From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 October 29 October >
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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Deadpool in film

Deadpool in 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)

This is a fork article created by a banned user. All this content could easily be included in the X-Men (film series) article. Similar articles exist for Spider-Man, Batman and Superman but those characters have multiple film series with several decades of history. This articles existsence is not justified. Before anyone brings up continuity I will point out that continuity in the X-Men film series is confused and inconsitent for other characters as well. ★Trekker ( talk) 23:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 15:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Manny Lehman (disc jockey)

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

Once I trimmed all the uncited content (much of which was dubious hyberbole), there is no demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx ( talk) 23:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..."..."Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.": Lehman's life, career and work biography covered by Billboard (divided into two pages 26-27), [1], album review by Billboard, [2] [3], full life biography covered by Noize Magazine, [4] biography covered by QV Magazine, [5], career biography featured by Metro News, [6], work biography covered by Chicago Pride news article, [7], Ambush magazine, [8], Original Express Gay News, [9] and of course, he's been a Billboard chart topper. [10] (for the interested ones, I loved this tete-a-tete between Lehman and other mix legends in the Red Bull Music Academy Daily: [11] Lourdes 00:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources identified above demonstrate notability. -- Michig ( talk) 08:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At first I thought this was going to fail but then I scanned through Lourdes' sources and agree with her. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lourdes' findings; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.  gongshow   talk  07:14, 2 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. Closing this early, as passing of WP:NFOOTY through participation in a fully professional league match has been established and thus WP:SNOW applies. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

James Demetriou

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 22:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 23:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack ( talk) 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Murphy (academic)

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

BLP with no working references that relate to the subject Rathfelder ( talk) 22:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: I could argue that working references aren't a requirement but I won't. I have expanded the article and added a number of additional (working) references. Hopefully this is satisfactory and the proposed deletion can be closed. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. [12]. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable. Nomination deals only with article quality. -- Michig ( talk) 08:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Very happy to withdraw. He clearly is notable. But I think its important to defend the BLP principles. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criterion G4, and per WP:SNOW. This page was a near-duplicate of the previously deleted article. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 17:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Corey Mills

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

Created by the subject. No claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Procedural basis; this subject was run through AfD last April and the result was Delete. There has been no significant change in the notability situation since then, so far as I am aware. Carrite ( talk) 06:22, 3 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 Bushranger One ping only 03:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Safaa Hadi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator at WP:REFUND without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Question Does he not qualify on WP:NFOOTY as he has played Olympic football? Govvy ( talk) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Did he though? According to this he wasn't part of the Iraqi squad in Rio. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Nm, when I saw u23 I thought it was the summer Olympics, but it seems he played in 2018 AFC U-23 Championship qualification instead. Govvy ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 EMD SD40-2. North America 1000 07:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply

EMD BB40-2

EMD BB40-2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plenty of photos and Youtubes about the EMD BB40-2, but no reliable secondary sources I could find. Fails WP:V. Since 2007. Rhadow ( talk) 20:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to EMD SD40-2. As a rebuild it should be covered there. Has the nominator tried to find Portuguese-language (i.e. Brazilian) sources? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect is fine with me. I am happy to accept evidence in languages other than English. I reject the notion that an English language editor should have to do WP:BEFORE in random languages. Not in this case, but in another, I am told that it is obvious that references will be found in Sinhalese for articles unsupported for nine years. That's why I am sensitive. Rhadow ( talk) 01:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • That's understandable, but the fact remains that if something is notable it's notable, regardless of the language that sources are in. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect - I can't find any significant sources either - but in this case we only need one. It apparently does exist, based on these photos.[ [13]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect best outcome. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:37, 5 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

