Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 August	31 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony James Hall

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

Not a notable person. An article apparently first written by the subject, and the talk page seems clear that the page's justification has never been better than really iffy. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Could he pass WP:GNG as a conspiracy theorist? At present I am inclined to doubt it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I agree he doesn't pass WP:PROF, and the Lethbridge Herald sources are too local to count much for notability. But I think the stories in the National Post and Macleans, and the brief mention in the Washington Post, are enough to show notability via WP:GNG as a conspiracy theorist, and the book review in The Independent adds more mainstream notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the Washington Post seems to me to be clearly a drive-by mention-in-passing.

One doesn't doubt that. But is he [i.e. the documentarian whose work is being reviewed] a sufficient witness? Does the sympathy for soldiers generated by the grunt film create an implicit, self-perpetuating argument for the war? Junger has been confronted with these questions, in reviews and in person, while promoting the film and his accompanying book, "War." In one such confrontation, available on YouTube, an angry and vociferous conspiracy theorist identified as Anthony J. Hall calls Junger's work "classic propaganda," deriding it as "all about the human interest stories of our boys . . . " This is unfair to Junger, and may be just another atavistic return of the old failure to distinguish between antiwar sentiment and hostility to the troops themselves.

That is, the reviewer makes clear that Hall is just a random YouTube nut chosen for illustrative purposes and then immediately dismissed. I don't see that as doing much of anything to establish Hall's notability. It's a two-sentence aside at best about someone who otherwise never made the Washington Post in any other context, as far as Google can determine. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said "brief mention" rather than calling it something more substantial. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: finally, somebody who fails WP:PROF. I thought that was pretty much impossible. Anyway, I'm inclined to go for delete per WP:GNG. Yes, he's had a couple of book reviews but there hasn't been any meaningful, sustained, in-depth coverage by reliable sources that have editorial oversight. A quick Google search shows that there is third-party coverage on him, but the vast majority of said sources are not considered reliable. DrStrauss talk 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

finally, somebody who fails WP:PROF, A ridiculous statement. Take a look at my contributions to academic AfDs. 70% of my votes are for delete. Also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators and its many archives. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had multiple articles I created on academics deleted. One has since been recreated by me, and not been challenged, but the subject had risen academically in the interim. I've seen lots of articles on academics deleted, possible too many kept, but not as ludicrously many or on as low grounds as for some other types of individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete The mention in the Washington Post is not "passing mention" it is a dismissive aside, anyone with that level of mention is default not notable, unless something of substance can be found. In the case of Hall, we have to consider guidelines for fringe theorists and their ideas. He clearly does not have the sourcing to show notability for fringe anything, and we should delete an article that gives this non-entity the odd perception of impact for what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. This appears to be WP:FRINGE, and the non-local references appear to be trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete He doesn't meet the notability standards for professors and lacks the coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bertram (singer-songwriter)

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

No real reliable sources, or much indication of notability when looking closely, article obviously written by the subject Jac16888 ^Talk 22:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a local singer-songwriter, no obvious national coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although there are claims to Bertram passing WP:MUSICBIO in the article, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I could only find one local news article on google news and the sources in the article are self-published. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Riot Fest. No need for further discussion as deletion is not requested, and this should have earlier been speedy closed on that basis. Any merging from the history can occur through normal processes. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Riot Fest lineups by year

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

Overlaps and should merge with Riot Fest Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Riot Fest, as per nominator's suggestion. A lot of good editing can happen in ten years. (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egg in beer

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

~~This is a definition, at best, but~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And there is already a definition in Wiktionary. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (originator): it's not simply a definition, it also includes a historical example. And sources exist to expand the article further, so concept is valid, and there is no deadline for expansion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded with more historical context. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:ODD. It's been fixed up, and sourced better. We tend to keep such oddballs. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator (changing !vote from delete) per Bearian's remarks and the work done since the nom. The article has become better sourced and is now more than a mere definition. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear keep -- poor nomination: its actually a food item common in several cuisines. Sadads (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SYNQ (Company)

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

Standard directory style promotional stub created by a declared paid contributor (in accordance with the TOU). Despite the TOU compliance, the firm does not meet local en.Wiki policies and guidelines towards inclusion, namely it does not meet the general guideline in WP:N when read in light of the guidelines in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. Sourcing is your standard PR stuff: TechCrunch and the like: coverage is pretty clearly lacking in intellectual independence thus making it fail our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are not up to standards for encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 22:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NCORP. Not up to scratch, fails all the criteria. DrStrauss talk 21:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Before you vote, consider whether this article measures favorably against any in this List of Y Combinator startups. Rhadow (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfD is about whether the existing article meets our inclusion standards, not about whether we have other articles that are not as good as it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you TonyBallioni -- My comment was not intended to change the outcome on the subject article, but to remind myself and others that the same standard needs to apply to existing articles. Thanks. Rhadow (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, not a problem. The reason that OTHERSTUFF comparison is often problematic for companies is that NPP is a filter where often things do slip through the cracks. We have upwards of 7000 articles created a week, so there are going to be similar articles in Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be. The better comparison would be to look at recent AfDs of similar subjects and see how we are dealing with corporations like this. I think taking that into account, we are being pretty consistent in our standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a directory-like listing; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mogali Puvvu

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

Since 2015, this film does not got any significant coverage rather trailers and posters. No any further source claims its releasing even. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 07:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails WP:NFILM; not opposed to re-creating if it does ever get released Spiderone 10:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Feinerman

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

Article subject is not notable and article contains many unsourced claims about him. Sfeldman (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is person's own website does not make him notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another promotional article on a surgeon in an inherently promotional field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam Bappi

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

WP:GNG tells us that "a series of publications ... in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." That would give the article two sources, both local news organizations. Searches of the usual "find sources" types found little else, only one namecheck.[1]. Two sources is multiple, but one would expect a notable director to have attracted considerably wider and more frequent attention.

The sources fail WP:SIGCOV. It has only been possible to squeeze out of them two sentences about his career. The first film, on which he was co-producer and member of the shoestring crew (but not director) made so little impact that not even a ripple is left. The second film was "due to be released early [2016]", but there's no evidence it was released, or even that production has begun. One would expect much more information to be available about a notable director.

Based on the available sources, the subject is not "worthy of note", "remarkable", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" at this stage of his career. Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, per above. --nafSadh did say 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 current article as it is a BLP containing no references, it would have been eligible for WP:BLPPROD. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Embree

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

This is an unsourced BLP stub from 2009. Subject authored a single pop/juvenile book 10 years ago that has average holdings according to WorldCat. Info is all OR. Agricola44 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable BLP. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alya Manasa

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

A non notable actress. Fails WP:ACTOR, and WP:GNG. The only coverage found fails WP:SIGCOV, it is from the websites that provide photos/wallpapers. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage from reliable third-party sources Spiderone 14:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Mor

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

A non notable poet/lyricist. Fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nothing to be found through searches except for a different person with the same name: [2]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail's WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FITINDIA 12:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 14:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bert and Fay Havens House

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

I request deletion of 29 short stub articles on topics of NRHP-listed places in Jerome County, Idaho, because it would be better to have them appear as redlinks encouraging new editors to create articles on these topics if/when they have time and resources to actually develop the topics. As noted at wp:REDLINKS, good redlinks help Wikipedia grow. Currently the articles are traps for readers who might follow a bluelink to the topic, only to find no substantial content. These are all 29 "NRIS-only" stub articles in Idaho, after I and other editors have expanded all other ones previously in the category. I am usually an inclusionist in AFD voting, and I have created and expanded many NRHP articles myself, and I have even been criticized for my own short stub articles, so it is very unusual for me to be nominating this batch. However these are different:

