Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 April	13 April >

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. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadi Begum

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

Mostly it is Original Research. Furthermore it does not satisfy notability by itself, so the only mention should be on the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article, and that too with RS. Thirdly it uses known hate site "irshad" (I have no idea why it has not been black listed yet). There is also a concern about some information being bogus, but I think instead of CSD an XFD is better. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom: in fact, WP:NUKE applies. It is complete WP:OR, totally WP:POV, and in fact WP:PULPIT. There are no WP:RS for this lady dying in 1966; only a more recent set of events (a presumably unrelated woman, currently held captive in Pakistan) which I assume are unrelated. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Wade

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

Per WP:NCORP. Only sources located were primary and one PR source. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD fails wp:BEFORE. Per WP:NCORP.

Added New York Times article about Garrett Wade http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/garden/where-to-find-it-tools-for-carvers-and-cabinetmakers.html
Added link to Lie Nielsen Wikipedia page, which is the original source that links to the Garrett Wade page Lie Nielsen Toolworks.
Added Lee Valley customer letter talking about their early relationship with Garrett Wade: http://www.leevalley.com/us/home/page.aspx?p=46993&cat=60655,46992.
Added product development sentence with references to tools developed in-house. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCORP. Added reference to NY Times article Helpful Hardware - Tools that Measure (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/12/garden/helpful-hardware-tools-that-measure-by-barbara-l-eisenberg-and-mary-smith.html)
Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCORP. I've added more sources to address original AFD nomination. I welcome edits to the page as I am new to this. I respectfully object to deletion as I've added sources including multiple NYT articles and Garrett Wade is iconic in the woodworking and mail order/catalog industries. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Keep - The NY Times article is a very good one for establishing notability. Others, like Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen aren't what would be considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. However, coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics, and coverage about them in a book about social media do establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the sources above from Whpq User talk:Whpq. Thanks! Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company has multiple New York Times articles covering them here, here, and here. They have coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics. They also have coverage in a book about social media.Philip Murphy (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: When I created my profile, I listed my job as "Marketing Manager at Garrett Wade. It still reflects that. I do receive a yearly salary from Garrett Wade. Per recommendation from Whpq I am explicitly disclosing COI here and will refrain from making future edits unless explicitly asked to do so by admins. Thank you for your help with rules. I thought I was in compliance. I respect Wikipedia and do not want to break the rules.Philip Murphy (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article at this point isn't at all promotional, so there's no issue with it looking like advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass NCORP L3X1 (distant write) 16:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCORP. The multiple NY times definately establish notability --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinoceros Tap

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

Previous nomination ended in deletion. Article barely contains any information and only two references. Few Google hits. The article could possibly be merged into Sandra Boynton JDDJS (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an RIAA Certified Gold album, so it meets criterion #3 at WP:NALBUMS, a factor that was not mentioned in the previous deletion discussion. It's a first album from an artist who has gone on to be major in her field - in this case, not a recording artist but a composer. Has served as the basis for Boynton books, as she adapted Tickle Time and Barnyard Dance - and apparently the book of Barnyard Dance is "among Publishers Weekly’s Bestselling Children Books of All Time." --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Here's a reference direct from Publishers Weekly of that claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (Actually, checking dates - Barnyard Dance predates the recording, so the song is based on the book. Perfect Piggies and Tickle Time!, however, are derived from the songs. My error.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why that information can't simply be merged to Sandra Boynton? The article is short enough that it won't significantly affect it's length. JDDJS (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't? Perhaps not. Shouldn't? I think so. This article should stay here to expand. I added to it the other day with things that I could fine online, but as this is a 1996 album, while that's not pre-internet, that's pre-everything-is-on-the-Internet. And while Boynton is the biggest name associated with this recording, I'm not sure that there's any other Gold record filed in its lyricist's article. (Indeed, this album may qualify vocalist Adam Bryant for an article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite arguments to the contrary from what appear to be WP:SPAs, this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangarh: The Last Episode