2011 Gansu school bus crash

2011 Gansu school bus crash (  | 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 school bus crash in which children died. Tragic but no sign of notability. The articles fails WP:NOTNEWS as there is no evidence presented in the article that this is more than a WP:ROUTINE traffic accident as the only sources on the page are three routine news reports. The coverage related to this accident appears to end after the initial November 2011 reporting failing WP:NTEMP and showing no sign of a WP:LASTING impact. It also fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it is only of interest to a particular province in China. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 18:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is some secondary coverage in English of this crash here and here, and this book says that it was the eighth most popular topic of online discussion in China in 2011, all of those sources being from academic publishers. It beggars belief that there would not be many more reliable secondary sources in Chinese. Would anyone doubt that a bus crash that killed 19 children and 2 adults in the UK or the US was notable? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The first source only devotes one sentence to the bus crash in question when talking about the closure of Chinese rural schools. The second source only mentions the accident in one footnote that talks about the controversy regarding the sale of buses to Macedonia. The third source only mention the accident on a table listing the ten most popular topics on social media in China in 2011. None of these sources show any sign of meeting WP:INDEPTH. Also, regarding it being the eighth most popular topic of online discussion in China in 2011, sorry but that is very similar to the fallacious WP:GHITS argument; a large presence on social media does not automatically mean that the crash is inherently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also something that is very popular in one part of the world, in this case China, but unknown elsewhere still fails WP:GEOSCOPE. It frankly just doesn't matter if there were to be many more reliable secondary sources in Chinese because if the vast majority of sources are Chinese then the article fails WP:DIVERSE. Very little has been written about the accident since 2011 (and everything written in that year was WP:ROUTINE primary news reports) and there has been no in depth sources written about the event thus suggesting that it fails WP:PERSISTENCE. You have also failed to state how this event has had any sort impact enduring enough to meet WP:LASTING. This event fails virtually every part of WP:EVENTCRIT. Would anyone doubt that a bus crash that killed 19 children and 2 adults in the UK or the US was notable? Yes, I would doubt that such an event is notable and have argued so in the past; please remember to WP:AGF. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 21:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
" It frankly just doesn't matter if there were to be many more reliable secondary sources in Chinese because if the vast majority of sources are Chinese then the article fails WP:DIVERSE." So, what you're saying is that if an event in the United States is only covered in American sources then it's not notable? Better open the floodgates for mass deletions then! How many American towns, for instance, have any coverage whatsoever outside the USA? Er, no, that's not what WP:DIVERSE says at all. And you will note that whether you argued the Sherman bus crash was non-notable or not, the article was still kept! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for that, Necrothesp, I was looking for a civil way to express my thoughts about what Millionsandbillions wrote but you did it better than I could have done. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Better open the floodgates for mass deletions then! WP:OTHERSTUFF. Other non-notable articles existing is irrelevant to whether this page should exist. A town is very different from an event and comparing the two is an apples and oranges comparison. If most of the sources are just primary news reports that regurgitate the same basic facts the article fails WP:DIVERSE. If most of the (so far nonexistent) secondary sources are Chinese this also fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it suggests that this event is mostly a regional concern. Once again this article does not meet WP:LASTING. This article was a result of WP:RECENTISM that has not been shown to provide "a long-term, historical view" -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Please don't follow your thinking to its logical conclusion by nominating for deletion all articles about historical events whose only sources are in English, which has fewer native speakers than Chinese. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree that a large presence on social media doesn't in itself contribute to notability, but a book from an academic publisher reporting such a large presence does. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Not if they feature only passing mentions of the subject that fail WP:INDEPTH. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
It would help people to understand your thinking if you could point to an article about such an accident in the West that should be deleted and where the victims were not all of Asian background. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Whether other articles do or do not exist is immaterial as to whether this article should or should not exist. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
You are the one who brought up that other article. As I said, it would help people to understand your thinking if you could answer the question. As it stands it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you treat deaths of people of Asian descent to be of less importance than deaths of those of European descent. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:ATTP -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources mentioned. Don't know if there's anything available in Chinese, as I don't speak the language. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A school bus crash (or any other crash, for that matter) in which 21 people died would clearly be notable if it happened in the UK or US (I can't conceive of an instance in which such an article would be deleted). It's also notable if it happens in China. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
A school bus crash (or any other crash, for that matter) in which 21 people died would clearly be notable if it happened in the UK or US. Sorry, but such an assertion is not based on policy. That is in fact a form of WP:ASSERTN. Where in the WP:EVENTCRIT policy does it state that an accident that results in a high number of casualties is automatically notable? -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERLANGS. Interwikis are not an indication of notability. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 17:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
But the sources found in the linked article help substantiate notability, if we are not to follow your absurd logic in discounting sources in the language used in the place where a historical event happened, which would mean that we should discount sources in English about anything that happened in an Anglophone country. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note that the source actually says the school bus safety bill has been drafted. A proposed bill or draft is far from actual enacted legislation; see WP:CRYSTAL. It is impossible to say that the accident had a WP:LASTING impact with the WP:PRIMARYNEWS report provided. Also that source is still a WP:ROUTINE primary news report from three weeks after the accident. It may have received coverage in WP:109PAPERS but where are the WP:INDEPTH (as in more than passing mentions) secondary sources? The article still fails WP:NOTNEWS. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 15:03, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Alani rock

Alani rock (  | 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 genre lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 17:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is only a brief article, and if it explained the decade when this genre of rock music emerged, I would suggest the best outcome would be to merge the article with that on rock music and put it in the appropriate section. However, this article does not explain when this genre music emerged, so I am not clear what to do here. Vorbee ( talk) 20:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have never heard of such genre/sub-genre of Greek rock music. Probably a hoax, or -at best- a term used privatly by some youth for the music they performed home; cannot find any Greek sources for it ([αλάνι ροκ] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup ( help)). —— Chalk19 ( talk) 20:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Albert Daniels

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the links on the article are dead. A search for reliable secondary sources to support notability brought back nothing (using both "Albert Daniels" and "ALBe"). Nothing in the article pushes this biography towards notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Poorly sourced. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 03:29, 2 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 Doe. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

D.O.E.

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a surprising lack of sources; given the claims in the article I would have expected more to turn out of a web search so it may well be that I'm searching for the wrong terms but for now, WP:NMUSIC not met and I can't find any substantial coverage, which as I said is a bit weird. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 18:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Doe, the DAB page, where there are several acronyms that could possibly be rendered as D.O.E. if using periods.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 22:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With salt. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Nicolas Alahverdian

Nicolas Alahverdian (  | 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 is a recreation under deliberately misspelled title of Nicholas Alahverdian which has been created and deleted on 18 August 2013 following deletion discussion, which was later re-created, G4’d and salted on 29 August 2013 with a reinforcement of the salting on 13 February 2015. Similarly, under Nicholas Edward Alahverdian, creation, deletion and salting in February 2015. Similar salting circumvention attempt with another misspelled article under Nicolas Alaverdian.
Authors repeatedly removed CSD tags under IP addresses which I assume linked to the main author, preventing admin review of the CSD. Sockpuppet investigations have not been opened at the time, however there is indication given the IP address originated from Providence, RI and it may be autobiographic. Only meaningful contributor appears to be a single purpose account
One of the key claims for notability for the subject is the case of Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families. This has also been subject of another AfD on 18 August 2013 with the result delete. Beyond this, notability is claimed to be established as member of the Rhode Island Future PAC, one of several thousand PACs in the US. Google searches here and here do not make this PAC notable, other than its existence in PAC registers. Besides, as per WP:INHERITED, notability of the PAC (which is not given), does not created notability of people connected with it.
Commentary on individual references in the article
1,2,10,11,13,16,21,24,25,26,34,36 – relate to original 2012 lawsuit, previously deemend insufficient for notability or WP:BLP1E
5 - self published
3,4 – PAC/Lobbyist registration related. Proving the fact, but not notability
6 – mention in passing as campaign manager for Brian Coogan (politician)
7 – IMDd not sufficient for notability
8,12,20,22,28,32,33 – dead/404/page time out
9,19,30 – login required for a database ( WP:PAYWALL)
14,37 – text of bill passed re. RI Department of CYF. No immediate evidence for individual notability
15,18 – mention in passing in relation to above bill and his court case
17,23,31 – unrelated/no mention at all
Therefore, the article likely falls under WP:BLP1E and lacks individual notability. Coverage is primarily in local media, therefore may fail depth of coverage and is (with few exceptions) not persistent. Google searches indicate significant tapering off in terms of coverage from 2015 onwards.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt- per the well reasoned and thoroughly researched nomination. Also, the fact that this has been re-created with an incorrect spelling just to get around previous delete consensus is reason enough to delet and salt this. Reyk YO! 17:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with salt. Nothing here passes any of Wikipedia's "must-include" SNGs, the referencing is split about 50-50 between press coverage that just makes him a WP:BLP1E and/or just namechecks his existence without being about him, and unreliable or primary sources that cannot support encyclopedic notability at all, and deliberately misspelling the page title to dodge prior WP:SALT is a stunt that a person can get blocked for if they don't smarten up pretty quickly. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a person is entitled to an article just because he exists — we make the rules for who gets an article and who doesn't, not the article subjects themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 20:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Adeel Suhrwardy