They are short stubs almost all created by one editor in 2012 or so, using an NRHP infobox generator to provide all of the information from the NRIS database, plus their creating a sentence or two of text by extrapolating from the NRIS information (sometimes generating fully accurate statements, sometimes introducing incorrect statements because the bare NRIS data is ambiguous). For example, one article's text is just "The Hugh and Susie Goff House is a house located in Jerome, Idaho listed on the National Register of Historic Places." It was a good bet that the topic is a house, but it is ~~not located in Jerome~~ located _near_ Jerome, not in Jerome. For another it is asserted the place is "near" Jerome, but in fact the place is in Jerome. For many, specific address information available in the list-article based on a location field from NRIS is not provided in the separate article, because the NRIS-based generator draws on a different location field within the NRIS database that sometimes differs. (I am partly informed about this because i programmed using the NRIS database myself.) (amended, --do ncr am 01:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Although NRHP nomination documents are now available as sources which would allow more full development, none of them include such, and there is no information at all in the articles (or no substantial information) which is not already in corresponding list-article, National Register of Historic Places listings in Jerome County, Idaho, so nothing is lost by deleting them.
They don't meet basic requirements for articles that would allow them to be approved by Articles For Creation process. I know from experience, having myself created numerous NRHP articles through AFC process in the past.
Please allow me some leeway in describing the situation with respect to the original author of these articles. I respect the editor who is a valued contributor in many ways and areas in Wikipedia. Their creating the articles was acceptable by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and they did so with good faith. Also the now-online-available NRHP nomination documents which should be incorporated into articles like these were probably not available online then. However in part by this multiple-AFD I wish to send a message that their creating short stub articles like these is no longer welcome.
The original author, although active in Wikipedia today, is possibly over-extended in their editing, and has previously expressed not having interest in expanding similar NRHP articles they created, when invited to develop them cooperatively by me (and possibly by others). The editor has created hundreds of other minimal stub NRHP articles in Oregon and Washington. I see little likelihood they will develop these articles anytime soon. If they respond and say that they will, in order to save these, then I will challenge them to begin a personal development campaign to improve the other hundreds of NRHP articles, instead. Deleting these ones will make little difference. If/when they or any other editor wishes to re-create them with more substantial development, they can do so easily, starting again with the same NRHP infobox generator.
There are other editors who created numerous similar NRHP stub articles, but those editors are not actively doing so. The original author here created other similar NRHP articles as recently as 2016, and in 2017 they have created numerous minimal stub articles on non-NRHP topics and numerous redirects in lieu of stubs, all of which would better be deleted, allowing redlinks instead. (For these non-NRHP ones, there may be future batches of AFDs and MFDs to get rid of them.)
I personally have developed many NRHP stub articles created by this author but I am not happy to continue to do so. The vast numbers they created is overwhelming and depressing for me to consider fixing. At this point I want to make progress by mass-deletion of this batch, and then possibly more and bigger batches. I fear these stub articles are hurting Wikipedia in the NRHP area and other areas by discouraging other editors like myself. If I proceed and fix the mess here, I fear that is enabling this editor to proceed and do the same elsewhere.
Also it is irritating that the original author is monopolizing credit as original author for all these topics, although the editor has disavowed that being their purpose or any motivation at all. I believe the editor is not seeking credit that way, but it prevents new editors from getting the small rush of accomplishment from their getting credit.
The minimal stub articles complicate the process, or at least reduce the enjoyment, for other editors to do DYKs in conjunction with their development of the topics.
I note there will be some loss from deletion, by loss of good categorizing and other minor editing of the articles by other editors. However this is not too significant.

--do ncr am 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles to be deleted are:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. I'll respond as the aforementioned editor. I cannot commit to "saving" these articles, because rescuing 29 articles is nearly impossible, but to say I've expressed not having interest in expanding NRHP stubs is not accurate. I have several Good articles about NRHP sites under my belt, and I've expanded many other articles even if they have not been promoted. I am not going to get in an argument here, but I see deleting these stubs about inherently notable topics as a form of punishment and not a net positive to Wikipedia. You did say in your sandbox that I "need to see [my] contributions deleted, maybe that will start to sink in." I responded to your comments about me there, but received no acknowledgement, which is fine. I acted in good faith by creating stubs for notable topics, and "credit" is not my concern. Life will go on if editors decide to delete these stubs, but I'm just not convinced doing so is necessary. I'll let others decide, and happy editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry for not acknowledging your response there, but I think we are locked into a difference of opinion about whether such minimal stubs help or hurt Wikipedia, and others' views are needed. This AFD is one forum; there will be others. I had not looked it up before starting this AFD, but User talk:Another Believer/Archive 18#match you on OR nrhp improvements? is the discussion which I interpreted as your declining to be involved in any campaign to develop the Oregon-Washington NRHP stubs. I do respect your ability to develop Good Articles and otherwise contribute on these types of topics. I must object to your statement that "rescuing 29 articles is nearly impossible"; it would be very easy for someone to rescue these if they were interested, I would guess with about 20 minutes time each, because the good NRHP nomination documents are available as sources. I have "rescued" more than a thousand NRHP articles in the last year, myself. --do ncr am 21:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well if they're "easy" to de-stub, and they are about inherently notable topics, I don't understand the purpose of this discussion except your own personal dislike for such stubs. Not to mention, even if standalone articles weren't appropriate, redirecting would be the best course of action because these pages could serve as valid redirects for people searching about these topics. I'm sorry you don't like that I created some stubs 5 years ago, but you don't have a good argument based on policy for deleting these articles about notable topics. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable topics, but it is a sensible editorial decision to delete them, as they would then appear properly as redlinks in National Register of Historic Places in Jerome County, Idaho, which contains all the information in these articles (address, geo-coordinates, date of NRHP listing, etc.). People searching about the topics will find the list-article. I do not have a personal dislike for short stubs which serve a purpose, e.g. perhaps for including a link to a good source available online. My standard is really low here.
Redirecting them to the list-article or somewhere else would be very unhelpful. This is a basic misunderstanding I believe you have: you seem not to get how redlinks serve a purpose, and how redirects or minimal stubs just confound development. This misunderstanding was a major subject of an ANI discussion in which you participated and a related multiple-MFD to delete a big batch of redirects you had created, on topics of an artist's works, when the works had been showing properly as redlinks in a navigation template and in an article about the artist. The decision was to delete them all. I fear you misunderstood the consensus of that ANI and the MFD, and it continues into other areas. --do ncr am 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well let's just agree to disagree and forgive my "basic misunderstanding" despite 10 years of editing. I won't be commenting on this further and will let other editors decide. Take care for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the actual deletion rationale? Are the subjects of the articles notable? If so, there would need to be a strong rationale for deleting existing articles, stubs or not. If you want to encourage expansion of the articles, make a list for a WikiProject to work on, or point the project to a stub category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep NRHP-listed buildings are notable. We are allowed to create stubs. We allow stubs for a reason good; once created, an article is more likely to get expanded. In short, "I don't like stubs" is not an argument. The stub argument has nothing to do with these articles and can be debated elsewhere.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please expand these stubs instead? Much more productive way to spend your/our time.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above keep comments. Stubs are a recognized form of article creation, and since Wikipedia isn't on a time-clock, these will eventually be expanded along the way to 2030. I've thought this many times but have never "said" it, but those giant maps which have been attached to infoboxes are quite annoying and seem out of place size-wise (a 'you are here' notice in giant form). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Stubs are expandable, and worth keeping. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 1) WP:NODEADLINE, 2) because these articles actually do contain more content compared to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Jerome County, Idaho article, and 3) because something is better than nothing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all As someone who's worked on expanding articles that were created as part of this batch (see Allton Building, for instance), deleting these won't make expanding them easier (and I can guarantee you that, while I may have other priorities at the moment, they will one day be expanded into at least a better-looking stub). And at any rate, the subjects of these articles are notable, and deletion is not cleanup; while I don't necessarily approve of this method of article creation, the solution to it is to clean up the articles and not repeat the mistakes of the past, not to delete what's already there. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Allton Building and other Jerome County NRHP articles expanded by TheCatalyst31 are not nominated. Only the ones that no one else got to. And if I myself wanted to develop that county, I would probably prefer to start with the existing stubs. But TheCatalyst31 and I and other fixer-upper editors are limited. There are 1764 "NRIS-only" minimal (<325 byte) substub articles, and 3283 minimal non-NRIS-only ones, too many for us few to get to, anytime soon. --do ncr am 02:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As per above. Having these stubs causes no harm; I don't really see a policy-based reason. Even the DYK reason point is not well-reasoned - my last DYK was a 1500 character article I expanded to over 7000. These would be really easy to expand 5x. MB 01:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Responses :*The deletion rationale is that this is an editorial decision about where in Wikipedia the topics are covered now to the extent that they are covered now, and choosing for that coverage be in the list-article, which is certainly acceptable Manual of Style-wise. Choosing to remove misleading duplication. Choosing not to disappoint readers who click on the bluelink, but rather to inform them the topic is notable but we have not written about it yet. It is okay and good for a set of editors to organize their development of a topic area as they wish, e.g. like wp:SHIPS has long done by listing out ships needing articles in navigation templates. I tend to think ships editors would be outraged if you or I went through List of Liberty ships (A–F) and created one-sentence stubs like "SS A. P. Hill" was a Liberty Ship built in 1942" for the hundreds of remaining redlinks in that list-article. Nor do I think they would accept being told that they cannot operate that way.

