different format for the same platform despite also being on a backwards-compat list is far from that type of original research, that's "obvious" information so not a problem. -- MASEM ( t) 20:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Grahams Hi-Fi

Grahams Hi-Fi (  | 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 store, Fails NCORP & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hrodvarsson - Done here and here, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 00:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

InnovaCare Health

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

Spam by an editor who has declared that they were paid to create this article. It fails both points of WP:N: the coverage in the article and seen in a BEFORE search is your typical press release churn or trivial coverage that is excluded by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND as counting towards the general and it is obvious promotion that is excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. As such, we have no choice but to delete it from Wikipedia. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. No argument advanced for deletion. Michig ( talk) 06:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bows_(band)

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

{{{text}}} Geejayen ( talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hershel Jick

Hershel Jick (  | 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 professor is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, which is a paper he co-authored in the 1980s, already covered by it's own article. Natureium ( talk) 21:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baccara. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Woman to Woman (Baccara album)

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

I could not find any secondary sources that could equate to passing WP:GNG. Discogs, a user-generated source, is certainly not a quality source. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Tentative suggestion to merge with Baccara. Vorbee ( talk) 11:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America 1000 02:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Michal Levin

Michal Levin (  | 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 sources in this article are primary sources. Searches for significant independent coverage come up empty. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

After reviewing the material I have made the following edits and have included the following independent sources:

  • Gary Baumgarten interview for Newstalk online 2007
  • Kindred Spirit Magazine article 2015
  • Telegraph Newspaper article 2002

NB the three books cited, written by Levin, are published by independent and established publishing houses - Hodder & Stoughton, Dorling Kindersley and Gill & McMillan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephineH1 ( talk • contribs) — JosephineH1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For scanned copy of Hilary Pearson's Nov/Dec 2014 Kindred Spirit Article (no longer available online) email [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephineH1 ( talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sluizer Speaks

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

Non notable film fails WP:NFP. have no references, fails WP:NFSOURCES, not featured anywhere, no major award, fails WP:NFO. Prod removed by author who made very few contribs apart from the article. After he removed prod the only sources he relied upon are user generated IMDb and YouTube trailer. I can't find any source that even mention this film in full sentence.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Important festival information and links to heir websites have been added. Information of and a link to an interview by the dutch film institute have been added. Production-information on the odd circumstances of this film have been added. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the festival is a general film festival where the film was also mentioned like any other films there both notable and non notable. Their website that you added is further evidence no independent source that reported about this film. And for WP:GNG to be met independent and of course, reliable sources are necessary. The reference section is still empty, while you are busy populating external link section. None of the points of WP:NFILM is also met.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 06:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Abdul Jalil (badminton)

AfDs for this article:
Abdul Jalil (badminton) (  | 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:NBADMINTON. Was nominated for deletion earlier this year but the points made in the discussion are false. #5 in WP:NBADMINTON states "Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics." Afghanistan has never competed in the sport at the Olympics. There is also a lack of GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
So what? @ Florentyna. The article fails WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG, both policies which are used to determine if a subject is notable. In this case failing both most likely indicates the subject is not-notable Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The requirement that someone can only be notable in a sport if their country regularly sends people to the olympics is a great example of systemic bias, not only privileging the Olympics as though it was an independent objective measure, but also privileging countries who are wealthy enough to send multiple competitors there. Egaoblai ( talk) 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Egaoblai The reason why the article was saved last time was because it was erroneously pointed out that it met point #5 of WP:NBADMINTON (it doesn't). It fails all other parts of WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG, so there really isn't any grounds to keeping the article. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ User:Sportsfan 1234 And I'm pointing out why this is a failure of WP to address systemic bias. Here we have a multiple national champion who is being called non notable because his country doesn't send people to the olympics, an utterly bizarre rationale for exclusion on an encyclopedia that purports to be for quality. As I pointed out this is systemic bias against poorer countries and also discriminatory against badminton, as it makes the inclusion of a badminton article subject to the whims of the olympic committees in the country. What you are advocating for is a system of inclusion where the sources and the facts remain the same, but we must wait for a group of people sitting in a room with a budget list in order to add this to the encylopedia, despite the article already being created. A very strange situation indeed. I'm more interested in adding quality, sourced information to the encylopedia than rigidly following rules that uphold bias. Egaoblai ( talk) 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete References are terrible, not to mention the article quality is atrocious. Does not meet notability. NikolaiHo ☎️ 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails both NBadminton, and GNG. There is no systemic bias as opined earlier, the standards that have been set are designed to limit athletes passing who are expected to pass GNG. It is not an issue of what is fair, but what we expect there to be coverage of. If editors wish to make a case for a bias, or inclusion, they need to provide valid sources that meet GNG. Or present why those currently passing the sport specific quideline should not pass. 18abruce ( talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
If true, this should be reported as COI. NikolaiHo ☎️ 04:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - WP:NBADMINTON, WP:GNG - Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Moreover I found insufficient neutral reliable sources, and as such it fails WP:GNG. Argument by Egaoblai above does not work. WP:NBADMINTON gives reasons for exceptions to WP:GNG, cases in which an article most likely will meet WP:GNG and it is nt needed to investigate. However any article that fails WP:NBADMINTON can still meet WP:GNG. Any article that can pass WP:GNG can stay. As such a subject does not need to be from a country with any reference to the olympics, and there is no bias. The article at hand however does not meet WP:GNG. As such it should be deleted. Sincerely, Taketa ( talk) 10:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America 1000 00:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Holiday Extras

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

fundamentally promotional article, but editor who admits he is writing this at company request- though not for pay DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello User talk:TH1980

Thank you for your contribution to this debate.

The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is that the subject matter must be notable and that the facts given must be verifiable. I hope I have demonstrated below that the Holiday Extras' entry satisfies that criteria. Like it or not the modern world recognises the commercial entity and although such an article may not have appeared in the 18th century editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica, a contemporay equivalent would be bereft if it did not include such a catagory. Indeed Wikipedia does embrace this as can be seen at /info/en/?search=Lists_of_companies?oldformat=true. I totally accept what Wikipedia is trying and indeed is achieving and I recognise the importance of notability and verifiability. I look forward to this logic being employed when a decision is made about this entry.

Thank you.

Davidcowell42 ( talk) 07:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi

As the author of the Holiday Entry page I would like to address DGG's concerns about the entry and will do so over the next 48 hours.

Thank you.

David Davidcowell42 ( talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi

As the author of the Holiday Entry page I would like to address DGG's concerns about the entry and his belief that it does not comply with Wikipedia’s criteria.

1. Notability:

The probability of a start up company, without the support of a large funding group, failing is very high with estimates of a survival rate as low as 10% being possible <ref> https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-startups-will-fail-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-10/#1a5097496679<ref>. There are a tad under 7000 businesses employing more than 250 people in the UK <ref> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467443/bpe_2015_statistical_release.pdf<ref>. For Holiday Extras to not only have survived but also thrived I would suggest is notable particularly as they appear in the Sunday Times top performing companies in various categories <ref> http://appointments.thesundaytimes.co.uk/article/best100companies/<ref>. In the best companies category they appear at number 47 which places them well within the top 1% of the business community.

The page statistics show since its creation, modest but consistent visitor numbers and it is quite possible that a lecturer/teacher uses the page as an integrated part of a business studies lesson so although registered as one visit it is possible that 20 plus viewed it.

Holiday Extras has recently purchased an IT booking company called Chauntry <ref> http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/holiday-extras-hythe-secures-takeover-airport-car-parking-booking-systems-provider-chauntry-135218/<ref> who operate globally and Purple Parking at Heathrow Airport <ref> https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/4839166/london-city-airport-heathrow-purple-parking/<ref>. Both these acquisitions were reported by third party publications.

2. Verifiability:

Following the appreciated advice of your editing peers I am satisfied that every statement made is verified by an independent third party and if I am mistaken about this I would like you to draw any you consider not being so to my attention so I can respond accordingly and address the issue if necessary. Thank you.

3. My role:

As disclosed, I was a director of Holiday Extras until 2006 and during that time I gave lectures to sixth form and college students on the genesis of the company and it was recognized as a welcomed part of their business studies curriculum. In my disclosure statement I showed the agenda for such an attended event. At the age of 70 I no longer give these lectures and have made the information available on-line via Wikipedia so it can be used as part of lessons.

Davidcowell42 ( talk) 13:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The original editor I have given a full explanation as to why I believe the entry complies whereas others have made generalisations eg “it fails to pass” and “web/blog would be a better place”. I believe unless they can provide concrete evidence that it isn’t notable with third party validation then the AfD should be removed.

Davidcowell42 ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you provide evidence of your allegations please.

Davidcowell42 ( talk) 18:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete With my respect's to the author and his above reasoning, I don't think the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH nor WP:AUD. The only references I could find mentioned the company in passing. Company A bought Company B. Or Company A sells travel. Even then, those sources were not good sources (primary or advertisements). WP:AUD states a business entity should have at least one regional, non-limited interest article provided towards notability. The author went to some great length above to prove notability, but the strongest argument presented was basically: most companies fail. Sadly, this does not address nor meet the requirements of WP:GNG for any item on WP. An analogy of the author's justification would be similar to Operator873 managed to survive birth, grew to age, married, and had children; Therefore, Operator873 is notable. However, I fail notability tests... as does this article. @ Davidcowell42: Mr. Cowell, thank you for the time and effort you've spent on Wikipedia so far. Your contributions are appreciated, despite this referendum. I'd strongly encourage you to seek out articles that pique your curiosity or fancy that you may not have a conflict of interest or close attachment to. I also welcome any questions you may have and am willing to help guide your future endeavors. Best wishes. Operator873 CONNECT 01:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Operator873

Thank you for taking the time to contribute in such a reasoned manner and it is much appreciated albeit I do not agree with your reasoning. Please allow me 48 hours to familiarise myself with the requirement sources you quote and also try to understand why the Sunday Times, a national United Kingdom newspaper of some repute, Travel Weekly, a United Kingdom national trade publication and Kent Messenger , a county publication, all written by independent journalists and proffered as evidence of notability, doesn't satisfy that "a business entity should have at least one regional, non-limited interest article provided towards notability"? Thank you.

User:davidcowell42 

Davidcowell42 (
talk) 
07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The weight of argument appears to support deletion. The sole keep vote was responded to with respect to in depth referencing and did not reply in turn. Two relists is enough. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Persian Toon

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

Non notable and (now) closed media channel. Only source is Facebook and self website. Previous AfD relisted 3 times attended by 2 real editors and closed as no consensus. Since then it remained permanent stub and now the channel no longer exist, no more anything to get about it  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 15:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  There are references in the edit history [1].  WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news indicates a possible source from digizone.cz dated 15 Sep 2016, and one from yjc.ir dated 14 Dec 2016.  That is without a Persian language search.  Notability is not temporary, WP:NTEMP, so being out of business means nothing.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Unscintillating: These two sources of Launching the channel cannot establish notability as per as we defer our reasons to WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage" and WP:BCAST which requires "significant coverage" and having broad regional or national audience. (That's for the channels that even still exists). Before I filed this AfD I had gone through these sources all of of them. Let us see their contents. 1. The first source in Czech gave story of "launching" with headline "Persian Toon - a new children's channel on 13E". The second source in Russian gave news more on the satellite 'Hot Bird 13E' than on the subject of this article with the headline. "On the Hot Bird 13A will soon be a channel for children Farsi". The 3rd and last source is the channels' website which is no longer working like it's owners. Further information, this channel existed for only 3 years 2012–2015 and then folded. The Parsi version of the article is a shadow of this one because it is completely unsourced and permanent stub too.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 11:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum: I can't find any reliable news from "yjc.ir" and "digizone.cz" in 2016 as you said, please help us with their contents, I am ready to change my mind once it is obvious this short-lived, defunct channel passes WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Also there are no Parsi sources with anything more than that news of launching, the Parsi version of the article linked above already testify to that.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 11:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( talk) 16:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 weight of evidence cited by the Keep votes seems sufficient to ring the WP:N bell. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Albert Pacifico

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

Not notable Rathfelder ( talk) 11:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

This is not a suitable reason for deletion. Whether you can't find any information is irrelevant, and it's clear that others have. Egaoblai ( talk) 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete one source is a press release and the other a minor news item in a local paper, not the things notability is made of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm sure JPL already knows this so I won't ping him, but Natureium and nom, may I quote WP:NEXIST?