Adeel Suhrwardy (  | 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 much to his credit. Fails WP:NACTOR. Greenbörg (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep not enough sources and not enough work to his credit but pass basic WP:GNG. Have IMDb profile and some coverage in few RS. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Still not enough notable to be on Wikipedia. Hadn't done any significant roles in multiple films. No unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. No large fan base or a significant "cult" following. My review says it still fails WP:NACTOR. Greenbörg (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
For sure it fails WP:NACTOR, but meet basic GNG. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, IMDb is not WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I second that. -- Saqib ( talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet the specific criteria for actors and filmmakers. These are meant to weed out people who get low level coverage that is not actually substantial. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not convinced that he is notable enough from the sources. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 21:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether a redirect to Nepalese Army Air Service#Accidents and incidents should be created is a separate question.  Sandstein  09:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

2011 Nepal Army Britten-Norman Islander Crash

2011 Nepal Army Britten-Norman Islander Crash (  | 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:GNG - non-notable military aircraft crash - no notable effects - operational hazard Petebutt ( talk) 01:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:AIRCRASH (yes an essay) - doesn't seem to have lasting significant coverage. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Lua Player

Lua Player (  | 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, fails notability requirements, fails WP:V also seems to be WP:Promotion as well. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 17:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - unsourced (unless you count first party external links sprinkled throughout the article), written/formatted more like a retail listing or company's product page than an encyclopedia article. Fails the WP:GNG, and even if sources were found, its pretty much a WP:TNT situation. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Found nothing worth reliable from my search, except a few links from GitHub, which can't be used to prove the subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. However per Serge, the article is promotional in tone. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 15:40, 3 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) 05:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Mark DeVine

AfDs for this article:
    Mark DeVine (  | 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 author that fails WP:N. Page's promotional. CerealKillerYum ( talk) 15:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    AfDs for this article:

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

    • Note the corrected spelling in the above templates. 12:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep  I found several independent book reviews for Replant on Google web, and several short bios on Google books.  I didn't think the article was promotional, but I did some minor copy editing anyway.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't find anythign on JSTOR (although I was using the correct spelling) User:Unscintillating, I assume tthat we are talking reviews in non-scholarly periodicals, and WP:AUTHOR, not WP:PROFESSOR. Do you have time to add a couple of those reviews to the page. 'Note that the only 2 sources now on the page come lead to a hosting site churchcommunicationspro.com, and were perhaps part of a blog hosted there. We really do need some sources to keep this page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I added three citations to the article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks. Problem is, the "David S. Dockery; Ray Van Neste; Jerry Tidwell (2011)." ciation is to the list of authors in a book of essays. Yes, our man DeVine wrote one of the essays, but, no, author's mini bio in a published book is not a WP:RS. The "Smith, Samuel C.," source is a dead link. Ping me if you can fix the link. the link to " Gospel Coalition is also a dead link. Ping me if you can fix it. But, is any of them a book review? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I am removing the old pair of dead links to what appears to have been a blog post. I did source a similar statement to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ E.M.Gregory: I found and corrected errors in the two URLs.
      I'm not sure what your point is about the WP:RS.  How is this anything other than a reliable bio?
      I also don't understand the question asking if these are book reviews.  I cited one review for each of the two entries in the Bibliography.  One is a critique by someone from Liberty College, and one review is by a pastor of a church in New York City and both are in-depth.  I found the critique itself cited online.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • One of the reviews is published by The Gospel Coalition online, problem is, Devine is a regular author at The Gospel coalition [14]. Although it is a book review, it does not count towards notability because it is not an independent source. Book reviews are a simple way to establish notability for an AUTHOR. The Smith review in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society looks like it is a blue chip source. What I cannot find are enough book reviews (3 in independent sources is the minimum) in independent sources. Or sufficient SIGCOV of him and his work in secondary sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete TOOSOON. He has not done enough yet to make him notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Synthetic gene therapy

    Synthetic gene therapy (  | 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 product, based on a single research paper by the company mentioned in the article. Even if notable, it would belong in Gene therapy or Vectors in gene therapy. This would not be a novel type of gene therapy, just a new technique. Pontificalibus ( talk) 14:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete This looks a trojan horse to publicize the cited study, and thereby promote the company's scheme. As the nominator says, there is nothing novel or special about using synthetic genes for gene therapy, and likewise, the cited study did no therapy, just proof-of-concept studies in cell culture. This is (yet another) 'way to build a better mousetrap', which biotech firms are coming up with routinely and most of which never end up amounting to anything. There is no there there. Agricolae ( talk) 20:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Delete the second nom page, same reason. Agricolae ( talk) 23:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I am also nominating the following related page because it was created by the same person and is as non-notable and as much of an advertisement as the page originally nominated:

    C3P3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    so, delete both. -- Jytdog ( talk) 21:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iranian diaspora. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Iranians in Denmark