Also I see this flurry of responses on the "Keep" side, but I don't see representation on the side of deletion which was strenuously represented in WikiProject NRHP previously. There have been extravagant expressions of distaste for stub articles, including labelling them "substubs" and tallying them at User:NationalRegisterBot/Substubs. All 29 of these are tallied there. Several hundred NRHP articles in Ohio and other states have in fact been deleted over the past couple years, articles which could have been developed (and which I was in fact developing but I only got to about half of them) which had been created by an editor who turned out to have been banned under another username. How are these !votes consistent with all the previous criticism?
I am concerned that there should not be merely a kneejerk response, in the same way that I and other NRHP editors have responded with solidarity against any outsiders nominating NRHP articles for deletion, over many years, when the outsider was saying the topics were not notable. Typically in those cases I and others have developed the articles in question, during the AFD in process. Here, I do acknowledge that the topics are notable, and that anyone could write an article if they actually will, but no one is choosing to do so. (And while I and editors commenting above are actually developing many NRHP articles, there is no reason why these 29 should be developed instead of what else we were doing.) Please note the consensus of notability for the topics will continue to be represented by the list-article's display of redlinks. --do ncr am 02:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator would do well to read the essays at WP:TEARDOWN and WP:NODEADLINE. Nobody has expanded the articles yet, but editors expand stubs every day on Wikipedia. The stubs are more likely to be expanded if they exist and have linked references that provide material to expand them. Redlinks are far less inviting to editors than stubs with references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while I agree with the nominator in that these articles need some serious expansion I don't think deletion is the right answer. There is the possibility for expansion, in fact it's a probability because these people appear to be notable. Sources exist but someone interested in the area needs to add them. Maybe the article creator? If not, I would be in favour of a userspace draft move. DrStrauss talk 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a valid deletion rationale. Stubs contain valuable information. Regarding encouraging creating of red-links - this could be encourage in other ways (for instance by marking "low quality" links).Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i just randomly chose one - Jerome City Pump House, i don't see anything wrong with it, it tells the reader what it is, when it was built and by whom, shows where it is located and has a picture of it, all in all a great little stub, could the nominator please state what more they want?, looks like a case of i don't like them, can a helpful admin please speedy close this snowy afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale presented, as I understand it, is that they want this to be a redlink so that editors reading articles referencing these will be tempted to click and create a new article - at a level above the current stubs. This is not a valid rationale IMHO.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the specific question, User:Coolabahapple. The Jerome City Pump House article's text consists of just this: "The Jerome City Pump House is a water works building located near Jerome, Idaho that was built in 1922 by stonemason H.T. Pugh. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983." Its only reference is to the NRIS database, and the text is constructed by guessing what the database info means. In this case, the author guessed wrong that it is "near" Jerome, because in fact it is in Jerome. I myself had some time ago added about the stonemason H.T. Pugh having built it, when I was developing the H.T. Pugh article. That article has nothing not in the Jerome County list-article, at least not after I just added "It is a water works building built in 1922 by stonemason H.T. Pugh." to the list-article. And in fact the list-article has more: it has the specific location, "600 block of E. B St." which is not in the Jerome City Pump House article because the NRHP infobox-generator tool used to create it fails to grab that info from NRIS.

My proposal is not to delete any information, because it is all in the list-article (or will be, with a very few edits mentioning the stonemason added there). I believe it is a valid editorial decision when to split out information from a bigger article, and one is not required to split it out just because a subtopic might notable on its own. It does readers a disservice to have the article split out, IMO.

Creation of these specific articles was not opposed in 2012, so my opposition now is not timely about these, I will grant that. I also grant that this AFD is not trending towards "Delete", but I am not wasting time, I am serious with my concern and questions. Could editors considering this please comment on whether they would go along with deletion if the articles were just created just recently, though? And assuming/accepting my opinion that the consensus of WikiProject NRHP is that we do not want articles like these. Could editors comment on whether a WikiProject or other group of editors developing things in a certain way, using redlinks on a navigation template and/or list-articles, like in List of Liberty ships (A–F), have any right to control the pacing and process of development? To me it seems that creating mere redirects or truly minimal stubs can be considered wp:DISRUPTIVE.

Also I don't think anyone is addressing the fact that these articles really would not be accepted by wp:AFC Articles For Creation, could anyone speak to that please? --do ncr am 21:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what are your policy-based deletion criteria? There is a helpful list at WP:DEL-REASON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really it is a matter of editorially choosing not to host duplicative information, choosing not to split out material with no additional content. Off that list (which states that it does not include all valid deletion reasons), I suppose the closest is reason #4, the articles are redundant "content forks": WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The split-out articles have no content different than the main article. They should be merged back in (i.e. any very small shreds of info in a few cases, namely several mentions by me of one stonemason, are to be moved to the list-article's description column). I suppose they each could then be redirected to the corresponding row in the list-article, and this AFD can be closed, leaving it to a separate MFD process to delete the redirects because, I suppose, WP:RFD#DELETE reason #10. --do ncr am 02:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. No valid policy or guideline related deletion rationale. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Using 'Would not b accepted at AfC' is not an official argument; unlike Page Curation or here at AfD, AfC is a Wikipedia:WikiProject with no official status in policy - furthermore it's riddled with its own problems. Finally, listed buildings are on a government register and unless it's a hoax, they are kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The question has to be whether we can allow an article on every singe place on NRHP. We do not allow articles on every listed building in UK, which is somewhat equivalent. What we are asked to discuss here is a series of 29 placeholders for stub articles. Sometimes the best solution is to merge them all into a single list article, until such time as a substantive article can be produced. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is anyone able to show that articles need to be "substantive", whatever that means, and should not be stubs? at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) it states "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable.", lets have a look at Gazetteer - "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas." which is exactly what these stubbies are doing. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is wp:NOPAGE, a section of Wikipedia:Notability guideline, about when separate pages are not needed. It takes some interpretation, but I take that to support the idea that we are allowed to weigh the pros and cons, and to decide not to have separate pages yet, when all the info is in the list-article. This is not about whether the 29 topics are notable if an editor would actually make an effort to include sources and develop them, it is about the Wikipedia:Editing policy. (BTW, some side discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E&BV Subdivision (2nd nomination) bears on this. Maybe AFD is the wrong forum to discuss this, in practice, though I am not sure it has to be this way). --do ncr am 01:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi doncram, thankyou for the info but i remain unswayed from keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soul metal

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

No reliable sources. MTV source doesn't mention the phrase and the other source is a blog with reader submissions. Nothing on google to make it anything more than an obscure niche term. Nothing in the article is sourced. Follows user's pattern of making articles about made up music genres. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a genre that is significantly discussed in any article, or at all. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Didn't find anything when I PRODed it to suggest its "a thing". TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a recognized genre. Potential WP:NOTNEO issue. Not meeting the WP:GNG regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note - judging by the article creator's talk page, he seems to have a long history of creating non-notable/fake genre articles that get deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a valid subgenre. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Nocte

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

Fails WP:BAND (ghits). Also note the clear WP:COI undertones in the way the band is described. DrStrauss talk 19:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources through the multiple entries of a book trilogy of the same name. A PROD would likely have been enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note that WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay, and not policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Moore (attorney)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Some coverage, but not significant. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inherently notable, no indication of notability apart from her county office; and I see no coverage other the usual mentions any county prosecutor would get. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a district attorney at the county level is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles a person to have an article just because she exists, but the sourcing here isn't helping her pass WP:GNG for it: there's her primary source profile on the self-published website of the DA's office, which is not a source that can assist notability at all, and just four pieces of the purely routine local media coverage that any county DA could simply expect to receive. It takes a lot more than this to get a DA in the wikidoor. Bearcat (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have tended to keep DAs of larger counties - especially in this case, she is the chief prosecutor of a larger (1 Million plus) county. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability standard for county DAs is not a population test, but a sourceability test — and the volume of sourcing here isn't passing it. No size of county hands its DA an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts her from having to pass the sourceability test. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that any part of the WP:POLOUTCOMES essay supports keeping. TJRC (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackey Hall