    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.

L3X1 (distænt write) 02:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

That refers to there not being sources in the article, not there not being sources online to establish notability. There are thousands of professors that have published articles indexed on google scholar. Not all of them are notable. Natureium ( talk) 14:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Overall he has been a joint or principal author of 17papers each of which have been cited over 100 times. according to Google Scholar. Thisis sufficient to show him an authority in his subject according to WP:PROF. We usually figure that even in the well cited field of biomedicine, anyone with even 2 papers cited more than 100 times meets the requirements.The article is obviously incomplete. I can not account for how an article so radically inadequate came to be written, but there is enough information to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- per Worldcat identities, he's the co-author of two books, Reoperations in cardiac surgery and Angiocardiography in congenital heart malformations, which are somewhat widely held for such a specialty subject, by 89 and 88 libraries: [2]. Appears to be an authority in his field. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion (one from the OP and one vote) are based on the article being unsourced. That is no longer the case. While there may be a valid argument for redirecting or merging this, that can be had on the article talk page. For now I am not seeing a compelling argument for deletion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Aryk

Aryk (  | 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 doesn't cite any sources, has been abandoned for a long time and isn't really needed ReeceTheHawk ( talk) 10:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm aware of that. I think my point about there being many distinct, culturally-specific technologies under the umbrella of "aqueducts", and it not necessarily being a good idea to merge them all, stands. –  Joe ( talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems to me from what I saw in the sources, that Aryk covers a whole range of small to medium sized aqueduct types - I'm not sure these have a cultural commonality (separate from other regions) other than being the regional term. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid stub article. Egaoblai ( talk) 03:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — There are no sources in the article. I am not concerned about notability or anything but that this may actually be false information. There are not enough reliable sources to determine that the word "aryk" is indeed an English word that describes some sort of aqueduct. This leads me to believe that it is simply a transliteration of the word from Russian or some other language. Cannot be an article if there are not enough articles to prove that it is actually a thing! NikolaiHo ☎️ 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Nikolaiho: It is a transliteration of a word in Russian and numerous Turkic languages. Why would that be a problem? I have mentioned several sources above, and deletion discussions should be based on the existence of sources not the current state of citation, but for clarity I have just added them to article. –  Joe ( talk) 11:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Joe Roe, a transliterated word should not have an article unless it is an accepted word in the English language or is a very well known word, ie. it has a definition in an English dictionary or is very popular (such as Bonjour). The citations don't ascertain the fact that it is an English word. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Nikolaiho: That's not true. We are a global encyclopaedia that happens to be written in the English language, not an encyclopaedia exclusively of the English language. Articles can be based on sources in any language. –  Joe ( talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Joe Roe no thats not the point. Wikipedia is not going to have the translation of every word in all the languages, even if that word has a million sources in that language. For example, why doesn't Wikipedia have the Igbo word for the word Aqueduct? Because it doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. And there are no sources showing that this word is notable in English. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, because it is not a dictionary. But that has nothing to do with language and this article is not a dictionary definition nor a translation of aqueduct. There are sources (in Russian and Uzbek) that show that the concept is notable. It doesn't have to be notable in English. –  Joe ( talk) 09:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Ferrous (film)

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

Non notable film fails WP:NFILM XFhumu Talk 10:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Okopipi (software tool)

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

A dead web project. I almost {{ db-web}} deleted it before noticing that it had survived AFD. This has no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources: the first AFD's sources are dead, published by entities without a solid reputation for reliability, or the latest news on the site and thus not secondary. (Note that the site's been dead for some years; "latest news" as of when they were published). Essentially the same is true of the sources currently in the article (there's a bit of overlap), and a Google search (which should reveal everything in existence for this recent Web topic) found only the articles that I'd already found on-wiki and a book that mentions the topic in passing. Please note that the first AFD mixed "Here are some good sources" (which aren't) and "It's useful" or "I like it", and the second and third AFDs combined "Keep for the reasons given in the first nomination" with more outright bad reasons; nobody's shown that this has attracted solid coverage from reliable publishers. Nyttend ( talk) 04:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 11:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. None of the arguments in the previous AfDs are relevant; the first one had comments like this shouldn't be considered a promotional page since it is just an open-source project and the next two were largely "this already passed an AfD". This is a bunch of well-marketed vaporware from years ago. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After 3 AfDs a strong consensus is preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Tân Thành District, Đồng Tháp

Tân Thành District, Đồng Tháp (  | 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 sources have been provided showing that this district actually exists. There is a township called Tân Thành in Lai Vung District of the same province as well as townships Tân Thành A and Tân Thành B in Tân Hồng District which is also in Đồng Tháp Province; but I can't find any source online that suggests that any of these have been made into a new district. The only source cited by the article is the list of districts on Statoids that includes Tân Thạnh District, Long An Province and Tân Thành District, Bà Rịa - Vũng Tàu, but no Tân Thành District in Đồng Tháp Province. The "corresponding article" linked to on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is about the one in Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu Province and I couldn't find any article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia about a Tân Thành District in Đồng Tháp Province or mentioning the existence of such a district. The content of the article has been copied from Lai Vung District and Tân Thành (township). Cobblet ( talk) 04:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The "source" was there to begin with. As I noted, it does not actually refer to the purported district. Cobblet ( talk) 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Samuel Ronan

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

This page should be deleted for the simple reason that this individual is not notable, as shown by the dearth of coverage by reliable sources. There is one CNN piece which covered a comment made by Ronan in a debate that CNN happened to air. There is an Al Jazeera interview with Ronan. Other than that, there are no reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for chair of a political party is not an automatic notability freebie per WP:NPOL, but this article neither makes any claim of preexisting notability for any other reason nor sources his candidacy for DNC chair well enough to suggest that it should be considered a special case over and above most other non-winning candidacies. It depends too strongly on primary sources, student media and activist blogs, and the few sources that actually pass our reliable sourcing standards do not represent an unusual volume of coverage that would make his candidacy more notable than usual. And none of his other competitors who also lost that race are considered notable because of that fact, either — Keith Ellison and Pete Buttigieg and Raymond Buckley have articles because they already held other notable offices before running for DNC chair, not because they ran for DNC chair and lost. Bearcat ( talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete being a candidate for various offices, but loosing, does not make one notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Largely per Bearcat. I can't find any significant coverage of the person to meet WP:GNG, and is not notable by WP:NPOL. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 20:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bahati (Musician)

Bahati (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)

Non notable Gospel artist, Fails NMUSIC & GNG – Davey2010 Talk 23:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete the current article is speedy-deletion-quality trash. Other refs such as [5] and [6] are slightly better, but don't show notability. This may be WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. The 2nd ref in power~enwiki's comment is the sort of thing we need to be able to write an article. So far, there seems to be only this one independent, substantial source. So agree with the TOOSOON. It being marginal, I could be swayed to Keep if what we currently had as an article were a well-written article based on this main source plus other passing mentions; but that is not the case. It is a truly minimal stub, so we lose nothing by deleting now, and when/if this musician's career generates more sources, someone can rewrite from scratch. Martinp ( talk) 15:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Just to add if more reliable sources become available I'd be more than happy to send the creator to UNDELETE or failing that they can rewrite I no absolutely no objections to either, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 15:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Misformed nomination. No prejudice against immediate renomination if it was, in fact, intended to be nominated. The Bushranger One ping only 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Borderline_(2002_film)

AfDs for this article:
Borderline_(2002_film (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

{{{text}}} Geejayen ( talk) 19:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Stochastic measurement procedure

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

WP:OR based almost exclusively on the editor's own published work.Which is, it must be said, not in the most prestigious of journals. Guy ( Help!) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like we don't have sufficient sources even after accounting for naming differences. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sanya Kroytor

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

I could find virtually nothing about him in searches, and he does not appear to meet notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I removed the biography section, as it was a very close paraphrase of this bio. Onel5969 TT me 18:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Саня Кройтор: «Хайфа - уникальный город и уникальная публика!» Интервью после концерта". Татьяна Климович (in Russian). Retrieved 23 November 2017.
  2. ^ Radio, Jazz (15 November 2016). "Sanya Kroitor, Didier Lockwood et Laetitia Himo en concert à Bastia !". Jazz Radio (in French). Retrieved 23 November 2017.
  3. ^ Cashman, Greer Fay (9 July 2014). "Of synagogues and the communities they serve". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 23 November 2017.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Quantification of randomness

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

As per Bernoulli space and thers, a free mix of WP:OR and [[WP:S{AM]] by an editor whose company is the main listed source. Guy ( Help!) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America 1000 00:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Asha Bhat

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

The subject is known only for a single event and that event is not a recognised or remarkably known event. The page is full of irrelevant biographical stuff. IMHO the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article looks like WP:SPIP. Notability is also not backed up by independent sources. Hence I propose for deletion. Bharathiya ( talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sharon McShurley

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. But all this actually does is state that she exists, and its only reference is a single comprehensive list in the local newspaper of all the city's past mayors -- a source that would support a list of the mayors, but doesn't singlehandedly represent enough significant press coverage to give each one a standalone bio under NPOL #2. For a mayor to get a standalone article, it needs to contain substance and a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of sourcing, not just to state that "she exists, the end". Bearcat ( talk) 19:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, while the article is woefully underdeveloped and sourced, the fact that she is the first woman mayor of a major municipality I think qualifies to put her over the WP:GNG threshold. I think the article of her successor, Dennis Tyler, is much more problematic from a notability standpoint. Onel5969 TT me 12:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
We don't automatically accept the first woman mayor of every place that ever had mayors as getting an instant notability freebie just because she's female — and WP:GNG is a measure of the article's sourcing, not of any claim stated in the article's text. If she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear NPOL #2 (major local political figures who have received significant press coverage), then this would certainly be kept just the same as any other well-sourced mayor would (and would never even have been listed for AFD in the first place) — but the fact of being female doesn't automatically make her more notable than a man who otherwise has the same basic notability claim and the same depth of reliable sourcing for it. Bearcat ( talk) 20:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
As per the lede of WP:N, Wikipedia's notability is not based on fame or importance; and as per WP:NEXIST, GNG is not based on sourcing in the article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nobody in this discussion said that notability was based on fame or importance, and while GNG is not based on sourcing in the article per se, it is not enough to simply assert that enough sourcing to pass GNG might exist somewhere — anybody could simply say that about anything. To get an article kept despite the inadequacy of its existing quality of sourcing, it needs to be definitively shown that sufficient sourcing does exist: namely, by actually showing the hard results of an actual search for better sources. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Where did you? Bearcat ( talk) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

It's a Grind Coffee House

It's a Grind Coffee House (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminately promotional information supplied by the company press releases and noticed; at best, a delete and redirect is feasible as WP;What Wikipedia is not, a basic policy, takes precedence here. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This article, after the creation of its AfD, was deleted under G11 by JzG. As the article is 1. already at AfD, and 2. was not also tagged, before or after the AfD nomination, for speedy deletion (and IMHO does not use the sort of language one usually associates with "unambiguous promotion") I have restored it to allow this AfD to take place. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Because process is more important than controlling spam. Well done. Slow clap. Guy ( Help!) 07:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Allan Kauffman