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

    Nothing in WP:RS. Article is per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Iranian diaspora. Störm (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Umar Sani Lawan

    Umar Sani Lawan (  | 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 BLP has uncountable problems. Fails WP:ENT, fails WP:FILMMAKER and fails WP:ANYBIO. Written in overt WP:PROMO language, lacks WP:RS with bulk of unsourced awards and unsourced promotional claims Ammarpad ( talk) 14:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad ( talk) 14:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad ( talk) 15:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Hashgraph

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

    Paucity of reliable sources indicating notability. News search finds reprinted press release announcements; if cut back to RSes, this would be about two lines. Functionally, this is difficult to distinguish from straight-up promotion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leemon Baird. David Gerard ( talk) 11:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 11:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- walled garden with Leemon Baird. Authorship by SPAs. No independent references (the only one is now dead). Rhadow ( talk) 13:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete - I was able to find a few sources [15] [16] [17] [18], but at least a couple of these seem to emanate from a press release. This may become a notable subject at some point, but I don't think it's quite there yet.- Mr X 13:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - unfortunately does not yet meet the Wikipedia threshold of notability.-- greenrd ( talk) 18:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. There are a few hits for this name on Google scholar but they appear to be unrelated, and Baird's work on this data structure is almost entirely uncited. Fails WP:GNG for lack of in-depth secondary sourcing. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Insufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Had considered a redirect to Blockchain, but sources clearly state it's not like Blockchain. Had wondered whether algorithm might be of use in WP:RFA discussions, but decided it probably wasn't powerful enough. Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody actually wants to keep, but restoration is possible if better sources are found.  Sandstein  09:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    DiskTune

    DiskTune (  | 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 and fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 09:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5, block evasion: sockpuppet of Sky Groove Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Miss Supranational India

    AfDs for this article:
    Miss Supranational India (  | 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 edition of the deleted Miss Supranational series and the author seems to have a close connection to the subject. The event fails to pass WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. WP:WHYN states article requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources (that provide critical analysis of the event). Routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." Please note that since 2013 the national pageant of Miss Supranational for India is conducted by The Times Group so we should consider any news published by The Times of India or it’s sister projects as primary source. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 09:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Potential merging can be discussed through the usual channels. The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    List of National Highways in India by old highway number

    List of National Highways in India by old highway number (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Irrelevant article naveenpf ( talk) 06:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep for now While the new numbers have been announced and the sign posts are being changed, there are still sign posts that have the old numbers. Further, most people still refer to the highways using the old numbers as they're more familiar with those. So, definitely keep it for now. For later, maybe there is value in keeping the article as a historic article. Natrajdr ( talk) 10:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep. National highways are often notable, including those which have been renumbered. More concerning is there seems to be a duplicate article, which is already up for Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Highways in India (Old numbering)
    • Keep. Wikipedia is not just a repository of current events, but also of history. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:23, 1 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. Potential merging can be discussed through the usual channels. The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    List of National Highways in India (Old numbering)

    List of National Highways in India (Old numbering) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Irrelevant article now. naveenpf ( talk) 06:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: Historical information is still useful and far from irrelevant; older highway numbers are needed for context when talking about anything published prior to the switchover. Nominator failed to specify any real reason to delete the article. Sounder Bruce 01:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep. National highways are often notable, including those which have been renumbered. More concerning is there seems to be a duplicate article, which is already up for Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Highways in India by old highway number
    • Keep. Wikipedia is not just a repository of current events, but also of history. Merging is a different issue. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:24, 1 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. I'm withdrawing this, and will instead propose a merge. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    To'ak Chocolate

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

    Advertising for a chocolate bar/ Unaccountably, a G11 speedy was removed. There's no point in even thinking about notability when the article violates WP BOTPRO<MOTIONAL DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUD as per sources in the article. The article does not use promotional language, peacock language, or extol the benefits of the company, and does not encourage readers to do business with it. In other words, this article is not providing any form of advertising. Rather, the article provides a neutral overview about this notable company, again, based only upon what reliable sources state. Furthermore, this company has received ongoing news coverage from 2014 through 2017. This article also documents matters regarding the very rare Nacional cocoa bean variety that was previously thought to be extinct. I was still working on the article while this nomination occurred, but now I will wait. See the article talk page regarding the WP:DYK nomination I created for the article too. North America 1000 04:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Northamerica1000 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
    the variety of bean is notable, and we have a separate article on it. We could redirect this, perhaps. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Mindy Carlin

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

    Non-notable individual involved in minor local political actions lacking independent, in-depth, non-trivial support. References lacking independence, are single line mentions, do not even mention article subject, or are unrelated to article subject. Article is a long resume/advertisement. It appears the author believes adding unrelated or single line mentions will create WP:N. reddogsix ( talk) 04:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete -- back to basics: why include this person in an encyclopedia? Because she got in trouble for a $300 dinner tab? Every other mention is she represented or she moderated. I don't hear that she did anything. Citations are insufficient to substantiate claims. Misleading use of wikilinks: public affairs is not a synonymous with public administration. Rhadow ( talk) 14:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • delete political professional. spokesman, lobbyist. Article is overstuffed with sources in which she merely speaks on behalf of an organization that she works for. And with facts sources to public records, like her birth. I removed a bio section that had many sources, but they were all to thinks like public office real estate sales (when she bought a house.) the only source i see on the page that has anything INDEPTH about her is: Lobbyist confirmed for Loudoun health post, Washington Post 2009. I am not seeing notability here. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Insufficent coverage in enough reliable sources of any depth or persistence to pass WP:ANYBIO: From little to nothing under her own name, and press-releases and other cruft under her working name. The latter being so much more common has many hits for other people called that, but few for her. — fortuna velut luna 15:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete No indepth in reliable press to determine notability of subject of the article. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Hello all- This is one of the first articles I worked on. From the guidance I've received on this from more experienced users, I went through and removed sections that were trivial or poorly sourced. This experience has helped me learn about what requirements exist for notability. Additional feedback would be useful for me moving forward. Thank you! Thsmi002 ( talk) 18:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Be Here Now Tour. The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Be Here Now Acoustic Collection