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACTRESS. No coverage in reliable third-party sources outside of passing mentions. menaechmi (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are not enough to pass GNG. That requires multiple indepdent sources that are secondary and reliable. IMDb is not reliable, an interview is not fully secondary or 3rd party, it is essentially a primary source that someone felt was worth publishing. The one source about a film that her role in may have been notable in may provide enough on her to count towards GNG, but since GNG requires multiple such sources is it is not enough, so we have a clear failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Dread Central source only name-checks Hall as an actress in the low budget film involved. I am less than certain Dread Central is a reliable source. A perusal of the Wikipedia plot recap for Snow Shark makes it evident that in this at best B-movie Hall has a passing role at the very end. Her other role in a film we have an article on also totally lacks any sign of notabilty. A guest apparenance in one episode of a TV show is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Flynn (Wisconsin politician)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bases of notability seem to be: 1) lost three federal elections to the House of Representatives (the winning of which would have bestowed notability, but he lost them all); 2) lost an election for the state Senate (which likely wouldn't have made him notable in itself even if won); 3) chair of the state-level party; 4) state co-chair of Kerry's presidential campaign. None of these amount to notability, alone or combined. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for having been candidates in election races they didn't win. To satisfy WP:NPOL, a person has to win the election and thereby hold office — and to get an article without satisfying NPOL, he would have to satisfy some other notability criterion for some other reason. But nothing here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards. Running for office does not, by itself, make a lawyer notable. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "unelected politician" aspect seems like an easy call, but this was the chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin for four years, which makes at least for grounds for a legitimate argument for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Muhammad Kankarofi

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of credibility. It doesn't say what it means that he joined the gubernatorial campaign, so we don't know the significance of that. It says his ANPP candidate won in 2011, but the office, according to other articles here, left ANPP hands in 2011. See List of Governors of Kano State,

for instance. Largoplazo (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hemangi Worlikar

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

~~Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG.~~ Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deputy mayor of a city with 18+ million inhabitants should pass WP:NPOL quite safely. --Soman (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Couzens

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTE standards. Sources mostly refer to events the organization has hosted, but do not comment on the significance of the subject of this article or to his organization. Additionally, this article has been deleted before, and both times the article has been created by a paid contributor. PureRED | talk to me | 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable charity organizer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). Huon (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasim Kuniyil

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable media sources. Appears to be a standard businessman who fails biographical notability standards. DrStrauss talk 18:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 11:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arcteq

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Prod contested by article creator. shoy (reactions) 18:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse speedy deletion clearly deletable. clearly does not meet GNG. I'm passing the buck 'cause I'm tired and don't want to err, but in my opinion, csd#g11 applies.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian current frigates

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

Not notable, barely a list, untouched since 2009. Prod and prod-2 removed without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no need for a separate list based on class of ship, List of active Royal Norwegian Navy ships would seem to be the proper merge/redirect target. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad out of date content fork of List of frigate classes by country#Norway (Royal Norwegian Navy) and List of active Royal Norwegian Navy ships.Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the prod-2. Brad (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded and no need for a redirect to linger. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haji Mohammad Danesh. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hajee Mohammad Danesh

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

I couldn't verify that he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. No sources at all in article. Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:NPOL as a deputy of the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly in 1954 ([3] p. 472). Hajee Mohammed Danesh was one of the key leaders of the National Awami Party ([4], p. 36), and founded Ganatantri Dal ([5] p. 408). See also https://books.google.com/books?id=xJgDawlnknwC&pg=PA173 . There is a university named after him, [6]. --Soman (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to more common spelling Haji Mohammad Danesh, a sourced article of long standing about this notable politician (I don't see any fresh material to merge). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman, but cleanup needs to happen here. South Nashua (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we want to have two articles about the same dude? --Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haji Mohammad Danesh as suggested by User:Worldbruce. This is just a duplicate article ("Haji" is often spelled as "Hajee"). The article at Haji Mohammad Danesh is already well written.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on Haji Mohammad Danesh. That is the same person, but that article actually has sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haji Mohammad Danesh and quick close. --nafSadh did say 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One person argued to keep, but failed to supply any policy-based reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Wiser

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

Mayors aren't unherently notable, local coverage - doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page needs a lot of work, but I think it justifies its notability and existence. Appears to be well sourced, but could use some additonial work. I believe it meets WP:NPOL. MountMichigan (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced? It has two sources, a radio station and a local newspaper. And they would contribute towards WP:GNG, but not achieve it. Which part of WP:NPOL exactly do you think he meets? Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Racine is certainly large enough that a mayor could get an article if he could be shown to have garnered substantial media coverage per WP:NPOL #2 — but at 78K, it's not large enough that a mayor would be automatically presumed notable just for existing. The sourcing here isn't cutting it for the purposes of WP:GNG, however: of the seven sources here, one (Ballotpedia) is a primary source that cannot aid notability at all, one is a newspaper article where he's the bylined author of the piece and not its subject, and two are glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him. Which leaves just three sources that are actually about him in any substantive way — but three sources aren't enough to pass NPOL #2, because every politician at the municipal level of government could always show three sources. At this level of government, the key to getting him past NPOL is to write and source something substantial, not just to be able to demonstrate that he exists — but "he exists" is about all this article, as written and sourced, is actually showing. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Racine has under 100,000 people. So we need lots of good sources on the subject to show notability, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asrar Khan

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

I don't think he quite meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Article is written by the subject's son, references are not convincing. Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for politicians or journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the subject lacks significant sources that discuss it in detail. Also, per WP:TNT -- a difficult-to-read fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ra Jeong Chan

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:ANYBIO. Also fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, I... I'm not even sure who he is. He is apparently a researcher? But his claimed notability seems to be that he was a named defendant in a lawsuit? Either way, delete. Doesn't pass any relevant notability guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about a decade ago there was a spate of article in RS with headlines like "U.S. woman pays $150,000 to clone her deceased dog; South Korean company says it can clone up to 30 dogs a year" Not just one article echoed, different ones in 2008 and 2009. I don't much interest in this topic, but he was the CEO, so he may well be notable. Do we have a genetics-related articles for deletion category, or similar? E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a CBS and a Frontera news article where he is mentioned as head of company. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the lister. Doesn't meet WP:NOTE standards. --PureRED | talk to me | 17:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sally the Sunflower

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

No claims of notability, no substantive coverable in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Rogermx (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The game exists but I could find no coverage in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:GNG. gongshow talk 05:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither a Google search nor BoardGameGeek shows any sign of notability of this game. Article is an un-referenced stub. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista Golf Course

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- run of the mill golf course. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Résia (artist)

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

Non-notable singer lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Not enough sources to prove notability 137.97.10.237 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh - Vikas Ki Prateeksha Mein

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

Does not meet notability : reference points to amazon, flipkart and the other links does not portray any notability, the only link which it mentions is link from the publisher of the book Shrikanthv (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see flipkart in it??Shrikanthv. Cant you see News18, Swarajya Magazine, Independent News Service (INS), Business Stadard as the references? The article has been tried to brought to speedy deletion Unnecessarily and intentionally . Royaal (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent notability. The Swarajya source is written by Shantanu Gupta. Ref 6 (INS) doesn't even mention this book. The Amazon and Bloomsbury references aren't good enough for WP:NBOOK either. Spiderone 10:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Spiderone and WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Matter

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

I can't find evidence for notability. It's been tagged for notability for over 7 years. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google can't even find cover images for the majority of the books in the series. The only mentions I can find on the internet are on blogs, goodreads.com and other UGC sites. In the meantime, I've taken a stab at trying to make the article at least look encyclopedic, so that hopefully google searches and wiki mirrors will not have such a poorly written mess to give to their users. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Broccolini

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

Only ref provided is a trivial mention.Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, a Kickstarter account, and a number of self-published items. Google Books turns up what looks like only one hit, and it is also a trivial mention. Google News hits are only another list of trivial mentions.Subject does not appear to meet the requirements set out in WP:ACTOR. No awards, no significant coverage in published reliable independent verifiable secondary sources. Article creator's account has been blocked for copyright violations as well as abusing multiple accounts. KDS4444 ^(talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this article at all.] 14:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR (note: nomination mistakenly cites WP:ACTOR). Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 21:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beltrami Electric Cooperative