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a former small-city mayor. The city has a population of just 33K, which is not large enough to hand a mayor an automatic presumption of notability just for existing -- but this isn't sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage, as its only source is a transcript of his own "state of the city" speech on his successor's self-published campaign website. There's simply not enough sourcing, or enough substance, here to deem him notable. Bearcat ( talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
So the hell what? Bearcat ( talk) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Then why the cursing?  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You're in for a real lifetime of hurt if you think someone saying "hell" is a serious enough offense to attempt to shame them for it. You do know that, right? Bearcat ( talk) 05:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, notability is contingent on sourceability, and topics on Wikipedia do require notability. If neither of those things were true, we would have to keep an unsourced article about every single person who ever existed at all. Bearcat ( talk) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No, the claim that "topics on Wikipedia...require notability" is erroneous.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
No, it is not. If topics on Wikipedia did not require notability, then we would have to keep an article about every single person, and every single thing, that exists at all. Bearcat ( talk) 03:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Argumentum ad absurdum doesn't make fallacious arguments stronger.  I suggest that if you don't know that topics don't require notability, and you haven't figured out that I'm generally careful with my statements of fact, then find out instead of arguing with me.  The first sentence of WP:IGNORINGATD is, "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history."  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It's not an argumentum ad absurdum in the least. It's exactly the logical conclusion of saying that topics don't have to be notable to have encyclopedia articles. Bearcat ( talk) 15:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The issue of unsourced articles is not directly related to Wikipedia's concept of notability, as notability is not a content guideline and notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unsourced articles are a problem
Yes, notability is defined outside of Wikipedia — by reliable source coverage in media that's independent of the topic's own WP:SPIP — and there's no evidence whatsoever that this person meets that definition. Bearcat ( talk) 03:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  This is a case in point, because we now know that this AfD went for 13 days without any attempt being made to ascertain GNG notability.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
We do not keep a poorly sourced article about a person who doesn't pass an SNG just because it's possible that better sources might exist. Poorly sourced articles are only kept if and when somebody does the work to show that enough sources to make the article keepable do exist. Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia by the existence or lack thereof of sufficient sourceability. That's what you're missing in your persistent campaign to separate sourceability from notability. A person can't have notability without sourceability, because by definition notability is contingent on being able to source an article properly. Bearcat ( talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mayor of a town with a population of about 31,000. The usual practice is to delete articles of local elected officials unless there is national or international coverage of the subject, beyond what is usually expected. There is nothing to indicate the subject is the recipient of national coverage for his role as mayor. -- Enos733 ( talk) 06:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  From reading the WP:BEFORE D1 snippets not mentioned in the nomination, there is sufficiently significant significant coverage to satisfy GNG.  Once the encyclopedia's history of Goshen is better developed, this article might be merged to a listicle of Goshen mayors or a history article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
We do not keep "listicles" that contain extended biographical sketches of mayors; we keep lists that contain the mayors' names and term dates and nothing else. Bearcat ( talk) 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Local and routine news reports, in fact, do not satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:GNG; sustained national or, better yet, international coverage would if it existed for this mayor. However, in my WP:BEFORE search I found nothing but small-time regional coverage expected of a small-time politician. One editor here can shuffle and skew policies all they want by outlandish means but it does not change the lack of notability of this subject. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WP:ROUTINE is an event guideline, whereas the topic here is a biography.  Claiming that GNG rejects local sources is a proof by assertion.  Claiming that GNG requires national coverage is also a proof by assertion.  The mayor was mayor for four terms, so how much attention does he have to have to consider it sustained?  Further, a WP:DEL8 argument does not ignore the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.  It is our policy to preserve the suitable contributions of others, and this is relevant history of Goshen.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As has been pointed out to you before, ROUTINE lists numerous examples which are types of coverage that pertain to people, such as birth and wedding and death announcements and run of the mill crime reports. So yes, ROUTINE is still applicable to people, because half of its own examples of what it means are about people. It does not pertain only to whether the topic of our article is an event or not, but most certainly does also pertain to whether or not certain types of coverage of certain types of events assist in demonstrating the individual notability of the people involved in those events. And a mayor of a small town most certainly does require significantly more coverage than most other mayors of most other towns of comparable size could also show before he's considered notable enough for an encyclopedia article, namely by having his coverage expand beyond where it's merely expected to exist. And we only have a practice of trying to preserve properly referenced and notable content — we do not have a policy of trying to preserve everything that anybody ever added to Wikipedia regardless of its failure to cite adequate sourcing or demonstrate an actual reason why it would belong here. We keep lists of mayors' names if we can find a reference that supports them; we do not keep unsourced biographical information about them beyond their names and term dates. Bearcat ( talk) 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After plowing through this wall of text, the policy and guideline based arguments clearly come down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Chuck Oberlie

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a former small-city mayor. The city (pop. 31K) is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but this isn't sourced well enough to get him past WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage -- the only "references" here are a primary source bio fromthe website of a directly affiliated organization, and a single news article from the local newspaper about his decision not to run for another term in office. This is not enough to deem a small-city mayor notable. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • The claim is made "this <article> isn't sourced well enough to get <the topic> past WP:NPOL #2".  The claim is further made that the sources in the article are "not enough to deem a small-city mayor notable."  But WP:N states, "The absence of sources or citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable."  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The claim that the article is "poorly" sourced has no basis in evidence in the nomination.  And if there is evidence, WP:BEFORE B3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag".  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is a relic of the overly permissive article creation guidelines that existed back in 2008. The fact that the article does not definitively tell when Mr. Oberlie's term in office ended, although it was about 6 or 7 years ago, shows just how little attention people in positions like this actually receive. My city has 4 times the population of Michigan City, and probably an even higher percent greater amount of economic activity, since in the dysfunction that is metro-Detroit, a suburb like mine attracts lots of Detroit residents to movie theatres, has many residents of other cities working in factories, and on and on. Yet our mayors are not notable for articles. I was a voice in the deleting of the article on Richard Notte, who was the mayor of my city of Sterling Heights for about 20 years. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  I didn't see any problems that needed the attention of AfD.  The article, Michigan City mayor will not seek re-election by Stan Maddux Times Correspondent, Dec 1, 2010, is in-depth and what is envisioned as a good article by GNG.  The profile published by the government of Indiana is also in-depth.  I also found a number of helpful snippets on WP:BEFORE D1 Google books, that the article by Stan Maddux tied together.  One of these dates back to 1976.  I didn't see a need to look any further.  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
"Michigan City mayor will not seek re-election" represents a type of article that every single person who'd ever been mayor of anywhere could always show from the local media, so no, it does not represent a WP:GNG pass in and of itself. And the "Government of Indiana" source is not independent of Oberlie, because it's from a government body (the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Committee) which he's been a member of — that makes it a directly affiliated source that cannot support notability, not a reliable and independent source for the purposes of clearing a Wikipedia notability standard. People are not handed an automatic wikinotability freebie just because they have "our board members" or "our staff" profiles on the self-published website of their own employers or organizational affiliations. Bearcat ( talk) 15:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The article I cited is a good article, where the commonly cited benchmark at WT:N to pass GNG is two good articles.  No two mayors are alike. 
Articles published by the government of Indiana are published by the people of Indiana, and such sources are generally WP:RS, in spite of your mysterious claim to the contrary. 
The world of the "wikinotability freebie" is imaginary.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The article was not published by the state government of Indiana, but by the Northeastern Indiana Regional Planning Committee: a regional government organization of which he's a member, and thus not one whose self-published bios of its own staff or board represent independent coverage by an unaffiliated source. And no, GNG is not simply a matter of being able to surpass two sources — I've previously listed many examples of the types of articles about unencyclopedic nobodies we would have to start keeping if that were all it took. GNG is not just a matter of having an arbitrary number of sources, but a contextual test that can be passed by just one source in certain instances and can be failed by six or seven sources in others.
And incidentally, yes, the "freebie" is imaginary in the sense that it's not a thing we do — but the word represents a completely accurate assessment of what some people seem to think we do. "We should always keep an article about any mayor of anywhere the moment one source verifies that they existed" certainly isn't a thing that represents the reality of how Wikipedia works — but it is how some people seem to think Wikipedia works, and the fact that those people are wrong is precisely what I mean when I use the phrase "notability freebie": I always negate it by saying that something isn't one, and have never used it in the context of being an affirmative thing that anybody actually gets. Bearcat ( talk) 15:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The "completely accurate assessment" is your own self-assessment.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
And an absolutely 100 per cent correct one. That is exactly how some people do think Wikipedia works. Bearcat ( talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
As for standards for GNG, the commonly cited benchmark at WT:N to pass GNG is two good articles.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Again, if all a topic had to do to get into Wikipedia was show two sources, we would have to keep an article about: every single person who'd ever been mayor of anywhere; every single person who'd ever been a fire chief or a police chief of anywhere; everybody who ever opened a restaurant anywhere; people whose only notability claim is that they happen to have an unusual number of toes; my mother's neighbour and her pig; and me. To be kept on the basis of just two sources, those sources have to be supporting a notability claim that passes an automatic "must-include" criterion like "Member of Congress". If a person does not pass an automatic must-include criterion, but rather their notability criterion is dependent on the depth of media coverage, then it does take considerably more than just two sources to get there. Bearcat ( talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The article was published by www.in.gov.  I put that URL in my browser and it reported "Copyright © 2017 State of Indiana".  The point is that you've dropped your claim that the website was other than reliable.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To be considered a reliable source, a reference has to be media coverage that's independent of the subject. An "our board members" bio written and published by an organization that the subject is directly affiliated with is not an independent source, and therefore not a reliable or notability-supporting one. Bearcat ( talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
If what you say is true, why did you not cite from WP:RS?  The answer is that it is not true.  Here is a diff added to the encyclopedia today of a source reliable for the purpose for which it was added, that is not independent.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
A source can be trustworthy for the simple verification of a fact in an article, and yet not reliable for the purposes of demonstrating that the topic is actually notable. A school's own website is obviously trustworthy on the question of who the school's principal is — but if the school's basic notability were in question, its own website would not, in and of itself, be a source that made it notable. And the NIRPC source works the same way: if there were a purely factual question about whether or not Oberlie had actually served on the NIRPC, then that source would obviously answer that. But if the question is whether Oberlie is notable enough to have an article at all, then the NIRPC bio is not a source that bolsters or assists his notability. Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Delete I have added some information and a handful of references (several of which are newspaper articles) in an effort to improve the article but I'm not sure it reaches the level of notability. Leschnei ( talk) 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Just a thought; should smaller cities have a 'former mayors' section for their mayors who do not reach notability on their own? Leschnei ( talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
If we can find a source that enables us to properly list all of the mayors, then yes, we do regularly permit lists of mayors either as a subsection of the town or city article or as a standalone "List of mayors of X". The challenge is that sometimes we can rely on just one or two good sources for a complete list (I created List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana just last week — because even with no knowledge of the city whatsoever besides being aware that it exists, I was able to locate a source that provided a complete list of all the mayors), but sometimes it would require much more complex research to track down a variety of sources to properly support the complete list. The only thing we don't allow, though, is unsourced lists of mayors. Bearcat ( talk) 15:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Continuing the above discussion, I found a book that lists the mayors from the town's incorporation through 1906, and there are about 25 mayors! An entire list of mayors would be much too long for the Michigan City article, and a stand-alone list of mostly (all?) non-notable people is not worth the effort. Muncie is a bigger city, and I see that many of its mayors are notable. A brief search tells me that the same would not be true for Michigan City's mayors. It think that this article will have to stand or fall on its own. Leschnei ( talk) 18:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I should have added, after my comment above, that I am changing my vote from weak keep to delete. I have made an edited my vote above to reflect that. Leschnei ( talk) 00:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The usual standard that an elected official must pass to meet the notability standards of Wikipedia is WP:NPOL with common outcomes described at WP:POLOUTCOMES. For local mayors, reaching notability usually means receiving national or international press coverage for their service as mayor. The reason for this is that most elected officials remain low profile individuals through and after their terms of office. This means that there is presumption of privacy and there is a community expectation that authors should "focus on high-quality secondary sources" when dealing with relatively-unknown individuals [See WP:NPF]" In this case, there does not appear to be any sources that suggests that the subject received coverage "beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role" WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- Enos733 ( talk) 06:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Enos733: The link you provide, WP:LPI, states,

    A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention... Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.