    Be Here Now Acoustic Collection (  | 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 as the album is a very obscure collection of bootlegs and is not an official Oasis album, in addition to not having any citations or anywhere to receive any citations from. s.o.m.e.g.u.y.4.3.2. 13:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

    • Merge with article on Be Here Now Tour - the article says that the songs are recordings of songs on this tour, and is only a brief article which could be merged with the article on the tour quite easily. Vorbee ( talk) 14:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: the article for the Be Here Now tour needs a lot of work to pass notability itself – the one RS just mentions it in passing (and not even by name), everything else in the article is OR. This article certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, but I'm not sure at the moment if it's worth merging and redirecting, and if so, where it should be redirected to. Richard3120 ( talk) 10:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  09:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    UTStarcom

    AfDs for this article:
    UTStarcom (  | 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 in the style of a promotional web page. , Every reference is either from the company, or a promotional notice. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
      1. Sull, Donald N.; Wang, Yong (2005). Made In China: What Western Managers Can Learn from Trailblazing Chinese Entrepreneurs. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing. pp. 166–187. ISBN  1422163385. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The book notes on page 12:

        UTStarcom. Founded in 1995 through the merger of two telecommunications start-ups headquarted in the United States but focused on the Chinese market, UTStarcom has grown its revenues from $10 million in 1995 to $2 billion in 2003, a performance that landed UTStarcom a place on the 2003 Fortune 1000. UTStarcom achieved its rapid growth by developing and selling its "Personal Access System," which enables cordless phones to rove up to 60 miles within a city limit. At the end of 2003, UTStarcom's equipment served over 20 million customers in China, and the company exported telecommunications equipment to emerging markets such as India and to developed countries, including Japan and the United States. The company, which employs approximately 5,000, trades on the NASDAQ exchange and had a market capitalization exceeding $4 billion in September 2004.

        The book further notes on page 168:

        The Foundation of UTStarcom

        UTStarcom traces its routes back not to one entrepreneur, but to two—Hong Lu and Ying Wu, who independently founded the two companies that would later merge to become UTStarcom.

        The book further notes on pages 184–185:

        Although some constraints, such as cash management, are common across companies, others are company specific and often surprising. When UTStarcom started winning contracts from local operators in the late 1990s, for example, managmenet realized that the high price of Japanese-made handsets—which UTStarcom bought and resold at cost for $215—would dampen end-user demand for PAS systems. If end users couldn't afford the handsets, local telecommunications bureaus would not buy UTStarcom's equipment and the game would be over before it really began. UTStarcom initially tried outsourcing production to a Taiwanese company, but the contract manufacturers could only cut costs by 50 percent. Reluctantly, UTStarcom executives decided to design and manufacture the handsets themselves in China to bring costs below the $55 to $60 price point they felt was required to ensure widespread consumer adoption. UTStarcom's continued growth also depended on continued support (or, at minimum, tolerance) of PAS from the Ministry of Information Industry. Managing this constraint required UTStarcom to devote more attention to lobbying than would be typical for many start-ups.

        The company is profiled in detail on pages 166–187.
      2. Lee, Ellen (2005-09-18). "Utstarcom Eyes Market for Expansion - Alameda-Based Firm Loses Momentum in the Telecommunications Industry After Explosive Growth in Chinese Market". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The article notes:

        If UTStarcom Inc.'s saga were described with popular catchphrases, it'd go something like this: At the right place at the right time. All good things must come to an end. Been there, done that. Now what?

        During the late 1990s, the Alameda-based telecommunications equipment maker found an overlooked opportunity in China's emerging telecommunications market: China didn't have the infrastructure to offer reliable landline telephone calls, nor could it depend on cell phones, which were too expensive.

        Then came UTStarcom, which offered a hybrid: a telephone that acted like a mobile phone and looked like a mobile phone, but was based off of traditional landlines and only operated within city limits. UTStarcom sold the technology, called the Personal Access System, or PAS, to two of China's major carriers, China Netcom and China Telecom, and now has 47.5 million of China's 82.8 million PAS subscribers.

        The bet paid off: Named one of the nations' fastest-growing businesses by Business Week, Forbes and others, it saw its revenues more than double from $981.8 million in 2002 to nearly $2 billion in 2003.

      3. Grady, Barbara (2006-06-22). "Wireless player's revenue declines UTStarcom posts loss". Bay Area News Group. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The article notes:

        UTStarcom Inc., the Alameda-based manufacturer of wireless telecommunications gear, posted a big drop in revenues for the first quarter of the year and a net loss — but the loss was not nearly as bad as the troubled company expected.

        UTStarcom has been in the midst of a major turnaround, both in operations and in products, after a year in which government agencies investigated its finances and customers seemed less interested in its major product.

        On Wednesday, UTStarcom reported first-quarter revenue of $596.6 million, down more than a third from $901.9 million in the same quarter last year, when it posted a profit.

        But the quarter’s net loss of 9 cents a share, or $10.6 million, was not nearly as bad as the 65 cents a share loss the company had warned Wall Street analysts was likely. Its cash flow was stronger than it has been and its profit margins higher.

      4. Heim, Kristi (2004-05-11). "Wireless Wonder - Alameda Company Finds Mobile Gold Mine in China". The Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The article notes:

        Street sweepers and grandmothers in China are helping a Bay Area telecom company strike it rich.

        UTStarcom has prospered by selling a low-cost mobile phone system to meet the needs of common people in China. And it has succeeded by blending Silicon Valley smarts, management and money with China's manufacturing ability and insatiable appetite for phone services.

        The idea behind UTStarcom started when Hong Lu, UTStarcom's chief executive, visited China in 1990 and had to dial 100 times to complete a call from Beijing to Shenzhen. He knew the country's decrepit phone system needed an upgrade.