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

Fails WP:NORG. No claim of notability, no national or regional media coverage, small organization. Rogermx (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I used LexisNexis to search old newspaper archives for coverage of the Cooperative. There was a lot of routine coverage of the utility in the local newspaper, but even the Minnesota Supreme Court case of 1982 did not generate much significant or enduring coverage. Wikipedia's general notability guideline for inclusion require significant, non-routine coverage. Since this is missing, the article should be deleted. Malinaccier (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG or CORPDEPTH. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best I could find was this newspaper article from 1974 (full-page but probably not independent). There are quite a few mentions (100+) in newspapers.com but almost all are namechecks or adverts, same as with free GNews and GBooks sources. The company exists, it serves a few people but more than that, I cannot find. Regards So Why 06:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Leggett

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

Redirect to Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist. No biographical information besides the statement that she won an amateur genre-specific writing contest. Analogous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Nussbaum. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Moore

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 15:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found out that the married Eileen ran off with her hairdresser, but not much else. Does not seem that any of her film roles were really significant. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2455499/Minder-star-George-Coles-anguish-daughter-turned-him.html. Rogermx (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mancini

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

This article has been essentially unsourced since it was created by a user who looks a lot like a paid editor. My searches for sources turned up this in Noisey but nothing else that would suggest WP:NMUSIC or WP:BIO are met. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. While technically it is sourced, the available sources are insubstantial. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near passing the notability guidelines for muscicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Von Kienegger

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

I've examined the sources cited and made my own searches but have not found in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Neither WP:NARTIST or WP:BIO appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 15:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly copy/pasted from her bio, or from sites that have copied her bio, like alchetron. So blatantly promotional it cannot be fixed without a complete rewrite. A clear case of WP:NOTADVERTISING. I don't think she meets our notability criteria either, because I don't see any significant critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Update: The Eduscho award is an award she won at age 10. Not a notable award. (Eduscho was a coffee brand in Germany). Mduvekot (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed all the material that was added recently considered possible paid editing, back to the time the article was considered adequate for the time being.StephenPeters999 (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Stephen Peters999[reply]
—StephenPeters999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Editor now blocked for socking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~There is obviously no longer anything paid on this article and the online magazines used as reference are very strict about their sources and the quality of their work. These notices should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenpeters999 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
—Stephenpeters999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Struck as a duplicate. Editor now blocked for socking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have examined the sources and Whitewall Magazine is one of the most prestigious online magazines when it comes to art, and the Huffington Post is not inconsequential either. She also hosted an event at the world's number one most important art festival, Art Basel, with a performer and a gallery that are both on Wikipedia. Further research revealed that The Huffington Post is an entire Category on Wikipedia, with 7 articles. Stephenpeters999 (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck as a duplicate. Editor now blocked for socking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can all the new editors involved in this discussion please read these instructions on how to contribute to an AfD discussion? Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the relevance of Whitewall, "one of the most prestigious online magazines when it comes to art", it been used as a reference Wikipedia three times. Much more established publications like Artforum of Frieze have been used hundreds of times. Whitewall calls itself a luxury lifestyle magazine; its independence and reliability should be weighed accordingly. Mduvekot (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that she meets our notability guideline for artists. Her works are not part of museum collections or notable exhibitions, and I see no coverage of her in books written by art historians. The coverage of her is mostly in lifestyle/fashion/celebrity publications, which I do not consider adequate for an artist biography since such publications are little more than vehicles for promotion. In most of the sources, she is mentioned briefly and a few do not mention her at all. As for Whitewall magazine, it self-describes as a "art and luxury lifestyle magazine", and the source is a puff piece interview, which is not evidence of notability since it is not independent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per much the same reasoning as Cullen - does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. I have not been able to find any coverage in German, either, which would have been expected from an Austrian artist. --bonadea contributions talk 07:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~How is the article on Whitewall magazine article not independent? They are a well known art publication that has nothing to do with Sara Von Kienegger?I am new to Wikipedia but I have already seen dozens of articles about seriously less significant persons than this - I agree there is some bias going on hereStephenpeters999 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)StephenPeters999[reply]
- Struck as a duplicate. Editor now blocked for socking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephenpeters999: each user can only make one comment so I have struck through three of your other !votes to keep the article. SmartSE (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked her on GOOGLE and I found she is notable enough for Wikipedia also i added her IMDB profail to article Mr.ref (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in "in depth sources" to keep an article, and where is the evidence of paid contribution? I have seen many less credible. This is looking more and more like another example of Wikipedia sexist bias. I seriously doubt few readers accomplished anything like this or know anyone else who has accomplished this much in their 20's. Von Kienegger left Austria at an early age and is actually based in London now TiffanyTinnell (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2017 — TiffanyTinnell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Generally speaking, making aspersions and insulting fellow editors is frowned upon, as is sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. GAB^gab 20:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor now blocked for socking in this discussion. Struck as a result. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Palakkaran

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO, promotional tone. Kleuske (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the sources are unacceptable; YouTube, blogs and Facebook do not count as reliable sources. Some of the sources don't mention him and the ones that do are not reliable. Spiderone 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - lacks sufficient reliable independent sources. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom CMS

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

Ineligible for PROD due to being PROD'd and then dePROD'd in 2009.

Non-notable software. Creator clearly had a COI - they also created Axiom software inc, which was swiftly A7'd after creation. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NSOFT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable management system. No mentions at all found on GNEWS. Zazzysa (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable software based off a not notable engine, Axiom Stack. - Pmedema (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article whose author disclosed their interest on the article Talk page. My searches are not finding evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Love (band)

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

Lots of promotional fluff; one of the sources states that it's a "promotional tool." Nothing that indicates the band meets WP:NBAND. JTtheOG (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article creator Reggie.clever appears to be a WP:SPA creating a walled garden for everything to do with BHi Music Group and the artists signed to Big House Publishing, and very little of it appears to be notable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion for non notable band that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline WP:CSD#G11. Sources are just run of the mill stuff; absolutely anyone can record anything and get it released on iTunes and plugged in blogs and local routine sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantis Graves

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

Fails WP:NBOX and there's not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG (other than this interview from a few years back). JTtheOG (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly leaning towards delete as he cannot punch, is 35 years old and was outgunned in his only meaningful fight. So he even though he was a decent amateur he won't go anywhere in the pros. German.Knowitall 12:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a boxer, and no other claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corix Bioscience

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

fails WP:GNG. Major rewriter (User:EngiZe blocked for adding spam). The Banner talk 10:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG - the refs here are all terrible - press releases, churnalism based on them, and directory listings. This company is a lot like Medical Marijuana, Inc. which narrowly survived an AfD recently, and other companies in this space. A bunch of them were legally created out of real estate investment vehicles but kept many of the same investors, who see "medical marijuana" as an equivalently low risk way to Make Money Fast. In this case the move was a reverse merger in which the penny-stock real estate company acquired "IX Biotechnologies", which I can't find any independent sources on but per this press release, "was developed as a joint venture combining several strategic partners, including the Shoshone, Battle Mountain and Washoe Indian tribes, as well as combing various concepts and industry-specific knowledge in commercial hemp and cannabis research and sales. These relationships enable IXB access to tribal lands for farming commercial hemp and cannabis, and will allow IXB to sell hemp and cannabis products in retail outlets on tribal lands." So we have some ... um, advantages in terms of tax and other law, perhaps. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmand World Cookbook Awards

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. A tag has been on for 8 months and nothing has been added to help prove notability. The only independent source is the BBC one which is about a book that won an award and not the awards themselves. All the other sources are from the winners of this award so absolutely not independent. Domdeparis (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the COI's rationale for keeping the article on Talk:Gourmand World Cookbook Awards isn't convincing either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Atef El Henidy

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

Fails General Notability and Reliable Source. Non notable individual. Zazzysa (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few searches do not turn up any third-party reliable coverage of Henidy. He therefore does not satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted under WP:G4. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yosiah Johnson

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO/GNG. Already deleted once. South Nashua (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nalo