    As per our article, sourced by the Stan Maddoux article, "He was elected mayor", so he ran for office publicly.  Elected officials are public individuals.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • And Wikipedia does not automatically accept every mayor of everywhere as notable enough for an encyclopedia article, if the "attention" they received was merely the normal degree of coverage in their local media. In a city of this size, the mayor's profile needs to significantly nationalize to escape LPI — it is not enough that he simply has exactly the same purely local profile that any mayor of anywhere always has. Bearcat ( talk) 18:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Right, Wikipedia does not automatically accept every mayor of everywhere as notable enough for an encyclopedia article.  Sometimes, the topic is notable, but whether or not the topic is notable, in general the status of having been a mayor is important enough to the history of the community and therefore the history of the world that the topic is significant.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Passing GNG is only a presumption of passing WP:N notability, yes.  But in general, "normal" attention suggests that there is a significant amount of significant coverage, which means the topic satisfies the definition of GNG notability.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, it doesn't. By definition, "normal" coverage is the coverage that every mayor always gets, but we do not accept that every mayor always qualifies for a Wikipedia article just for being a mayor per se. A mayor's notability depends on being able to show significantly more sourceability — much greater volume, or much wider geographic range, than what's simply normal and expected for every mayor to always get. Bearcat ( talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • If a person doesn't clear NPOL because their political role isn't an inherently notable one, then they have to be able to show quite a lot more coverage than most other people who've held the same non-notable role elsewhere before they clear GNG. For example, if a city isn't large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability for the fact of being mayor of a major city itself, then to get kept they have to show quite a lot more sourceability than most other smalltown mayors could also show. Bearcat ( talk) 05:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
GNG does not prevent local sources from being included in the overall sourcing pool for a topic, but our notability standards most certainly do weed out most classes of people who can be sourced only to a small handful of purely local sources. GNG is not simply a matter of surpassing an arbitrary number of sources — it most certainly does depend on contextual considerations. One source is enough to get an actor into Wikipedia if that source is confirming that said actor won an Oscar, while ten sources are not enough to get an actor into Wikipedia if those sources are just confirming that he's had roles at a local dinner theatre in Podunk, Missouri. GNG most certainly does take into account contextual variables — the less "automatically includable" the person's notability claim is, the stronger in volume or geographic range (or both) the sourcing has to get before they're actually considered notable enough to pass GNG. GNG is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping every single article that happens to have more than two of them — because as I've pointed out many times before, literally millions of people have been written about twice by their local newspapers without having achieved anything that would make them belong in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Bearcat ( talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
TLDR, but the bottom line is that GNG has no exception for local sources.  I fell into this trap once at an AfD and !voted to delete a band that was only covered in local sources, but I was wrong and the article was kept.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The bottom line is that GNG does not prevent local sources from being included in a mix of sources for a person who has a clean pass of a subject-specific notability criterion. But if a topic's notability claim is "fails all relevant SNGs but is still notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then they are deemed to fail GNG if said media coverage consists exclusively of purely local coverage exclusively in the topic's own hometown. I can't judge this band AFD without seeing it, but it's entirely possible that they actually passed an actual WP:NMUSIC criterion quite independently of how local or non-local the sourcing happened to be — and it's also entirely possible that the conclusion of that discussion was just wrong and has to be revisited, because perhaps nobody actually made any policy-based arguments at all. But I can't know which of those is the case without knowing what specific discussion you're talking about. Bearcat ( talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - First note, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", according to WP:NPOL. The subject clearly does not receive significant coverage; evidence to this is in the poorly-referenced article and an easy-to-do WP:BEFORE search which garners little else. I would elaborate further but Bearcat has hit the nail right on the head several times already above. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WP:N states that, "The absence of sources or citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable."  WP:PERNOM statements, "add little to the discussion".  And if you are ignoring the WP:ATD, you can't claim to have made a policy-based WP:DEL8 !vote.  As for the claim that WP:BEFORE D1 garnered "little else", what about the snippets I already identified?  Since notability is not defined by a WP:BEFORE D1 search, it might help to know what more you want to see.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Maari 2 (film)

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

Non notable, not yet created movie which neither meet WP:GNG no WP:NFILM entirely  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 21:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Immanuel's Church

Immanuel's Church (  | 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 a non-notable church. Most news coverage appears to be related to a suicide at the church, which does not count as non-trivial coverage. The 2013 AFD on the page resulted in a keep but the reasoning is not persuasive. TM 16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The previous AFD discussion (thank you for linking to that) focused on this being a megachurch and there being a consensus in practice that megachurches are notable, which seems reasonable to me. This Washington Times article (only partially available online) was linked in the AFD and seems like a very substantial source. Sure, I believe you if a flurry of recent news articles focus on a random-like event, but it is still a megachurch and there appears to have been other substantial coverage about it. -- do ncr am 03:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a notable mega church. There are earlier Washington Post stories regarding 1) Smardz, Zofia (13 April 2006). "Some Jews See Trespass in Church Seders". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 January 2013. 2) Sedam, Sean (7 June 2006). "Gay conversion conference criticized". Gazette.net. Retrieved 31 March 2013. User:bschoeni 4:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

GIDS Shahpar

GIDS Shahpar (  | 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 real coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

SATUMA Mukhbar

SATUMA Mukhbar (  | 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 real coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: In general, it's long-standing consensus that aircraft that have flown are included in Wikipedia. However, in this case, even leaving aside the thorny issue of where the line is with UAVs vis-a-vis manned aircraft when it comes to that, it doesn't appear to be verifiable that this UAV has flown, as opposed to being an entry with a pretty picture in a manufacturer's catalogue. If anybody can find "yes, it flew" evidence, ping me and I'll happily change my !vote, but until then - - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sourced from manufacturer (404 dead link). Scaled down version of other UAV ( SATUMA Jasoos) which might have not entered production. Mainly passing mentions - [7] [8] [9] as yet another UAV in the lineup of the company. Possible to merge some content to SATUMA Jasoos if we pass WP:V that this is indeed a scaled-down model (the passing mentions above do not specify this). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Black Lipstick Kiss (song)

Black Lipstick Kiss (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)

Poorly sourced article about a song, by a band who don't even have a Wikipedia article at all. This does technically make enough of a notability claim to preclude being speedied A9 (musical recording by a recording artist who doesn't have a Wikipedia article), but not enough of one to actually pass WP:NSONGS: the charting claims are tied to campus radio, not to any IFPI-certified national chart that would pass NMUSIC #2, and the award nominations are not major ones for the purposes of NMUSIC #8 -- notability because awards attaches to awards on the level of the Junos or the Grammys or the Polaris, not the RightOut Awards or the Fetisch Film Festival. And none of the references represent reliable source coverage about the song, either -- it's referenced entirely to primary sources, IMDb and blogs, not to any real media coverage. As always, we do not create or keep an article about every single song that exists -- there are certain specific standards of notability and sourceability that a song has to surpass for an article to become earned, but this doesn't satisfy any of them. Bearcat ( talk) 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Last Temptation of Reid. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I Am Your Clock

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

This is a rarity but without any sources to make a claim for WP:GNG. If what the articles says -- that it was a limited edition release for The Last Temptation of Reid -- it could be redirected there. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Khyber Mail (newspaper)

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

No coverage found. Fails NPAPER and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, was WP:BEFORE performed here or not? Some mentions: "PESHAWAR NEWSPAPERS: Among the English newspapers, the 'Khyber Mail' was the most outstanding. It was started as a weekly in 1932, and converted into a daily in 1950." ( [10]), "Among the English newspapers, the “Khyber Mail” was and continues to be the most Prominent." ( [11]), "The Khyber Mail developed into an influential English daily but, on the whole, even in Peshawar the Urdu newspapers..." ( [12]), "Across the way is the solemn-fronted office of the Khyber Mail, the Frontier's leading and only English language newspaper in which debates in the UN and skirmishes on the Mohmand Border are featured side by side." ( [13]) -- Soman ( talk) 21:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Soman. I don't think WP:BEFORE has been followed for many of the nominator's recent AfD spree. Mar4d ( talk) 14:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Medieval Bulgarian army. Clearly there is a consensus to delete this specific content, but this is a plausible search term and the target article would provide information on the topic, so a redirect seems reasonable. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Medieval battles of the Bulgarian Army

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

This is a POV fork of the similar list in Medieval Bulgarian army, which apparently was also included by an IP in Bulgarian Armed Forces; Bulgarian military history articles have long suffered from editors (usually IP addresses) who keep adding a whole list of spurious "battles" (unsurprisingly, mostly Bulgarian victories) without reference to any source, riddled with typos, inaccuracies, and sundry problems. The very inclusion of this list in the Bulgarian Armed Forces article, or the use of the modern coat of arms of Bulgaria betray the nationalist POV behind this, implicitly linking the Bulgarian Army of the present-day country to the medieval period. Constantine ✍ 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Normally, yes. but here a correct list already exists, in Medieval Bulgarian army; the list under discussion here is an exercise in POV editing that was (correctly) excised from an unrelated article. It is better to delete it altogether, and then, if necessary/desirable, consider whether to extract the list in Medieval Bulgarian army as a stand-alone article. I note that the conflation of the First and Second Bulgarian empires is also not entirely unproblematic, since they are vastly different states in terms of territorial extent, culture, organization, etc. but I can live with that. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing

Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing (  | 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 to find any coverage. Fails WP:ORG. Alternatively redirect to FAST-NU. Störm (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Peer Viqar Ul Aslam

AfDs for this article:
Peer Viqar Ul Aslam (  | 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:NJOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO the majority of the sources are self-published followed by passing mentions and quotes for the foundation. the only in-depth piece is on Gyawun which is from a guest contributor and clearly a puff-piece. This is in my opinion a vanity page, even the selfie smacks of auto-promotion. Article already deleted once but as some sources date from after best to discuss Domdeparis ( talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Gamesofwikithrones: per my message on your talk page, please could you disclose whether you have a personal or professional connection to the subject of this discussion? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 16:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No substantial change since the 1st nomination in December 2015. [14] I mean, nothing in the article is suggestive of notability at this stage (being a journalist? being stopped by an armed officer in Kashmir? founding a non-governmental organisation? fundraising? having a thousand followers on Facebook? Please.) — kashmiri  TALK 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@kashmiri you are clearly biased towards this person, you rigourously campaigned even last time against this page, I was asked to contribute against when more links Nd references add up, that's what I did, now you can't handle that even. If I have no relation with the subject but for sure you have some animosity because your comments suggest that! (Redacted) Anyway, I believe the discussion should take place, I will accept the outcome. @Dom Laos Gamesofwikithrones ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

If you have no links to the subject who asked you to contribute? You have only editied pages linked to this person and as such you have a WP:SPA. And be very very careful about you language which is threatening. Domdeparis ( talk) 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Gamesofwikithrones, threatening other users, even if made in jest, is a bannable offense. Please do not do so in the future. Primefac ( talk) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm not an expert on licensing, but you might want to verify that the attribution in the new github repo is still appropriate. After deleting this page, the link to this article is going to break. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mersenne Twister code

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

Wikipedia isn't a code repository. Should we have a bunch of articles entitled [[<Insert name of widely used software> code]]? No, we shouldn't. Pontificalibus ( talk) 15:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a code repository, the code is not notable of itself, and the article isn't cited. If there was anything to say here that wasn't better said already in Mersenne Twister then I'd say redirect, but the title isn't a plausible redirect anyway, and if the code wasn't at the target (as it shouldn't be), the redirect would also be misleading. So delete is my !vote. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. I am the creator of the article "Mersenne Twister code". As stated in the edit summary at creation, the code was simply copied from the article Mersenne Twister; it was then deleted from that article. I wanted to remove the code from the article Mersenne Twister, because I believed that the code cluttered up that article. Copying the code into a new article seemed to be the easiest approach, but I have no opinion on whether Wikipedia should include the code. Ergo, I am neutral on the proposed deletion.  FlagrantUsername ( talk) 17:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a code repository. Code is another language than English, and this is the English Wikipedia not the Python or C or whatever encyclopedia. Not useful to people who wish to read this, and not the right way to share code with people who wish to use shared code. And to the extent that it is not a copyvio, it is also original research. Removing it from the Mersenne twister article was the right thing to do, but it should have been removed, not just moved elsewhere. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or re-integrate into the main article. "Code is another language than English" is not a valid argument because mathematical equations are also another language than English, and could you imagine a Wikipedia where all math articles had to use only English? That being said, pseudocode is often more clear than mathematical formulae when it comes to computational algorithms, and the main MT article is sorely lacking a (pseudo)code example now. Ymgve ( talk) 14:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
About pseudocode, the article Mersenne Twister previously included this. The pseudocode was removed on November 20th; [15] the edit summary for the removal says this: "unsourced - readers wanting code can avail themselves of the external links given at the end of the article". I believe that the article benefited from including pseudocode, but I also understand the concern with lack of source, and WP:NOR.  FlagrantUsername ( talk) 16:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
This is a really nice approach. I have put a link to the repository in the "External links" section of the article Mersenne Twister.  FlagrantUsername ( talk) 14:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Atul Gupta