        Lu started a company and initially focused on selling fixed-wire equipment but soon found a better option. Reviving a Japanese technology that was all but abandoned, Lu offered a way for Chinese phone companies to make the leap into wireless.

        The article also notes:

        box) When founded: 1991 as Unitech Telecom, which merged with Starcom Networks in 1995 to form UTStarcom.

        (box) Headquarters: Alameda

        (box) IPO: March 2000

        (box) Employees: 5,500 worldwide, including 4,600 in China and 500 in the United States

        (box) CEO: Hong Lu, 49

        (box) 2003 profit: $202 million, up 87 percent from 2002

        (box) 2003 sales: $1.96 billion, up 100 percent from 2002

      5. Barboza, David (2010-01-01). "Telecom Company to Pay $3 Million in China Bribe Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The article notes:

        For UTStarcom, which is based in Alameda, Calif., China is a crucial market. One of the company’s founders is a Chinese-born American, and most of the company’s operations and employees are based in China.

        UTStarcom, which sells networking and broadband equipment, has for the last decade sold large quantities of goods to three of China’s biggest government-owned telecommunications companies: China Netcom, China Telecom and China Mobile.

        S.E.C. officials said employees from many of the company’s big Chinese clients accepted bribes.

        ...

        The settlement comes at a difficult time for UTStarcom. The company is suffering through a sharp downturn in sales. It lost over $185 million in the first three quarters of 2008 and recently sold one of its plants in China.

      6. Malik, Om; Copeland, Michael V. (2003-10-01). "B2 100 The Fastest-Growing Technology Companies In our annual ranking of tech's supercharged, a company most people never heard of grabbed the No. 1 slot with a not-so-simple feat: It made a fortune in China". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The article notes:

        With its corporate headquarters in Alameda, Calif., Lu's company, UTStarcom, made a long-term bet on China, building most of its equipment there. That helped it win goodwill--and its products, which were cheap, smart, and engineered with Chinese users in mind, won customers. The firm has made $2 billion in China since 2000 and now employs 4,700 workers worldwide.

        And by all accounts, the company is just getting started. Its contrarian formula is easily exportable: Set up shop in-country, partner with the biggest phone company, and above all, make supercheap products that are minutely customized to local needs. Indeed, Lu is using the same business model in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

        It's that kind of thinking--taking calculated risks, going where the opportunities are, thinking about what the market really wants--that took UTStarcom to the top of Business 2.0's annual ranking of the fastest-growing tech companies. Its net income has grown 72 percent annually since 2000; this year alone the firm is expected to report $190 million in net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue. Don't think Wall Street hasn't noticed: UTStarcom's stock is up 112 percent so far this year--four times as much as the average stock on the rocketing Nasdaq--to $42.81 near the end of August.

      7. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2005-06-29). "UTStarcom Grasps For New Growth". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The article notes:

        Shares of UTStarcom continue to slide, and the stock now trades in the low $7 range–close to its 52-week low. The news for this once high-flying company, which provides telecom equipment mostly to service providers in China, has been dismal lately.

        ...

        While it will take a while for this company to win back investor confidence, it’s important to realize that the bad news is not a death sentence for the technology. PAS remains a low-cost alternative that allows people to use their cordless phones at home and then take them with them no matter where they go within city limits–and still make and receive phone calls. It’s a big business for China’s service providers.

        UTStarcom’s PAS business will still account for about $1 billion in sales this year, and probably next year, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point–maybe a year or two from now–demand from the service providers will pick up again for PAS products.

      8. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2003-09-23). "Will UTStarcom Get Shanghaied?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

        The article notes:

        Though UTStarcom is based in the U.S., it is actually a wireless play on the fast-growing market for mobile phones in China. Founded in 1991, this provider of telecom infrastructure, software and handsets operates in a fast-growing market–China. The company does most of its business out of its offices in Beijing. UTSI has three joint ventures that include two manufacturing operations that it owns jointly with the Telecommunications Administrations in Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces. It also operates 12 customer support and sales centers around China.

        The company is run by two executives that are highly regarded internationally. Its chief executive, Hong Liang Lu Hong Liang Lu , was once the CEO of Kyocera Unison , a subsidiary of Kyocera International . Its vice chairman, Ying Wu Ying Wu , was once a member of the technical staff of Bellcore (now Telcordia ) and was a consultant to AT&T Bell Labs, now part of Lucent Technologies.

        UTStarcom offers the Chinese an affordable mobile service in nearly 300 cities, from Hangzhou to Xian. In China the prevailing wireless system is known as PAS, for Personal Access System. UTSI’s version of PAS dominates the market with a 60% share. UTSI’s clients include hundreds of small telephone providers in China, who in turn provide service for roughly 5 million people. Lucent Technologies and the Shenzhen, Guangdong-based Zhongxing Telecom sell their own PAS systems. They account for the remaining 40% of the market. At UTStarcom, sales of PAS equipment, service and handsets account for about 85% of its revenue.

      There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UTStarcom to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

      Cunard ( talk) 19:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Cunard, perhaps you will care to enter these into the article so we can judge it better The point of looking for sources at WP is not to argue at afd, but to improve articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Notability was already established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTStarcom, where you supported retention.

      The point of looking for sources at WP is not to argue at afd, but to improve articles. – the point of AfD is to establish whether a subject is notable, which already has been done.

      If you want the article to be rewritten, please do so yourself instead of taking it to AfD to try to push other editors to do so. That is extremely poor and disruptive behavior from an admin.