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

Fails WP:ARTIST/GNG South Nashua (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator did not mention whether or not they had completed a WP:BEFORE search. If they had done so, they would have learned that Nalo is one of the best known and widely respected contemporary artists in Papua New Guinea, a country of seven million people. His work has been exhibited internationally, he is cited as an expert on the art of New Guinea in a book published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and so on. That is why I declined the speedy nomination. I have added seven references to the article, and invite other editors to help improve it instead of trying to delete it. Papua New Guinea is a poor, isolated and marginalized country. We should not perpetuate systemic bias by deleting the biography of one of that country's best known artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I'm not an expert on this subject, and nothing makes me happier than withdrawing a nomination. South Nashua (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Cullen and nomination has been withdrawn. Thank you for improving it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fort Bragg Game. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Bragg Stadium

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

Not a notable sporting venue. The stadium was temporary, built for one game. It's the game (Fort Bragg Game) that has enduring notability, not the venue. All information on the venue is on the game's page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fort Bragg Game per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Disagree that this facility isn't notable, as Google yields many articles about the construction of the facility and the unique circumstances relating thereto. At most, a redirect should be maintained. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't disagree with a redirect either to the game or the relevant section on Fort Bragg, but I don't think the stadium (which again, no longer exists) is notable outside of the context of the game. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the stadium no longer exists is irrelevant to the notability issue, and most minor league ballparks that have a page here are non-notable outside of the context of the games played therein. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument that it's non-notable outside of the game is irrelevant. Everything is non-notable outside of the things that make them notable, and hosting major league baseball games (or even minor league baseball games) makes venues notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fort Bragg Game. This stadium was built for the one game and then promptly disassembled. The article contains no additional information that is not already found in the game article and since it had no other use there is nothing more that can be added.Spanneraol (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per above. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fort Bragg Game. I say this a bit reluctantly, because I do ascribe to the baseball notion of "hallowed ground". But the fact that this was known, in advance, to be a temporary ballpark leads me to conclude that it is simply one aspect of the game itself. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jetty Road (band)

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

Previously deleted. Some assertations of notability, but all the charts mentioned are on WP:BADCHARTS (Australian Country Tracks). The awards won do not seem to be notable either per WP:BAND. Article is also very promotional in tone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The placing of Hearts on Fire was on the main albums chart [7]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duffbeerforme. Article now has Hung Medien ref for ARIA albums charting.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with the previous comments - charting album meets WP:NMUSIC. Dan arndt (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Please nominate at RfD. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Beach

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

No apparent connection to known target(s). Homechallenge55 (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a coherent redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Legal Services

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

Non-notable local law firm. Has run-of-the-mill coverage. Inclusion in Wikipedia is promotional rather than encyclopedic.

Already speedy-deleted once, and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lawfirm that lacks extensive coverage outside of press releases and trival mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PROMO. As stated by Robert McClenon (talk), article has been speedy deleted in the past. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Bluehotel (talk)
Delete: An article on a paralegal firm, sourced to a Google page and local coverage of a couple of cases in which they were involved. I am seeing nothing to establsh notability by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClearFlow

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Reliable sources do not talk about this company in-depth and most news hits are press releases. Also, COI/paid editing issues exist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retained blood syndrome, which is related to this. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)(edited to add other AFD 05:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. per nom. The article looked like this earlier today. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable manufacturer, obvious COI issues in past edits. Famous _dog (c) 10:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Undisclosed paid editing is a blight on our project. --RexxS (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with those above. Excluded by WP:NOTSPAM Notability also not established in sourcing when read in light of the relevant guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as paid for undisclosed spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. This is the absolute embodiment of spam; nobody other than the nom has suggested a single reason to save it, or provided a single example of a legitimate article using the term. I have no objections if those claiming it's a plausible search term want to create a redirect to something that's actually neutral, or at least salvageable. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retained blood syndrome

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

Semi-procedural nomination. This was tagged for G11 deletion, which I declined. While there are obvious COI problems, legitimate scientific papers/journals/books describing the subject matter are cited in the article and are easily discoverable after doing a Google Scholar/Books search (e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). This might suggest that the topic is notable enough to have its own article (perhaps after a name change) or be merged with another article.

This page was originally nominated with the following rationale:

"This page was created as part of a medical marketing campaign for ClearFlow and its "PleuraFlow Active Clearance Technology System" invented in part at the Cleveland Clinic; same editors here as the company article, except for the obvious SOCKing creators, that is. It was even edited by the account, User:ClearFlow. This is a particularly nasty abuse of Wikipedia. Please delete it and salt it. Here is where the medical marketing campaign is described, and "raising awareness" of "retained blood syndrome" was a key piece of it. This "article" is exactly what medical marketing looks like, by the way. I mean exactly. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

burn this piece of shit to the ground with fire, and piss on it I am furious and disgusted that we are taking the time to have a deletion discussion about this piece of absolute shit. People coming here to promote companies or people is bad enough, but creating an article to market a medical condition is putrid. A perversion of everything Wikipedia stands for. Sickness and filth. If some good faith editor wants to create an actual article they can, but it is a further abuse of Wikipedia that we are even spending time debating filth. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not include the link. Here is the website of the PR company that created the marketing campaign. Part of the campaign was

to build awareness of Retained Blood Syndrome (RBS) – a newly-coined condition that results from blocked drainage catheters in cardiothoracic surgery patients."

This page in Wikipedia is part of that campaign. It is filth. Industrial waste dumped into Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that there is not a single MEDRS source in this filth. It 'does need to be completely rewritten and I am not going to devote a second of my volunteer time to further the marketing efforts of these assholes .... these people who dump industrial waste into the public good that is Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the external link to the nomination statement, which I unintentionally overlooked after adding the wikilinks. The reason I declined the G11 and opened this AFD is that while there is likely promotional intent behind the article, the subject matter (blood causing complications after surgeries/trauma) seems to have been documented in scientific literature for decades. I've also nominated the company for deletion, and I've linked to that other AFD above.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is putrid filth. I am not talking about the intent. I am talking about what it is. G11 is about the actual filth - this does need to be completely rewritten.

Here are the accounts who dumped this filth into WP. Look at their contribs. This is all they did.

Lpalmer88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
208.100.131.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.220.104.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ClearFlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i am sometimes fierce about this COI stuff. But I am really outraged by this one, as it is putatively about actual medicine, not just about a product. It is laying the ground to sell the product. Much more perverted. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete quickly before Jytdog spontaneously combusts! Man, I haven't seen him this annoyed before... Famous _dog (c) 10:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Jytdog is right to be furious. Anybody who cares about our encyclopedia will be disgusted at this naked attempt by marketeers to coin a new name for an effect and insert it into Wikipedia in support of their promotion of a product. None of the medical sources even mention any of the supposed names for this "medical condition". --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surgery#Post-operative_care. As the nominator states, this term is used in medical literature and people will plausibly search for it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The main place you'll find the term in the medical literature is pmid:26575376, whose authors include the following disclosures: "Edward M. Boyle, Jr., MD, is a founder, director and share-holder of ClearFlow, Inc. ... A. Marc Gillinov, MD, is an inventor and consultant with stock options and a royalty from ClearFlow, Inc. ... William E. Cohn, MD is ... a shareholder in ClearFlow,Inc. ... S. Jill Ley, RN, has received speaker honoraria from ClearFlow, Inc. ... The Cleveland Clinic has equity in ClearFlow, Inc., and has received royalties." Beyond a marketing campaign by ClearFlow, there is very little in the medical literature using the article's title for this syndrome. I disagree that anybody would plausibly be searching for the term. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jytdog is technically correct. There is also cause for outrage here. I also am upset that at present, Wikipedia is vulnerable to deceptive advertising. The balance of power could change if only we Wikipedia editors could become organized enough to publicly send letters to companies and organizations and demand public explanations of why they are doing these things. I respect Jytdog's intent to express themselves in a way that most accurately communicates what they wish to convey to readers. At the same time, if and when this article and deletion discussion become a case study for how corporate interests attempt to foul and exploit Wikipedia's good reputation for financial interests, then I hope that no one unduly criticizes Wikipedia's quality control processes on the basis of our tolerance of aggressive tone and language. Wikipedia is a place where all people, adults and children, bold and the reserved, outspoken and shy, should feel comfortable coming together to plot the overthrow of corporate wickedness and corruption. Jytdog - please keep a friendly space for the children who might come here who, in innocence, and without trying to WP:RGW, need a welcoming space for them to engineer the destruction of all evil empires built on the foundation of misleading to make a sale. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well said. I let my disgust get the better of me last night. I still think it is awful that the community is wasting any time on this. Each of us could be building something and instead we are each spending some time standing over the toilet, looking down into it and working the plunger to get this dreck finally flushed. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Trust Company

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

Unsourced since 2009, no sources found, not likely to be notable Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG , references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Google Books is providing coverage of this company to varying degrees. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Irving Trust#History. Not enough standalone history without hunting through the NY Times archives, but here's an interesting timeline that someone may want to pick through. [[13]] There's also an unsourced timeline Bank of New York#Timeline that contradicts the article. 1966: The Bank (of New York) acquired the Empire Trust Company. scripophily.net says Empire Trust was acquired by BNY in 1989, but the name had already changed to Irvine Trust. Some other sourcing here for the timeline [[14]] If this closes as merge and redirect, I'll take a shot at cleaning it up. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to Empire State Trust Company in the ny.gov source. Here's the text - if this is a copyvio posting it here, please feel free to delete my comment.