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

Dean of graduate studies at a minor private college. Claimed to be associated with conferences / journals which, on investigation, turn out to be bogus (e.g. an "Oxford Journal" which has nothing to do with OUP or Oxford University, is not in ISI/JCR, and whose publications don't have DOI references). Guy ( Help!) 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete being a dean is generally not enough to make someone notable. Being the dean of graduate studies at a school where the total enrollment is 2,500 is very unlikely to be enough to make one notable, and no other substantial claims seem to exist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Peer Viqar Ul Aslam

Peer Viqar Ul Aslam (  | 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 satisfy the WP:NBIO criteria: a young entrepreneur, founder of a small software business, his only claim to notability is receiving an award from regional government - an award apparently not based on merits but on a public poll! Sources quoted do not help in establishing the guy's notability and comprise of a software review, a list of the 21 recipients of the said award, and a cursory mention elsewhere. So, this is a typical example of WP:SINGLEEVENT. kashmiri TALK 18:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment at least as notable as winning a state level pageant like Meg McGuffin did. Guy started a business, won an award, employed people, developed products all over the span of years. That is more notable then most people in the world. Listening to some people here, a passing mention in a newspaper is enough to satisfy GNG. Legacypac ( talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree to a degree, I would perhaps AfD Meg McGuffin - if not her coverage. But still I would't compare Miss Alabama and Miss America pageants to the Young Entrepreneur Award in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It just doesn't compare. In the latter, in a public vote in a state of 14 million people, the most any winner received was less than 2000 votes, and media did not rather notice that. This precisely affects notability of a person. kashmiri TALK 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm just looking for some consistent application of the GNG for Bios. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Fazzolari, efforts to delete a page with way more sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Wallace and the list goes on. I'm not going to be disruptive and vote against deleting every bio with a source, but when people are calling for a ban on me using AfD for trying to clean up promotional fluff... Legacypac ( talk) 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

He is notable as he has not just won youth icon award but also been able to win best entrepreneur not just that his poems in kashmiri and Urdu are widely known. He is a young entrepreneur who is recruiting young people by providing them trainings in a conflict torn state. He deserves to be on Wikipedia his business is not small scale rather a medium level expanding one. I have researched on him and he has been interviewed by Indian National TV - Doordarshan and also ETV Urdu short clips are on YouTube from these interviews. He has great Oratory skills and known sales communication trainer I checked his linkedin page which has more details about him. He has thousands of people attached their endorsing his skills and notability to be exact! I would recommend voting to keep this page and further edit it. The information about such people is of public interest. I will try to upload the bio part a lil more to it tomorrow as I'm gathering details on it I wish to work more on it as I'm new maybe someone among you can help me in building this page better. Thewikisquad ( talk) 21:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Thewikisquad ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

TV stations routinely interview tens or more people every single day, to fill the programme. Being on TV does not confer automatic notability, sorry! Or, I should perhaps get Wikipedia articles written about myself and quite a few colleagues of mine? BTW, his poetry is virtually unknown in Jammu & Kashmir, or did I miss something? kashmiri  TALK 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

"Public poll" I guess that shows the notability rather than proving against it, public poll shows public interest. I don't see any parameters breaking that.

I would say "keep" after checking the sources which are reliable. If we deny bio with sources of reliable nature then I guess lot other bio should not be here.

Being a top entrepreneur in that state is quite notable. I don't see any open promotional material on the page but I think it should be edited properly to present the information in best shape. Jackbrownwashere ( talk) 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Jackbrownwashere ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Are you kidding me? Do you know how such "polls" are organised? The winner is one who is most popular in his/her uni class. Claiming that this particular award went to a "top entrepreneur" in the state is a joke. And read WP:ONEEVENT and WP:INTHENEWS please. kashmiri  TALK 11:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You must be kidding me using your experience on Wikipedia as a monopoly over reviewing as if you're the founding member of this encyclopaedia, if you cannot check and prove the sources are organised you cannot push on allegations like that, I did my part you don't have to debate as its a discussion. And just one person cannot have say over matters here. You should stop pulling strings like you wish and let others decide this article! Polls define the popularity of people and when it's published on reliable source.
You just don't have to be a cop over here, be a contributor give your opinion related to the policies which policy says poll cannot be considered notable feature? Jackbrownwashere ( talk) 13:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Jackbrownwashere ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 08:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, How is WP:SINGLEEVENT While it has been reported for two awards nd two different notable achievements which includes creating the states first online radio which has listeners across the the world, I would request checking the CITYFMJK Radio for added links! The age argument is not worthy to discuss! The Page also contains notable sources that indicate the validation of the content! 7 link sources for 4 different achievements! not a single event! Thewikisquad ( talk) 10:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)  Comment: Crossing out duplicate !vote. kashmiri  TALK 13:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply
The station is listed as a "product" of his company [16] and actually is one of a myriad webcast stations that anyone can set up on the www.radio.co platform. It was started only two years ago and has almost no mentions in internet sources that I could find. Anyhow, this does not prove how the guy is notable on his own. By the way, a website I set up also has readers from all over the world but this does not make me notable! kashmiri  TALK 13:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Datari Turner

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

Spam article likely created by an undeclared paid editor and cleaned up by a declared paid editor. Written in current marketing speak, rather than the 1960s speak that we require for G11. Clear purpose and intent is to promote the subject and not provide encyclopedic value, making it excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOT. Notability doesn't even come into question here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This doesn't really say much. Would appreciate if you could point out specific reasons as to why you feel he is not notable. Many of these articles have been published between 2011 and now. JacobMW ( talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Largely created and edited by SPA and Paid editors and may have been a way of recreating an article Datari Turner Productions already deleted 3 times under this name. That said I had a look at the sources and a good portion are rewrites of press releases, (compare [17] with [18]), passing mentions, affiliated sources, churnalisme and WP:INTERVIEWS. The TMZ article [19] is highly negative and the only thing used in the article is that he was married to this person. So even if the article was rewritten taking out the fluff it is unlikely that it pass GNG. So as fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG as well. Domdeparis ( talk) 15:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
FWIW, our organization made no attempt to create the Datari Turner Productions page. This may have been an attempt the client directly. JacobMW ( talk) JacobMW ( talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hey guys, just stepping in here. Datari is a client of my firm Mister Wiki, and with all the recent scrutiny on our practices, I am making an effort to converse with the community, and at the very least, make a case ( disclosed COI). I just wanted to take some time to include a few more notable sources that I discovered through some research:

If you would be open to it, I'd like to make a revised draft of this page with newly found sources, and propose it to you guys to see if it passes the community's guidelines and policies. Let me know your thoughts. Happy Thanksgiving! JacobMW ( talk) 16:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment That is a fair point. I will research and bring up some of his coverage that is specific to him as a film producer and is in high-profile publications to get your thoughts. JacobMW ( talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hey, everyone. Just wanted to expand a bit on my above note in favor of keeping the article:
The original reason for deletion was due to the ‘marketing speak’, however, that is something that can be fixed through editing & peer review (new draft here which is written to be much less promotional) rather than submitting through AfD ( WP:ATD).
In regards to the question of WP:GNG, Turner has definitely had more than just ‘trivial mentions’ in high-profile publications such as The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and more. The coverage on him (which is referenced in the new draft of the article), covers him and his TV / film projects in depth. JacobMW ( talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Domdeparis, the many of the secondary sources cited by the article are retreads of press releases or sources affiliated with the article subject. Also note that notability is not inhered from other, more notable subjects.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 08:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Minority uninvolved opinion here, but I believe he meets notability for having created and written five television series (in addition to his acting, producing, and modeling careers). There is substantial/significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yes, the article is promotional sounding, but remember WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. The article needs trimming (by about 30%), and help and copyediting, but to my eyes he meets both WP:GNG and the subsidiary notability guidelines, especially having four different careers (which divides up the coverage but coverage on each creates cumulative notability). This is part of the problem with so-called hyphenates (people with multiple careers/abilities in the arts). Also, my last comment: Part of the problem with this kind of wiki article is that it seems to be substituting for someone's personal website, which a Wikipedia article is decidedly not; if someone wants this kind of chit-chatty promotional biography, they should create their own website, for heaven's sake (they're free these days -- hello). That said, I do feel this person reaches our notability threshold. Softlavender ( talk) 10:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Softlavender: I've created a new draft of the article in my sandbox here (ignore the external links at the bottom). I've cleaned up the article to remove a lot of unimportant and non-notable content regarding his personal life and focused more on his career and the publications that have written about him / his work. Mentions of him are far more than just a trivial mention of him, but again, about him and his work as a film producer. I'd appreciate any input that you or anyone in this thread has. Thank you. JacobMW ( talk) 18:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Balochistan Post

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

No coverage found. Fails NPAPER and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You are right. Apparently there used to be a newspaper with a now defunct website http://balochistanpost.com/ (see [27]). According to Urdu WP that newspaper still exists, but from what I gather here the original Balochistan Post (i.e. the newspaper) got into trouble after opposing General Musharraf. Anyways, it's another story. Probably. 80.219.255.14 ( talk) 19:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bader S. Dweik

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

Near-certain COI ( WP:SPA), I have pruned the vast majority of the "publications" listed because they were either directly uploaded to servers, or were in predatory open access journals. No independent biographical sources. Guy ( Help!) 14:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You're the Voice: 40 More Days with God

You're the Voice: 40 More Days with God (  | 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 WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews or reliable sources that discuss the book (article is unsourced and looking at its history has never had sources) Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Preeze 36

Preeze 36 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Only assertions of notability are wins at the "Top Ten Tube Awards", but there is no indication that this is a notable award. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Swathi Nimmagadda

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

The article falls too far below WP:BIO requirements to justify its inclusion here. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 12:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 00:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Blake Hutcheson

Blake Hutcheson (  | 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 was thinking of a redirect to Oxford Properties, but this businessperson is not that big that such is warranted. Also, doesn't pass the GNG. Article written by a likely COI editor, and the Oxford Properties article suffers from the same promotional COI influence. Drmies ( talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 05:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( talkó tuó mió) 12:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Besides the two in depth sources cited above, there seems to be quite a bit of sources available that are at least meh. For example, this, which isn't enough to establish notability on its own, but it probably enough to add a well sourced sentence or two to the article in addition to the coverage already there. Something like this could also potentially be useful if someone could get access to the full text. Overall, probably enough out there all things considered to write a halfway decent article. GMG talk 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the CEO of a company that is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Granted it is a stub and needs updating to avoid being flagged for more issues.-- BelBivDov ( talk) 02:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- meh: the only piece that resembles a profile is the piece in Globe and Mail, but it's an interview. The rest is quotes by the subject or coverage not independent of his company. There's nothing here beyond a directory listing, and Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fetishism. The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Blood fetishism

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

Is a dictionary definition, not an article.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears that while there are sources, they do not meet our guidelines for establishing encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Maoz Vegetarian