      Cunard ( talk) 00:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    • Delete/draftify - Cunard has sources they aren't putting in. I propose if Cunard expresses interest in actually editing the article, then draftify, and no one is willing, then delete. The article's notability is semi-questionable even with the sources, and I'll note that in the many days since I nominated the article for the first AfD, nothing has changed. Further, the article even with the sources added would still border on advert-y and not nearly as encyclopedic as standards would warrant. Sometimes it's best to delete stuff that's not very good and start over. This is one of those cases. It would take, I think, more work to salvage than to just rewrite from scratch. If Cunard wants to do either, let it be moved to draft space. If no one is willing, again, delete. -- Nerd1a4i ( talk) 22:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The role of AfD is primarily to test is the topic meets the criteria for notability. This topic meets these criteria as (at least) two references were found. And while editors may bemoan the quality of this article, we don't delete articles on notable topics just because an article is poorly written (there are no arguments that this article is in breach of other policies or guidelines such as being spammy or promotional). Leaving all that aside, I have now taken a copyeditting chainsaw/axe to the article and reformatted it to include some of Cunard's references and I've removed sections which were overly-technical or unnecessary. [edit] The article should no longer read as spammy or promotional. -- HighKing ++ 12:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    You say "there are no arguments that this article is in breach of other policies or guidelines such as being spammy or promotional". Did you read the nomination? If so you will see that it says "in the style of a promotional web page. , Every reference is either from the company, or a promotional notice". The king of the sun ( talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    I've fixed the above. -- HighKing ++ 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Promotional, and not demonstrating notability. The references include a couple of books which contain several brief mentions of the company, but no substantial coverage, and other references are things like the company's own web site, promotional notices, or just inclusion in business listing site. The king of the sun ( talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The king of the sun, perhaps you missed the bit above where I said I chopped the article. I've removed a lot of the spammy/promotional pieces people were complaining above in this AfD and the previous one. You say it is still promotional? Can you please point out to me the parts you believe are promotional. I've tried to simply leave the minimum information that is supported by references. You also say that the references include "a couple of books which contain brief mentions of the company". The first book "The New Argonauts" provides an in-depth history of the company starting on page 249 and continuing to page 251. It is also discussed on page 273. Nearly two pages of in-depth information. The second book "Innovation Spaces in Asia" introduces UTStarcom on page 172 and continues with a page and a half on the company, starting on page 180 and finishing on page 181. Nearly two pages of in-depth information here also. I disagree that the books are "brief mentions of the company". Both books easily meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Speedy Keep - frivolous nomination, opened merely four days after the first AfD was closed as Keep. Please stop wasting people's time. Besides, this is a NASDAQ listed company and a pioneer in the Chinese telecom industry, notable per WP:LISTED and WP:NCORP. - Zanhe ( talk) 06:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. The only valid argument for deletion in the nomination is 'non-notable' and this has been countered by identifying sufficient sources. The other points are article quality issues. -- Michig ( talk) 08:39, 4 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 Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    International adoption of Haitian children

    International adoption of Haitian children (  | 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:WWIN Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Firstly I would note that the nominator provides such a vague reason for deletion to qualify this for a speedy keep, secondly that the article content does not match the title - according to the title this should be about adoption of Haitian children anywhere in the world, but the content is about adoption of Haitian children in the United States (this is not USApedia) - and thirdly the article had, until I just removed them, loads of spam links to adoption agencies. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Poorly sourced. Weak article. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Extremely strange article. Haitian adoption is "common" in the United States, but only 33 children were adopted from Haiti in 2011, out of 160,000 total adoptions in the US? [1] An incredible 0.02%! And wasn't this supposed to be about international adoption? AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete strange indeed. This article seems like edit test. It fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as evidenced by few result that different search yielded – Ammarpad ( talk) 17:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The more I look at this article the stranger it seems. It refers to children being "brought home to the U.S.", when it is pretty obviously about children being taken away from their home (or is everybody's home really the U.S.?), and ever since its creation until I removed it a few days ago the article had a long spammy list of adoption agencies. There is quite possibly a notable subject here about adoption of Haitian children in the 200 or so non-Haitian countries in the world, but I don't think that anything in this article belongs here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 03:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Abney Golam Samad

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

    Academic and writer. The cited sources are: a newspaper article that quotes him briefly, a bookseller author bio, and a magazine column he wrote. Searches, including by Bengali-script name, of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and Questia found: his thesis and a handful of books and columns written by him, but nothing written about him in independent, reliable, secondary sources. There isn't enough here to show that he meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Even if we think differently, I would guess that those have written about him who are directly associated. We don't have independent sources to prove GNG. D4iNa4 ( talk) 16:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 07:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Yankees–Tigers brawl

    Yankees–Tigers brawl (  | 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:SPORTSEVENT. There was a discussion on the talk page about why this was an article, and the participants think it should be deleted. This brawl does not stand out compared to other notable baseball/sports brawls. — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014  Talk •  Edits •  Help! 00:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Bench clearing brawls happen in MLB. This event has not gotten continuing coverage. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Wikipedia is not news. This was covered for about two days and disappeared with no long-term impact. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per above. A merge of some content into the respective team season articles would be a good idea, but that's all. This is a well-written article, but the topic is not notable enough for a standalone artice. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Standard brawl with nothing WP:LASTING - Galatz Talk 14:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - This is a GNG pass, in my estimation; one of the most noteworthy games of the 2017 MLB season, with copious coverage. A very, very nice article; give the creator a break. Carrite ( talk) 06:43, 3 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 List of experimental cat breeds. "Delete and merge" is not possible because licensing, but this way editors can summarize / merge content from history to the extent consensus allows.  Sandstein  09:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply

    Elf cat

    Elf cat (  | 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, but summarize at List of experimental cat breeds (which needs to happen anyway, even if this is kept). I spent about 6 hours trying to save this, but it's just not salvageable. All of the sources (that are actually pertinent to this alleged breed – it's actually an experimental crossbreed) are self-published, or otherwise unreliable. The low-end news bits I can find about it are all just regurgitation of the breeders' claims. This "breed" has no recognition by any breed registry other than Rare and Exotic Feline Registry, which exists solely to provide pedigree service for breeds rejected by or too new for the mainstream national and international registries. The article makes a claim of provisional recognition in The International Cat Association, but this failed verification at their site. A list of breeders showed only 8 in the world (all in the US, plus one in Canada) working with this crossbreed [19] (maybe a dozen these days?), so this appears to fail the WP:NFT test.
    I did add the Daily Mail as a source, since it confirms one (but not the other) of the claimed breed originators' names, and the year the breed started. The rest of it's just rehash of promo materials. The ABC15.com (KNXV-TV) local news bit is worthless; just a profile of a local breeder, and reports promotional, pseudoscientific nonsense like the cats being hypoallergenic (claims also made and debunked about the mostly hairly Sphynx breed on which the Elf is based; people are allergic to an enzyme in cat saliva, and it has nothing to do with the hairs; these nude breeds actually have to have their skin cleaned regularly because sebaceous secretions and saliva get all gunked up on them).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC); updated: 13:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    'Delete and merge' is impossible. If the content is merged, the history needs to stay here for attribution. -- Michig ( talk) 08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    Closer will know this equates to "merge and redirect". @ Randomeditor1000: you probably meant "merge and redirect".  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Reputable Source added
      The Elf cat is a recognised breed with ANCATS - Australian National Cats INC - although listed as experimental. A link to the National Breeds Standard has been added to the page. -- MatthewRoland ( talk) 22:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      Not a reputable source. That's a very small breeder club, with a grand total of 124 members, zero of whom are Elf breeders. I.e., they've listed the Elf cat just in case anyone in Australia starts to breed them. They seem to have added every claimed breed with a name. This is also worth a read; ANCats appears to exist solely as a cluster of people with grievances against the Australian Cat Federation. ACF and Coordinating Cat Council of Australia are the major organisations in Australia, both members of the World Cat Congress as are the other major organisations like TICA, CFA, GCCF, but not ANCats. Also, ancats.com.au appears to be run off someone's home PC, given how slowly it loads. I'm skeptical that we can treat a self-published site by breeders exiting the cat-breeding mainstream as a reliable source.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC); updated: 02:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Additional source listing the Elf as a recognised breed - the AICC [2] - Australian Independent Cat Council has been added. -- MatthewRoland ( talk) 10:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply

    References

    1. ^ http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/adoptionstats.html
    2. ^ "Breeds & Breeders - The Australian Independent Cat Council INC". The Australian Independent Cat Council INC.
    • Another non-notable organization, with even fewer breeders than ANCats. Only lists member breeders for 16 breeds total (not including the Elf) and publishes no breed standards. [20]. Like ANCats, they basically just accept every named alleged breed as a possibility to register with them, "just in case" someone wants to. The fact that someone can format a list of cat breeds and post it on a webpage for future use like this does nothing to help establish notability. Furthermore, the AICC site states that AICC uses the World Cat Federation (WCF) breed standards ( same cite), and the Elf is not a WCF breed [21]. What's happening here (aside from desperation to retain a "too soon" article – see also WP:Usual caveats) is a confusion between what breeds or alleged breeds (populations or phenotypes) an organization will accept pedigree registrations for, and which breeds an organization actually recognizes as breeds subject to conformation standards and show competition. Even many of the major international registries will accept cats of no breed at all – mongrels classified as " domestic shorthair/ longhair" [22] or lumped together as "household pets" [23] [24] or "household cats" [25] – for pedigree registration (i.e., the organization's primary source of income) without recognizing them as anything but random cats. This is no different from a person, company, album, etc. being given passing mention in a list of people, companies, or albums, versus a secondary source writing an in-depth article on them. "AICC accepts Elf registrations" doesn't demonstrate notability, only that someone aside from the breeders says that something called the Elf cat exists at all.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: It might be a designer crossbred at present, but it's a real "thing" even if not officially yet recognized as a standardized breed. The policy here is notability, not acceptability. I do agree that the self-published sources may be problematic (haven't reviewed them all yet, sometimes a selfpub source can be acceptable in limited circumstances), but there are enough independent third-party sources to verify that this crossbred exists and is of adequate notability to keep. Montanabw (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      But it doesn't seem to be a notable thing. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The fact that the Elf Cat doesn't have as much recognition as the Sphynx or other more popular breeds shouldn't be a reason to delete the page, there are many other cat breeds that have less popularity than the Elf cat that are found in Wiki. A simple search for other hairless cats such as the Bambino and Ukrainiam Levkoy show pages listed such as:
    There are probably many other unregistered cat breeds listed within Wiki, I searched for these 2 only and both have their own pages with a lot less reference / citations.-- MatthewRoland ( talk) 04:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason for keeping an article either. I say redirect this article, the subject does not appear to be notable. ★Trekker ( talk) 07:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    And "The fact that the Elf Cat doesn't have as much recognition", in actually reliable sources, is definitely a reason to delete; WP:GNG basically boils down to "doesn't have much recognition", regardless what the topic is. This is not the only such iffy cat breed/crossbreed article that needs to be deleted and replaced with a reliably sourced summary version in List of experimental cat breeds, unless and until such time as they clearly pass WP:GNG (and a summary should remain there even after such an article exists, until the breed in question has major recognition as not experimental/provisional). Self-published breed standards, promotional nonsense, and tiny organizations' websites don't cut it.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 00:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - sources show existence, but don't pass notability standards. 00:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilKnight ( talk • contribs)
    • Delete and merge to List of experimental cat breeds. Poorly sourced individual article, but some content worth keeping. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 07:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. The 'Delete and merge' option is impossible. If the content is merged, the history needs to stay here for attribution. The nomination is proposing 'summarize at List of experimental cat breeds' - that's a merge proposal and as such AfD is the wrong forum. -- Michig ( talk) 08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
      Yes, we know. If you want people to address what they mis-stated, you'll need to ping them. @ Kind Tennis Fan: you probably meant "merge and redirect".  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment to closer: if this closes as merge and redir, feel free to userspace it to me temporarily, and I'll handle the (compressed) merge, since I've put it into my queue to do the WP:SUMMARY of it at the target page anyway. Actually, please do that userspacing if this closes as delete and the List of experimental cat breeds#Elf doesn't exist by that time.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:37, 4 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_October_28&oldid=1142617543"