Empire State Trust Company

        1901 Established Empire State Bank (1901-1902)
        1902 Bank To Trust Co. Empire State Trust Company
  03/01/1904 Merge To State McVickar Realty Trust Company
  03/01/1904 Name Change To Empire Trust Company
  12/01/1966 Merge To State Bank of New York, The (9/1922-10/1989)
  10/06/1989 Merge To State Irving Trust Company
  10/06/1989 Name Change To Bank of New York, The

Empire Trust Company

        1902 Established McVickar Realty Trust Company
  03/01/1904 Acquire By Merger Empire State Trust Company
  03/01/1904 Name Change To Empire Trust Company
  02/01/1913 Acquire By Merger Guardian Trust Company of New York
  02/01/1913 Acquire By Merger Windsor Trust Company
  07/01/1924 Acquire By Merger Hudson Trust Company
  12/01/1966 Merge To State Bank of New York, The (9/1922-10/1989)
  10/06/1989 Merge To State Irving Trust Company
  10/06/1989 Name Change To Bank of New York, The

TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the NY Times archives, so I did some searching. Sadly, I only found a few very short bits about the company; they were all just notices of the form, Empire Trust Company appointed so-and-so to such-and-such executive position. I did find one longish article, the summary of which is The thirty-three-story Empire Trust Building at 580-586 Fifth Avenue, northwest corner of Fortyseventh Street, has been acquired by an investment group headed by Louis J. Glickman in a transaction which also involved the resale and leasing back of the land. Unfortunately, I can't find anything which ties the Empire Trust Building to the Empire Trust Company beyond the name similarity. I didn't do enough research to justify a real opinion here, just wanted to report my findings. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. No need for a redirect as the company is not sufficiently notable to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. No indications of meeting the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MyLifeAsHarrison

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

Promotional article about a teenager who is an actor and supposedly a prominent social media influencer. However, the links provided are mostly to social media, and those links show zero posts from his Instagram account and zero tweets from his Twitter account. Although he is listed in IMDb, his most prominent roles are said to be uncredited performances as "Student" in two Harry Potter films; I don't see anything that establishes that his entertainment career is notable. I recommend deletion, without prejudice to re-creation in the future if he later becomes clearly established as notable under the general notability guideline. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable person, no significant coverage and poor sources. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - roles to date do not meet WP:NACTOR and insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG at this time. gongshow talk 06:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the best that can be said is WP:TOOSOON. The WP:SPA who created the article has been removing the AfD template, so that bears watching. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. Links most likely serve as promotional purposes. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 14:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Genetic algorithm#Methodology. It's up to editors what, if anything, to merge from the history. Sandstein 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speciation (genetic algorithm)

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

This page has remained unreferenced and a stub since 2007. It is a real topic; however it so little referred to in the scientific literature that it is hardly worthy of its own page. A small section could easily be added too Genetic algorithm, Evolutionary algorithm, or Inheritance (genetic algorithm). Furthermore, the page hardly discusses speciation in the context. It mostly just repeats information that is discussed on numerous speciation-related pages. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 20:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to add to the list, there is also some similarity between this and Environmental niche modelling, but I'm not sure. My feeling is to merge anything useful to evolutionary algorithm (although I don't really see anything useful to merge). I'm not sure about naming conventions for redirect, but I don't think a redirect would be kept here, nor would a hat note be necessary at speciation. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the "Methodology" section of Genetic algorithm and leave a redirect behind. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable neologism. No redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a real thing, but I'm not sure how it's notable in any way; ping me if you find something. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I passed over commenting on this over a week ago, but I still haven't found anything since that qualifies the the algorithm for its own article or even a redirect/merge since then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Computational phylogenetics. There's mention of the algorithm there. At least I think they're talking about the same thing. I wouldn't be opposed to deleting this because there's not much here, and it's an unlikely search term, but WP:ATD argues for the redirect. If we do redirect it, this seems like a better target than Genetic algorithm, suggested above. Actully, the more I think about it, it's a terrible search term, but a hatnote on Speciation pointing to Computational phylogenetics might make sense.-- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per RoySmith. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Computational phylogenetics is about the computerized analysis of actual biological data, whereas genetic algorithms are about using mechanisms inspired by biology in order to solve problems (e.g., in engineering). This stub concerns the latter, rather than the former. XOR'easter (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time to discuss possible redirect targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If merged anywhere, it should be to Genetic algorithm. I still think a full delete is perfectly fine, as someone in the future that has greater expertise may re-create the article with greater quality and breadth than this one. Just my thoughts. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Interestingly, Inheritance (genetic algorithm) is the only related article that links to this one. But now that I am looking at it, Evolutionary algorithm seems like a better candidate to merge with. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to genetic algorithm. In the field of genetic algorithms, there are core concepts in the field, such as inheritance, crossover and mutation, and there are tricks of the trade to make the calculation work a little better, such as speciation, adaptive GA, and kicking the system with bouts of high mutation rate. Speciation is a real technique and all three refs are applicable, but in terms of due weight, it really only merits perhaps a single well-cited sentence in the genetic algorithm article. --Mark viking (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Patent Law

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

Per WP:NCORP and WP:ADVERT. The sources are either primary or look incredibly unreliable. Comatmebro (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails corporate notability. The sources appear to be non-independent. Not quite a speedy A7 or G11, but close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any plausible claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR. The article was changed during the AFD from covering the company to covering the magazine, so the nomination statement and the !votes no longer match the article's subject. So Why 06:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BizWest Media

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

Fails WP:GNG. The existing references are all either derived from press releases around mergers or are to enable verification of subsidiaries (but most of these fail verification). I have searched for more and better references but found none. Looking at the page history Legacypac made the case that "regional print business papers are notable", however this article cannot meet WP:NPERIODICAL because it is about a parent company rather than any particular publication. It would have to meet the criteria for WP:GROUP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking through the references, I don't see any meaningful depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in independent sources. Deli nk (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the history is pre internet so online searches are not definative. It still appears in print, and well not a big circulation daily, this page is not promotional or spam. Legacypac (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:Promo article on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. No sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH have been presented at this AfD and I don't believe they exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article may be redirected at editorial discretion. As Uanfala notes, Macedonian language#Phonology does contain content copied from this article, so in accordance with WP:CWW, its attribution needs to be preserved in some form. Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian phonology

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

The contents of this page, including bibliography are also present on the page Macedonian language and a separate article for its phonology is not required. Dyolf87 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The content of the article was merged [15] (by the nom) into Macedonian language so at the very least this should be kept (as a redirect) to preserve attribution. The topic clearly warrants an article of its own (see Category:Language phonologies), so the real question now is whether the present content is enough for such a separate article, or whether this should for the time being be treated within the main article. Either is fine, but I'd be inclined to leave it as is – a separate article encourages expansion, and the main article is getting too big anyway. – Uanfala 10:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This skates dangerously close to a bad faith nomination, as the nominator themselves merged the material into the "parent" article, immediately before filing for deletion, and then proceeded to use the fact that the "parent" article contains the same content as a rationale for deletion. If not for Uanfala's detective work I would have likely overlooked this. The other half of the nominator's rationale is that language phonology articles are not "required". While they may not be "required" per se (I'm not aware of any policy or guideline saying "you MUST create articles on language phonologies", they are certainly notable and worthy of inclusion when they do exist. CJK09 (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keepI agree with the point made by CJK09. Basicly i cant see any policy that says article should be deleted because they 'aren't required', and since this passes WP:N easily, it is an obvious keep, regardless of content being placed in main article. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to InterPlanetary File System. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol Labs