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

no evidence for notability--routine notices only DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
That's not my sentiment. My own sentiment, rather, is that all large businesses for which there is something to say other than directory information are likely to be notable. Where there is only directory information, the subject fails NOT DIRECTORY, a basic policy, that is the fundamental basis of the notability guideline, so detailed consideration of the sources that give the directory information is irrelevant. For small businesses, they are very likely to be promotional, which fails another part of th fundamental policy NOT ADVOCACY,so again detailed consideration of sources are irrelevant. This particular article is a medium size business with only directory information, and should be deleted on that basis. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; nothing but routine stuff like directories and soft news coverage, which is even less reliable than "news news" (if you let me make up a phrase); DGG describes the situation well. Nyttend ( talk) 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- the coverage is routine and / or WP:SPIP; a wholly unremarkable, minor chain. If promotionalism is removed ("...with a vision of "spreading the vegetarian lifestyle worldwide...!"), there won't be anything left. Wikipedia is not a directory of nn businesses, nor is it an opportunity to place franchisee ads. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

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

WP:QUOTEFARM with only unreliable sources. There are many prophets that have made a number of claims that are debated but there is no Claims of Jesus, Claims of Muhammad. Subject is already covered on Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad#His_claim that's why article is redundant. Orientls ( talk) 10:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to West Pakistan. ansh 666 04:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Pakistan West

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

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many Pakistani dummy publications. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Daily Awaz-e Nasle Nau

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

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many dummy publications in Pakistan. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

List european countries and cities in all languages

List european countries and cities in all languages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Batternut ( talk) 10:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, if not speedy delete. With a title like "List of European countries and cities in all languages" there is no coherent subject. Also redundant, with articles like List of country names in various languages and List of countries and dependencies and their capitals in native languages. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It seems a shame, as the creator has clearly expended a lot of effort researching and tabulating the information: but per nom and per the preceding comment, it's not really what Wikipedia is for ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 11:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The title is really bad but normally even terrible titles aren't a reason for deletion. Creator of the article really does not get Wikipedia article naming conventions or the logic behind them. This needs to be moved to something like "List of European countries and cities in various European languages" except there are still several problems. First, this should really be split into separate country and city lists because they are two distinct topics and there is no coherent way to mix them. Also, because of the nature of this content, even including all European languages would be unwieldy as far as the width of the table. The way this is constructed is entirely arbitrary and it is hard to say why or why not something would be included even if it were broken out into separate lists. And yes, this may be nothing more than dictionary-like material which Wikipedia is not for. —DIYeditor ( talk) 13:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree it's regretful that so much work went into this, but... so much of this is arbitrary and random, besides being based apparently entirely on Google Translate, which is pretty bottom-of-the-barrel as far as sources go. Most of this wouldn't even meet criteria for a non-English redirect, and it... just doesn't seem to have any clear encyclopedic purpose. Presumably, even if someone did for some reason want to know the name of Bern in Hungarian, they would just go to google translate, and not prefer to use an unwieldy and fairly arbitrary table, even if they could find it. The cities chosen appear to be purely OR, as does the languages chosen (Why leave out so many of Languages of Europe#List of languages?), as arguably are the countries chosen to some degree (Where's the Vatican, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Moldova? How did we decide whether or not to include Kosovo?). GMG talk 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all of the above, and, more particularly, WP:NOT. — fortuna velut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 14:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete Per all of the above. Wales? Luxembourg? Monaco? Barcelona? Catalunia? C'mon. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • What's the deletion reason (guideline) ? I made this (indeed very badly named, that is acknowleged) list as an experiment. Which grew. The idea comes from an older discussion about names in Austria-Hungary. If the list is "un-encyclopedic", I can agree. But if it's about syntax, that could well be changed. My intention was to have blue links in English only, and "local" names in bold. But please note, all (current) links go to this Wikipedia. (the construction is limited due to my poor knowledge of Wiki-syntax only). Due to the syntax everything becomes bold, but I'm certain someone with better knowledge could fix that. About further languages - yes, naturally. I began with 6 or 7 and have added several after that. Anyone can add a new language. (If it "survives", my intention is to add Finnish (as a second Uralic language) and Portuguese (which I guess is the largest not available). And then a very large majority of all Latin spelled languages, spoken in Europe will be covered. (But naturally further languages can still be added)
Please note - the list/table isn't random, if I only knew how, I would have marked vertical lines between Germanic, Romance, Slavic and Uralic languages. And also indicated a "bondry" to Hungarian, which isn't an Indo-European language at all. English first, then in "size order" - within Germanic, Romance and Slavic languages. (perhaps Italian should change position with Spanish, though). Would there be any advantage in adding languages which are not spelled with Latin letters ? I chose to begin with languages spelled with Latin letters. One idea is to compare spellings, but I have encountered confusion of for instance Prague and Vienna in the past, here at this Wiki.
Also, the list could well (and quite easily) separate countries from cities, into two tables - or horizontal lines or different style. The cities a side of Capital ones, are chosen from an linguistic interesting point of view. It's not much point in adding for instance Luton, Kiel or Bordeaux which I presume are spelled the same. But there are naturally far more to add. Also "European languages = languages spoken in Europe". Naturally can Wales be added as well as Welsh. Etc. If it's "un-encyclopedic" however, I will not defend it. Otherwise it can be improved in many ways. Boeing720 ( talk) 19:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to conduct experiments on things that editors personally find interesting from a linguistic point of view. At best this is pure original research. GMG talk 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It began as an experiment in my Sandbox. Is it "un-encyclopedic" ? Boeing720 ( talk) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
But I strongly object to it being "arbitrary and random" or OR - if I just knew how to, the structure could be made much clearer. Florence, Venice, Elsinore, Cologne etc are chosen because they are spelled differently in most languages. Boeing720 ( talk) 20:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, yes. It is not an encyclopedia article, nor does it serve any clear purpose as a collection of encyclopedia articles chosen for any obviously objective and meaningful reason. In the best case scenario, all it does is comparatively poorly duplicate the language links on the existing articles, which themselves have clear encyclopedic relevance because they serve to point multilingual readers to versions of articles on non-English projects. It has nothing to do with the syntax. GMG talk 20:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I can accept your beginning. But a clear purpose exists, to compare spelling between languages, and language relationships. If studying the table, one can see clear similarities within the different language groups. (Which a better syntax would underline better) But also historical and cultural elements can be traced through this table. In order for a language to make a translation of a geographical name, there are two major aspects, A. Is the "local name" pronounceable in an other language, there is no call for a translation. (or a minor "local change" occurs) B. The geographical area/country or city has to be known well enough, and over a fairly long time as well. Otherwise no translation of the foreign name will be done. Take England as an example, apparently "good enough" within other Germanic languages ("Engeland" in Dutch is sooner a "local adoption"), but in Romance ("Latin based") languages, Angleterre, Inglaterra etc are obvious translations, where "Angle" refers to (East-)Anglia and "terra" means "land", the Spaniards then thought "Ingla" sounds better than the French "Angle". But as "France" in spelling is good enough for English pronunciation, no transtation has been required. But "Deutchland" has called for a translation, also in Romance languages. (Whilst the Dutch "Duitland" and Scandinavian "Tyskland" are more of local adaptions) Etc. So there is a clear linguistic purpose and objective included (which will increase if it is expanded), in my opinion. Boeing720 ( talk) 20:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
But the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and not an experiment on similarities within language groups. GMG talk 20:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To GreenMeansGo. As I explained , it began as an experiment in my Sandbox. To explain the way I can see the table or list as useful to our readers, isn't an experiment. It would be more helpful if you could express what's unencyclopedic. Boeing720 ( talk) 00:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
When nominating for deletion I had in mind the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy (as in WP:NOT#DICTIONARY), as the article currently resembled the back page of an inter-railer's phrasebook. The policy is expanded in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly section WP:NOTDIC#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary which explains that Wikipedia articles are about people, places, concepts etc, not just the words and etymologies which (though interesting enough) is food for Wiktionary instead. Perhaps much more focus on the history of the relationships between the names might turn into something encyclopedic, see for example (noting that "other stuff exists" is not a defence), Names of Germany. However, taking that approach for all European countries together will run into scoping trouble. You are welcome to try, and I wish you success. But that is sandbox work, imho. Batternut ( talk) 01:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I thank you for this information. This isn't a dictionary. OK. Do you know what John meant by "Userfy" ? Boeing720 ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
A wikibook explains userfy - to move the article into the User namespace (~= sandbox). Batternut ( talk) 09:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Not a dictionary? I can imagine finding this list in for example the Yachtsmans Ten Language Dictionary. Batternut ( talk) 10:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I meant I agree, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary. A valid criticism. Could Userfy be accepted ? Boeing720 ( talk) 15:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Userfy seems entirely reasonable to me; I don't think it's listed as a typical AfD result, but this article is all your work so putting into your userspace must be OK. Then if you manage to rework it appropriately I'd suggest putting it through WP:AFC. Batternut ( talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment per Batternut's suggestion, I'm willing to strike out my "delete" vote and replace it with "userfy" if others are in agreement ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 21:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • My vote: Userfy. I no longer wish to defend it (including the horrific name I gave it). A reasonable and valid criticism is accepted for my part, such as what Wikipedia isn't supposed to be. The minor adjustments I've done today, was only done in order to try to illustrate, there were no OR or any random selection, in my intentions. But as other, and valid arguments has been presented, I now hope for Userfy. And I won't object to a deletion if the outcome will be that instead. Sorry for this and thanks! Boeing720 ( talk) 00:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Gujranwala Times

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

Sorry to say but this is one of many dummy publications in Pakistan. Fails WP:GNG. @ Saqib: If he knows anything about this newspaper? Störm (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Saqib Thanks for your cooperation. Störm (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352) (  | 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:ANYBIO. Nominated for deletion following unexplained deprodding. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE and the only source is a family history written by a member of the family so not independent. Domdeparis ( talk) 10:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - it looks to me like there is a a whole series of these going back the pedigree that lack any notability. With the exception of Andrew I, whose signing of the treaty of Arbroath makes him more notable than the rest, the others just receive passing reference, beyond the 1869 family history and online genealogy websites, none of which represent WP:RSs. I think a NOTGENEALOGY argument could be made for the majority of them: Norman de Leslie, Norino Leslie, Norman Leslie (died 1248), Malcolm Leslie. Agricolae ( talk) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I would tend to agree with you the only really notable one is Andrew d. 1324. I'll see how this one goes and then bundle the others together as it is probably too late to bundle them now. Domdeparis ( talk) 08:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
"Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)" does not seem like a natural search term that is likely to be used (and hence need a redirect). There will be some necessary cleanup - if the son's page is deleted, there will only be one page for someone named Andrew de Leslie, thus the Andrew de Leslie disambiguation page would become superfluous and the namespace can instead be used for the father's page: Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1324) should be renamed to the simple " Andrew de Leslie", which is the most likely search term someone uses when looking for the son anyhow. Agricolae ( talk) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Richard Padovan

Richard Padovan (  | 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 satisfy the notability criteria of WP:BIO. Weakly sourced. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. "Increasing differences between castes" is not a valid nomination reason. WP:NOTCENSORED. utcursch | talk 19:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Maldhari

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

Increasing differences between castes,society,tribe, and/or religion/religions Yash Ahir ( talk) 07:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Maldhari Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maldhari reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 07:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 07:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The tribe has plenty of mentions in sources such as the Times of India and other publications. @ Yash Ahir: I'm not actually sure what your rationale is for nominating the page: could you clarify which of the criteria you believe it meets, from the list here? ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 11:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - No shortage of sources available. Only thing approaching a deletion rationale seems to be something to the effect that we shouldn't be covering ethnic groups because it increases ethnic tensions. Unfortunately, that's not a valid reason for deletion. GMG talk 14:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Albi Albertsson

Albi Albertsson (  | 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:NM. Two references are primary interviews, with one being from otakudx.com (a blog with no indication of reliability). The Awards section is incredibly misleading: three of the awards were for albums awarded to music groups where the subject contributed two songs, one award was for a music video by another group, and the final one is based on downloads. None of them were awarded directly to Albertsson as a songwriter. The subject is mentioned in passing in Korean and Japanese sources in passing that say not much else besides "Albi Albertsson wrote the track", lacking significant coverage to establish notability. In the end, there isn't much information about Albertsson and we're left with nothing else than a resume-esque article. ℯ xplicit 05:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Controversial Reddit communities. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

/r/incels

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

Classic ONEEVENT - and a FORK of material that is already at the controversies of reddit page. Since this is dead there is absolutely no prospect of this being discussed or documented further EXCEPT in the context of discussing Reddit controversy. The correct location for this is therefore that page and I propose we delete this and redirect to Controversial Reddit communities Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
GNG clearly applies since the coverage in the articles used as sources are in-depth (e.g. thsy discuss the subreddit's ideology). The sources are all secondary sources in the form of major publications, and are generally considered reliable; they meet WP:NEWSORG easily, and aren't connected to r/incels. Some of my arguments against WP:NOPAGE status are present in my rational for keeping it. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You can't arbitrarily rescind notability because you think that sources that prove notability (via coverage) shouldn't have covered it. This stinks of WP:JNN, as there is no coherent argument you are making for a lack of notability. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Ok, so I'll specify that I don't think the sources provided pass GNG. This certainly falls in ONEEVENT territory. Chris Troutman ( talk) 07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG is a seperate thing from WP:ONEVENT; you aren't really making it clear which of the two you're talking about. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I assert the subject fails both WP:EVENTCRIT and GNG. I don't have to choose one reason over the other. I thought it was enough to say that the subject isn't notable. I don't see a claim of notability. You've yet to explain what criteria you think this passes. Chris Troutman ( talk) 07:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I explained why I think this passes WP:GNG in a reply to User:Rhododendrites. If you have an issue with that explanation, then please tell me about it. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 08:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the creator of the article, I will go into my reasoning for keeping it later or elsewhere (e.g. in replying to other users' views), but I feel the need to address the argument that Spartaz has made for its deletion. Firstly, as a response to the claims about WP:ONEVENT, two of the article's sources are from before r/incels was banned. Secondly, Spartaz claims that the article is "a FORK of material that is already at the controversies of reddit page". The article contains significant new content about the community; the text is probably more than twice the length of the section of that page. Thirdly, Spartaz has claimed that "Since this is dead there is absolutely no prospect of this being discussed or documented further EXCEPT in the context of discussing Reddit controversy". This is a classic WP:DEFUNCTS argument, and also qualifies as WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. It is certainly possible that there may be more coverage of it, especially if one of the forums that served as its successor becomes prominent. "The correct location for this is therefore that page"; no it is not; I feel the level of importance of the event clearly merits a seperate page. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Controversial Reddit communities § Incels - There's no real reson for it to have its own article per nom; yes, there are some sources not about its banning, but the article is only really about its banning. However, the current section on Controversial Reddit communities could do with some of the extra info and sources, as it is kind of weak outside the banning bit, and the community was already controversial before being banned. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
In response to your assertion that the "the article is only really about its banning", and that the article is weak outside the section about the banning, I would say that maybe ~40-50% of the article is about the banning, and much of the detail in the article is outside of the banning. When writing it, I thought that the section about the banning was weak, and I still believe it lacks a certain level of depth. Additionally, if you assert that the article is only really about the banning, then that can be solved by editing it to incorporate additional content and sources, not deleting it. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I suppose I should have explained this better. There are no events of note or indications of relevance in the article outside its banning; the extra detail just gives some (IMO important) background info. If the community was not banned, then there would not be enough content (in both current text and sources) to make an article. In fact, you could justify a similar article from any other Reddit community, and probably find two sources on a lot of them as well. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Not all articles are about discrete "events"; many just describe the properties of a group, object, item, person, etc. This isn't relevant to the article's notability. -- Hazarasp ( talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lutheran Health Network. The town page does not mention the hospital so the default choice is to the health network. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Kosciusko Community Hospital

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

Delete: blatant commercial promotion of non-notable community hospital. Quis separabit? 02:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An anonymous user attempted to nominate this page for deletion, but this AfD nomination page was created by User:DVdm, who does not support deletion. Anonymous users are not allowed to nominate pages for deletion, and no registered user has endorsed deletion of this page. I cleaned up the nomination formatting in order to put this procedural close into effect. Any registered editor can feel free to re-nominate the page for deletion at any time if they want to. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Lichess

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

See closing statement. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. wp:Primary sources can be used: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." And the article does have wp:secondary sources. There is nothing commercial about Lichess, so I don't see any reason to delete the article, or even to remove neutral verifiable content from it. - DVdm ( talk) 21:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Almost no notable, reliable sources that mention Lichess in complete significance, only as far as trivial novelties that could be covered as sections in CAPTCHA and Blind chess. There are no independent sources here that demand this subject its own article. Section the little that is here elsewhere, dump the rest.-- 76.210.190.130 ( talk) 02:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present)

List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present) (  | 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 backed by one possibly unreliable source; the information displayed in the table can easily be found in the other Lok Sabha articles, plus there's possibly no evidence to back the 1st through 12th Lok Sabha members. I've attempted a split request, but no success. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Jalen. http://www.parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/comb/combexpr.htm seems a reliable source I've found to back the 1st through 13th Lok Sabha member names. Also, this list seems to have unique characteristics. There's no other list of Lok Sabha members on Wikipedia that goes before the 13th Lok Sabha assembly. While I am in agreement with the split suggestion you have proposed on the talk page, how would you propose to split this list? Why I mention this is because there's no other list of Lok Sabha members that consolidates each member as per his/her number of nominations. If I may suggest, let's for now Keep this article, while we retreat to the talk page of the article, discuss methods to split the article and save the enormous content within the article that does not find replication in any other article. What do you think? Thanks, Lourdes 13:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as the creator of the article, I created it precisely because I couldn't find a summary that showed the overview of the evolution of the Lok Sabha. I think sourcing is not a problem. -- Soman ( talk) 18:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If I'm understanding Lok Sabha, these are all members of the Indian parliament, which makes this nomination confused and erroneous. There is no way that this information is not verifiable regardless of what the current state of sourcing is, and the nom appears to contradict themselves on this as well. This forum is for deletion, not "splitting" or other cleanup. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. If the issue is this list is redundant to other lists or otherwise not a reasonable grouping of them, let's focus on that because the nom's other claims are entirely without merit. postdlf ( talk) 19:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 16:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If all of the Lok Sabha terms already had their own lists of members in place, then this list would be deletable as simply redundant to the existing lists. But per Category:Lists of members of the Lok Sabha by term, we only have lists of the four most recent sessions — so for anybody who served prior to 1999, this is the only list we have right now. I agree that the list should be split into separate lists to complete the terms category, and this can be relisted for consideration if and when the lists for #1 through #12 are actually in place, but deleting it instead of splitting it isn't the appropriate answer yet. I strongly doubt that a national parliament's membership is somehow unverifiable. Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think a strong case could be made for splitting the article by parliament or group of years, but the content is verifiable. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 08:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per above Sourcing is not an issue and the content is verifiable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lists of members of national Legislative Branches are easily verified and notable. That being said, this list is so utterly massive that its hard to navigate and edit. I would prefer that this list be broken down into several sub-lists so that it will be easier to navigate and work with. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 23:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mary Van Stevens

Mary Van Stevens (  | 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 unsourced article about a former mayor of a small town with a population of just over one thousand people, which is nowhere near large enough to hand a mayor an automatic presumption of notability just because she existed. The key to getting a mayor past WP:NPOL is to show that she's been the subject of significant reliable source coverage, not just to state that she existed. Bearcat ( talk) 22:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Bearcat, I added all the sources. As I mentioned on your talk page I was in the process of getting all my sources lined up before it was proposed. If you take a look at the page, you'll see I have more than enough all with the proper citations. Please don't delete this page. Although a small town, it's notable that she was the first woman mayor. I propose closing this debate. Herr.geschichte ( talk) 03:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

We don't automatically accept the first woman mayor (or first LGBT mayor, or first mayor of colour) of every place that ever had mayors at all as an automatic notability freebie — since every town will always eventually have had at least one mayor who could make such a claim (and maybe even reach three mayors who could each make one of them), that would result in thousands upon millions of mostly unmaintainable articles about people of little to no broader interest. If she'd been the first woman mayor anywhere in the entire United States, then there'd certainly be notability in that — but if a town isn't large enough to presume its mayors notable because mayor, then its own first woman mayor isn't automatically more notable than the others unless sources expanding significantly beyond just the local newspaper, such as The New York Times and the Washington Post, consider her notable enough to pay attention to. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
None of the followup editing has adequately addressed the reasons given in the deletion nomination. Bearcat ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Who shifted any goalposts? Bearcat ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Nyttend: Had you read my !vote, there was already evidence in this AfD that the author of the article had not provided all possible sources available through WP:BEFORE D1.  Are you aware that this article was nominated for deletion 34 minutes after creation?  Had the nominator of the article reported the WP:BEFORE D1 results, you wouldn't have had to wait for my !vote to get some feedback about those results.  Had you done WP:BEFORE D1 yourself, you would have known based on your own research that the author was not providing a WP:BEFORE D1 report. 
    As for the ambiguity you reference in the word "all", I found that the author posted on the nominator's talk page, stating, "Hello! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so the article was nominated before I could complete all my sources. I've added them. How do we go about getting the proposal to delete removed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herr.geschichte (talk • contribs) 02:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC).  Since the objection of the nomination was that the article was unreferenced, the author had reason to believe that after adding 21 references, the article would not be unreferenced, and that there would be no further purpose to the AfD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • In most cases, but not all. News reports are primary sources, but retrospective articles are secondary for the past events. It's a basic matter of historiography. "Mayor does X" is a primary source on the mayor, since it's not looking back at the mayor's action from the future: it's part of the event, rather than being a later evaluation of sources from the time of the event. Your typical "Past mayor did X" is based on the primary sources rather than being a part of the event, so it's a secondary source, but occasional exceptions exist, so you have to evaluate the article, lest you assume that a personal retrospective is actually a secondary source. Nyttend ( talk) 23:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  Good article, developing notability to full potential.  Sources in the article demonstrate GNG, except that WP:BEFORE has some hits needed to avoid the argument that those in the article are or might be only one source.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The sources in the article are entirely to her own small town's own local newspaper, a type and volume of sourcing which is simply expected to exist for any mayor of anywhere. To consider a mayor of a town this small notable, we require evidence of wider coverage beyond just her hometown pennysaver alone. Bearcat ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
User:Bearcat Do you have an essay to back your claims, or are "our" requirements really only your proofs by assertion?  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Have you ever paid attention to the actual outcomes of actual AFD discussions on similar topics? Have you ever read WP:POLOUTCOMES? Everybody who'd ever been mayor of anywhere always gets local press coverage, because that's what local media are for, but Wikipedia does not accept that everybody who's ever been mayor of anywhere is always notable enough for an article — for small towns, a mayor's notability is dependent on being able to show more sourcing than most other mayors could also show, such as nationalized coverage or entire biographical books being written about them, and not on simply being able to show just what any mayor could always show. Bearcat ( talk) 14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She served as mayor of a tiny town for a little over two years and all of the references are to the routine small town coverage of her was published in that tiny town's newspaper. All local papers write about their current mayors, and such a coverage is run of the mill. When she resigned, she disappeared from the historical record. There is no known coverage in regional newspapers, in magazines or in history books. If she is notable, then every mayor ever elected is notable and there is no consensus for that in WP:POLITICIAN or in the outcomes of deletion debates. This is taking inclusionism to an extreme that I cannot personally accept. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Cullen. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No significant coverage in RS. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete sources are way, way below what we would expect for an article on a mayor. With perusal of archives and local library collections, we could create articles with at least this good sources on everyone who had ever been a mayor of any place in the US that was a city between 1900 and 1980. This is not a worthwhile goal. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually some would argue, especially in some areas, First African-American mayor, first Latino mayor, first mayor who is seen as a Latino in contemporary intepretation since even though the true first Latino mayor was part of Latino organizations, as a Sephardic Jew he is not recognized as Latino by many current Latinos (sort of like what we had on the supreme court). For that matter, there are standing debates on whether all Jews are "people of color", so we might have to have an article on the first Jewish mayor, first "person of color" mayor who was not Jewish. There is no resonable end to this. I don't think we even have an article on the first mayor in the entire state of Utah who was African-American (I have forgotten his name), we do on the first female African-American mayor in the state of Utah, but she is a current member of congress so notable on other grounds (true, I created the article before Mia Love announced her first run for congress, but I have come over the years to realize that my previous inclusionist streak would create an unsustainable system in Wikipedia. I have even nominated for deletion several articles that I created, some of them despite wanting in my heart to keep them, such as the one on Angela Trusty, but knowing that a one-newspaper advice columnist would need much better sourcing to justify keeping the aritcle.) I have come to the view unless there is indepth, widespread coverage of a person for making a first, then we should not create an article on it. Then there are some firsts which are just silly. I once saw Ella Fitzgerald listed as the first African-American to win a Grammy award. She was actually one of two African-Americans to win grammies in the first Grammy Award Ceremony ever, so not entirely clear (she may have been the first of the two to get the award at the ceremony), but not really all that interesting at all. Fitzgwerald is clearly notable, but listing her as a first in this way tells us nothing about her stature. There may well be other African-Americans who would have won a grammy earlier if they had existed earlier. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Take Up Thy Stethoscope and Walk