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

Company is only mentioned in passing in the sources I have been able to find. The provided sources have only a few mentions of the company in what is a longer article on the topic of the industry generally. For example, getting a comment from the CEO and then mentioning the company. The product is discussed while the company is not. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very short and does not cover anything outside what is mentioned in Forbes or TechCrunch. (I am the author.) Endercase (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to InterPlanetary File System. Insufficient significant sources for WP:GNG. One sentence does not make a good article. — Za wl 18:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawl: it is my understanding that per Wikipedia:Notability as long as there is enough "Significant coverage" such that no original research is needed in article creation to extract the content in the article; creation is valid. The article is currently marked as a stub per WP:ATD. IMO the subject is above the standards that set forth by WP:SNOWFLAKE even if the article itself could use expansion per WP:PERFECTION. The article as it stands links to the one you suggest it be redirected to and as such I don't see a need to redirect. Can you please show me exactly where in the article WP:DON'T PRESERVE applies? Thank you for your time, Endercase (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to InterPlanetary File System; not independently notable. The subject of target article may not be notable itself, but there's clearly no need for two articles on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources are passing mentions and thus don't confer notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bin Khalifa Bin Yousef Al Suwaidi

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO AFAICT. "Mohamed Bin Khalifa" get plenty of hits, nut referring to different persons. "Mohamed Bin Khalifa Bin Yousef Al Suwaidi" returns no hits outside Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG 1 2 3 4 --Meltawila (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are what's called "passing mentions". Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources presented above and in the article are either primary or passing mentions. Non-notable politician. — Za wl 18:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources present in the article are either self-citations or passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NPOL and reads like a fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear on the notability of the subject does not meet the standard. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Harrison

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept at AfD in April due to two weak keeps for NACTOR.

My concern is that if this person has truly played a significant part in a number of dramas, she'd fly past GNG by now.

I've looked hard for coverage of her in news and books and just can't see in-depth coverage of her beyond CVs and IMDB-blogs.

There are lots of mentions in cast lists, but that doesn't satisfy notability. This would do the trick except we need at least 2 examples and this is from the Daily Mirror, a tabloid newspaper, not from a reliable source.

I'd be happy for someone to post a few good sources and we can speedy close this as a keep. But without them, it looks like delete, currently. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB, procedural note, the previous closing admin Jo-Jo Eumerus, was happy for discussion to be re-opened. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant enough career with big enough roles to merit inclusion, and not difficult to verify these. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the easy verification and I'll get this closed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cluadia Harrison at British Film Institute, leading cast member of Murphy's Law, PopMatters review of major BBC series Murphy's Law which states "its greatest strength lies in its casting of James Nesbitt and Claudia Harrison.", sources confirming major role in Attachments: [16], [17] [18]. --Michig (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still see no in-depth coverage of her beyond a passing mention in a review and cast lists. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hope for additional input in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP having no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP and from doing a fairly extensive search any coverage is of minor/passing mentions in tabloid/magazines per routine coverage of the shows she has been in, rather than her herself. Notability is not inheri yadda yadda. Its likely there are other better historical print sources out there, but unless someone finds them its a delete from me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP where the only sourcing that exists is either unreliable or doesn't meet our inclusion standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of high quality sources per WP:BLP and a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. As an aside, I am bemused that this article has been around for eleven years with only an IMDb link supporting it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be disturbed by this condition. Wikipedia came to close to being a mirror of IMDb at one point. We have not really liberated ourselves yet from the unwise, free for all creation system that existed from 2005-2010. We also have too many hard core inclusionists who use the past poor inclusion guidelines to beat with a curmugeon anyone who tries to change the unwise status quo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate list, so we need show of notability, which is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with improvement but does appear to have had a significant screen career. Do I detect US-centrism against a British actor? PatGallacher (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Balita

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

A year after creation and this article still has no reliable sources, it lists his company, his personal website and his "Official" Facebook page. Nothing in the article can be proven as true. He is a self-promoter and cannot be relied upon as an accurate source. I have searched Google, Google books, Google news, and Google news archive - and nothing. Perhaps a Pinoy search would be better? Loopy30 (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and absurdly promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete we cannot build articles from the subjects facebook account.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Royal Rangers into Assembly of God youth organizations. The strongest preference in this extended discussion appears to be to merge these two entities of questionable-to-moderate individual notability into a clearly notable supertopic. bd2412 T 12:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mpact Girls Clubs

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no independent sources. No assertion of notability, mere existence is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there sort of is a sort of presumption of probably notability in the youth organization of a major church like the Assemblies of God when an old page with lousy sourcing has a lede that asserts that it has been around since the 1950s. It's sort of why we suggest running WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to have been some academic study of them under their previous name of Missionettes. But a quick browse didn't show anything you could call significant coverage. No real claim to notability so far. Matt's talk 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur that there isn't a real significant claim to notability. Looks like it was created more as an advertisement. (Callsignpink (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Royal Rangers as a reasonable alternative to deletion here. It's something people could reasonably search for, and we should send them to something they'd recognize if we can. No reason to not do so such as it being a BLP. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Updated: TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed merge of related General Council of the Assemblies of God-related youth programs sounds reasonable; I would be OK with this outcome, and support redirect/merge if other editors want to do it. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- As a youth program of a major denomination, this might merit an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably assume that they have notability similar to the brother organization Royal Rangers. I just added a search bar to the top of the page using this Club's former, long-time name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep quite a few articles in news archives search under "Missionettes". Pentecostal version of the Girl Scouts, articles are stories in local and regional dailies, detailing stuff like Latina Missionettes dedicating a new clubhouse in Tampa (House Becomes Home For Latina Girls Club, Hammett, Yvette C. Tampa Tribune25 Aug 2005 - they seem to have "scrubbed and painted" it themselves), or local club honoring girls who have completed a certain number of merit badges. Both names show up in book searches. Modest bur real notability for this youth organization over many decades.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, perhaps, Merge with Royal Rangers to make a single article on something like: Assemblies of God Youth Movements?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WP:HEY I did source the club's founding, mission to articles in major city dailies in New York and Pittsburgh. And I tagged it for PRIMARY & REIMPROVE. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be fine with a merge to Royal Rangers per E.M.Gregory. Perhaps with a bold move to a title such as Assembly of God youth organizations. Both articles aren't in great shape at all, but I suspect the topic as a whole probably is. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment editors Bri (me), TonyBallioni and E.M.Gregory are currently in support of merging the General Council of the Assemblies of God-related youth programs articles into one. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Tosaden Kōtsū Sanbashi Line. Selectively merge into the article about the tram line, then redirect there. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanbashi-dōri-yonchōme Station

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

Non-notable station on a barely notable Japanese tram network. Like most other articles on stations on the network, they fail to meet the GNGs and thus are not notable enough. This particular example consists of a single sentence, and has only seen maintenance edits over the nine years this article has existed.

The following articles on the tram network are also being included in this AFD, owing to their similar status as both short, unchanged articles and not notable enough:

~~(I'll be nominating some more stations on the network throughout the course of the next couple of hours - can somebody please merge them once done - many thanks in advance~~) GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 17:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. All the nominated stations appear to be on the Tosaden Kōtsū Sanbashi Line. That article is a list-article which lists a bunch of tram stations and has scant information on them. It does not seem appropriate/necessary for each of them to be split out to a separate article. Then there is also a navigation template which links between them, duplicating the list-article. And each has a "before-and-after stations link" box. I think each of the separate stations should be merged and redirected back to the main list-article. Reviewing them all, there is no different information in the separate articles to merge, except for the one photo in each one of them, which all can indeed be merged into the table in the list-article. (And when there are no remaining articles using the navigation template, the navigation template can be deleted too.) The decision would be "Redirect" if there was no content to merge back into the list-article, but I will say the photos count. Only one station on the line, Harimayabashi Station, is a transfer point to other lines, the Tosaden Kōtsū Ino Line and the Tosaden Kōtsū Gomen Line. This one is not included in the AFD, perhaps for that reason. My guess is that the stations on the other lines also can be redirected back to their list-articles. The Harimayabashi Station one can be redirected to any one of the list-articles, it doesn't much matter, because they each will have the same information about it, I presume.

Also, thank you User:GammaRadiator for identifying this problem of low-quality/unnecessary articles and for making this into a combo AFD (which replaced separate AFDs that had at first been created). --do ncr am 19:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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