Take Up Thy Stethoscope and Walk (  | 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:NSONG. The cited sources discussing the Pink Floyd song describe it in the context of the album The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. The song was not released as a single and it did not receive much coverage in the media. The Mabbett book writes briefly that it was a dead end, that it did not showcase any future trend in songwriting by the group. Other groups have covered the song but without chart success or media attention. Binksternet ( talk) 00:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by RHaworth. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Münire Sultan (daughter of Şehzade Ahmed Kemaleddin)

Münire Sultan (daughter of Şehzade Ahmed Kemaleddin) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural. This was tagged for A7 speedy deletion, but I declined it with a reason of "Daughter of Şehzade Ahmed Kemaleddin, and granddaughter of the Ottoman sultan, is important; please don't delete without an opportunity for discussion". Imperial princesses in the modern era, even in the Sick Man of Europe, tend to get lots of coverage, so it's likely that this woman is notable. Someone more familiar than I with Turkish royalty ought to offer an opinion. Nyttend ( talk) 00:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD G4. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Duber Uribe Castro

AfDs for this article:
Duber Uribe Castro (  | 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 a previously deleted page about a non-notable subject with virtually identical poor references (not sure if this qualifies for speedy deletion under G4, as the previous article didn't contain the discography, and had some different references). No references whatsoever to back up the biography about his personal life, education, or work experience. References 1 and 5 are simply photos submitted by Mr Uribe to someone else's football report, so not really examples of his journalistic excellence. The article from ABC in Paraguay only talks about the band he manages and makes no mention of Mr Uribe at all. The rest of the references are either primary sources or unreliable sources. The discography is that of the groups he manages, not of anything Mr Uribe has recorded himself. The creator of this article, and a major contributor to the previously deleted version, is Viviancarrero – I'm sure it's just coincidence that Vivian Carrero just happens to be the name of the Director General of the football fan website that Mr Uribe founded [28]. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

MRU window-switching order

MRU window-switching order (  | 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 sources, and seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. Even if that is not the case, there does not seem to be enough in the article once WP:NOTHOWTO and unencyclopedic 'advantages/disadvantages' content is removed to justify an article separate from Window (computing) User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Atwater, California)

AfDs for this article:
Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Atwater, California) (  | 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 on a small local church that fails WP:GNG. TM 00:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; ten years ago, it should have been A7 speedy deleted instead of being brought here. Ordinary churches are never notable; everything presented in the article makes this church look ordinary, and what appears in the first AFD reinforces this impression. Nyttend ( talk) 00:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Nikki Laoye

Nikki Laoye (  | 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 of article does not have significant coverage in reliable press. She does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE shows she has only one reliable source that mentions her in passing. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
As per WP:NOREASON/ WP:JUSTAVOTE the !vote above makes no sense whatsoever and i believe it should not be considered
Hello editor Darreg, an article, as per WP:GOLDEN RULE, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO is main space worthy when it has significant coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject. The subject of our discussion does not satisfy the aforementioned.
Furthermore when you !vote a delete or keep you are to provide a rationale, mere commenting 'keep' or 'delete' may not count as this is not a !voting section/process, but a section where polices are debated on. Please do present your rationale as this enables a productive discussion amongst editors, feel free to find and provide us with reliable sources ( WP:RS) that discuss our subject of discussion with WP:INDEPTH. The keyword here is relaible. Cheers. Celestina007( talk) 18:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Because that is what such a dishonest and erroneous AFD nomination deserves. An empty string, I can't waste alphabets for such. And its reliable, not relaible. The "i" comes before the "a". Darreg ( talk) 18:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It should be noted that; both urls provided by above editor Mahveotm are dead links that redirects to a Not Found page. Further more i urge and beseech admin closing this page to do a google search on subject of discussion, he/she would dicover this articles subject does not qualify any guideline provided in WP:MUSICBIO. Also, @ Mahveotm how does winning one non-notable award make her qualify WP:MUSICBIO, please can you tell us which guideline in WP:MUSICBIO suggests that to us? A Delete is most plausible as this may be a case of WP:NotJustYet. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I took the links directly from the references and had no idea the were dead links. Celestina007, you call The Headies non-notable? ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 12:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hey Mahveotm come on, juxtaposed with the yard-sticks used in the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines such as the Grammys, it is very very non-notable. We both know the headies isnt the equivalent of the Grammys in Nigeria.
You arent in the wrong for lifting the sources from the article but thats my point virtually all sources given in the article by editor who created the page are dead links, how are we then to establish notability? for all we know they could be made-up, its not a hard thing to do. I suspect the article's creator is involved in heavy undisclosed paid editing, thats why he keeps creating pages for non-notable persons and companies. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Nikki Laoye is a renowned Nigerian singer, she has not only won the Headies The Headies 2013, she also won the African Union organized All Africa Music Awards, which was reported here [29] and here [30] The singer has also won the African Gospel Music Awards [31], which is another notable African Award. Her humanitarian works have been reported severally on notable publications like here [32], here [33] and here [34]. Her notability, really should not be in doubt here at all. She qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO. Furthermore there are several notable sources that mention the subject. It is wrong to state that only one notable source mentions Nikki Laoye in passing. It is almost laughable, especially if you are a Nigerian or knowledgeable about Nigerian musicians. Here are some other notable sources that indicate the notability of the subject: National Encomium [35], The Nation Newspapers [36], Vanguard Newspaper [37], Daily Independent [38], The Nation Newspaper [39] and several others. It is possible, that the dead links observed are expired pages from Nigerian newspapers who may have run out of bandwidth on their sites. Onyeuwaoma2000 ( talk) 12:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Celestina007 you are giving me too much credit, to insinuate that I created dead links or that I am heavily involved in paid activity. The references used were there as at the time the article was created in 2014, and the article has been reviewed severally. I don't make it a habit of crosschecking references monthly to know if the links have become dead or not. In any case to the subject at hand, the artiste meets WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria, because she has won several notable Nigerian and African awards, including the Headies, Afrima, NMVA, AGMA and has nominations at the AFRIMMA and NEA, her songs have charted in notable Nigerian charts and she has been reported about in numerous notable, reliable Nigerian media outlets, and not just trivial mentions. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. If there is any concern, it should be to find updated references to authenticate the article, or to remove unverifiable claims, not brandish it as paid or the subject as lacking in notability. Pastorflex ( talk) 13:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep - This is such a substantial article, with such a large number of apparently perfectly acceptable sources (without even conducting searches) that this nomination on it's face is at best a gross misunderstanding of policy. If links are dead, then repair them. If sources need updated, WP:FIXIT. GMG talk 15:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: Bbb23 has not been active in nearly two months. GMG talk 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Could you be so kind as to suggest to us one for the sake of this AFD, i cant have sock puppets distrupting this process. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Probably not no, because I don't see any compelling reason to believe that they are sock puppets, and no reason to bother anyone individually. GMG talk 20:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It seems as though you are hell bent on giving me more credit than I deserve Celestina007, I have been an editor on wikipedia for over 10 years, and I have made several credible and useful contributions to articles and even created a few myself, which I am proud of, have they all been perfect? No, but I have welcomed contributions and criticisms where necessary, and had to improve articles and resubmit in order to meet the guidelines, in these 10 years I have done this, I have never been accused of sockpuppeting or any of the other sly accusations you have made, instead of sticking to the notability of the subject or trying to ensure that the article is written in an encyclopedic manner. You are welcome to investigate, as I am rest assured that I have done nothing wrong or violated any policies. Pastorflex ( talk) 18:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hello Berean Hunter i suspect the editor Onyeuwaoma2000 to be a sock of Pastorflex, they both have !voted a keep on this AFD, the former hardly ever edits and when he/she does they work primarily on articles already created by Pastorflex. I was wondering if you could be so kind as to weigh in on this for us in order to ensure a clean AFD free of sockpuppetry. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The fact that this sort of Afd nomination is even taken seriously is enough to lose faith in this entire Wikipedia project. An article with huge amounts of sources is nominated and presumably could be deleted depending on whether or not certain people show up to the process. I want to ask the nominator: Did you bring up the issues you had with the article on the talk page? Did you attempt to resolve these problems yourself? Did you do ANYTHING other than rush this article to AFD? Egaoblai ( talk) 03:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I can't fault your reasoning sir. I have been in that shoes, and I completely lost faith in the project then. Just a few days ago, this same Celestina initiated several several oblivious AFDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tobechi_Nneji, there are still many others. This is besides the many lame maintenance templates/tags from her since she joined Wikipedia. The last time I went real hard on her, she reported me to one experienced editor who said it was justifiable for her to take me to ANI, so that I will get blocked again. The regrettable thing was that she didn't mention anything wrong in all that Celestina did during the buildup to that event. It is very painful when dedicated editors are punished for reacting to situations that was originally for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I am the type of editor that will never take my issues to another editors talkpage. I resolve everything myself, and in the open. And editors like Celestina take advantage of this, by always seeking to help of people against me. Everything about me here is open, never sent a private message to anyone regarding any issue here. The only thing still keeping me here is that Wikipedia provides a relevant platform for keeping accurate records. Which is a problem for Africans. Also, there are some very nice editors here, who provide an holistic view of things before taking decisions. If she had gone to ANI, I wouldn't be surprised if they blocked me, and saw nothing wrong in all she was doing, because she was NICELY persistently ignorant. And this will encourage her never to show any sign of remorse. My experience here have deeply changed the way I interact with editors.
The above was the main reason why I didn't give a rationale for my keep vote, if I had done that, she would have disagreed with a reply filled with so much naivety and bad faith. And I would have given it back to her very hard, irrespective of the repercussions. I actually avoided a retrogressive state with no rationale. Darreg ( talk) 20:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment let's be clear on the issue here, the subject of the matter is to determine if the subject of the article is notable enough and meets both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, there are numerous sources that indicate that the subject does meet these criteria. You should not nominate an article for deletion when you have not attempted to resolve them, simply because you have found some dead links? I am trying to ignore the claims that I am a sock puppet, but it is very hard to ignore. I joined Wikipedia 3 months ago, and I have a life outside Wikipedia, so I am sorry if I do not edit enough for someone's liking. The nominator should be trying to negate the issues raised and stop casting aspersions on people. the subject has numerous verifiable sources, dead links are not a reason for deletion. Onyeuwaoma2000 ( talk) 09:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 18:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Rotimikeys

Rotimikeys (  | 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 of article falls short of primary recquirements of establishing notability, such as WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. The subject of article does not have any WP:SIGCOV and the only reliable source identified describes him as "up coming". References provided in article merely mention him in passing, alongside other individuals. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 ( talk) 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 00:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_20&oldid=1142223982"