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM: No coverage in reliable sources and no evidence to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added fresh notability from Bollywood Hungama, an independent and reliable source. WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFILM and WP:GNG are taken care of. -Amavaskiraat (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amavaskiraat: I don't think just one source is enough to support notability and as per the source the film was released on 30th March but not received any reviews which is very uncommon for notable films. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Hi, this is not the only reference. We have Radio Mirchi, wynk and hungama also in the references which are all independent and reliable. I checked for your review concern, and found that the film was released on 30th March digitally across the platforms, thus formal reviews are yet not available. Though I agree that we need more references, I think we have enough sources for the article to LIVE with the template WP:TM. Amavaskiraat (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mirchi and wynk are not reliable to support notability and yes the article need more reliable sources which address the topic directly and in details. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG criteria for WP:Notability and cant possibly satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films) because it is an advertisement for a trailer of an upcomming film. I originally tagged the article and went to the talk page regarding issues. The more I thought about it, the more I realized there is just no notability for a trailer advertising a future film release. From the talk page: "This article is about a trailer, for a yet to be released film, and not the film itself. This means that it is promotional advertisement for a film with an unknown release date which is a future event. Other issues are the puffed up wording in the lead, "one of most haunted locations of India" that gets promoted to "the world’s most haunted location, Bhangarh". This is certainly dubious speculation, and even if there were multiple reliable sources, the wording would be subjective. Without attribution it is original research.
- notability: There are six references. 3 references are from the same "Hungama, Bollywood" source (counts as one towards notability and the last one is a dead link), radiomirchi.com is an audio review which is advertisement, YouTube (Dark Moon - Horror Channel) is about the trailer, and "Wynk Music" is about the three songs supposedly on the film, and I didn't look at reference reliability. The title of the article is Bhangarh: The Last Episode, not Bhangarh: The Last Episode trailer. Otr500 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The article was created from a neutral point of view from the sources available at that time. The pillar of WP:5P2 was justified. Out of the sources now present with the article Bollywood Hungama and Wyunk are totally reliable sources. Wynk is a platform of Airtel, which is independent and so the Bollywood Hungama. The article in reference says that the film is released digitally. I have checked all over and found full movie available on many platforms. It seems to me an independent film not with the backing of big studios, which may be the reason for only a few sources available. Also I have read several articles on wikipedia where the notability is a concern or not so many reliable sources are attached with the article. But those article exists and thus gives chance to our readers to access information related to them. Having a fewer notable sources attached should not be the criteria for deleting an article altogether. One of our five pillar is WP:5P5, this article deserves to exists with the template WP:TM. Amavaskiraat (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Amavaskiraat (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

You can't vote twice, so I struck the keep here. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not about a yet to release film. The sources says the film was released on 30th march'2017 digitally, links for full movie are available. puffed up wording needs the warning for citation, which is already there (Though an editor has added some notability for it now). As for as the number of sources are concerned WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV clearly says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage".Aniltheultimate (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Aniltheultimate: Again you can't vote more than once. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete--Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 15:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: you seems to be in a big hurry to delete the article. This is my first vote. Aniltheultimate (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aniltheultimate: I have strucked my comment and for your vote please read the above comment by Otr500 which I think is a good explanation on why this article should be deleted. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 09:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see enough reasons to completely kill the article. Vikasthefalcon (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Vikasthefalcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Vikasthefalcon: The reason is very clear as it fails to pass our notability criteria and since its your 7th edit so far please read our general notability guideline and WP:NFILM to know why I nominate this article for deletion. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Yes I have checked WP:GNG and WP:NFILM and I am totally agree with Aniltheultimate that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Also I don't understand on what basis it is being speculated in the discussion that source related to Radiomirch.com is an ADVERTISEMENT and sources related to Bollywood Hungama and Hungama.com are SAME (both are different platforms, the first one deals in entertainment and later one deals in digital music and both are operated by different editors and teams). Also why source related to Wynk.com are not considered for altogether, It is the digital music platform of Airtel and totally reliable. Thank and Regards. Vikasthefalcon (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 16:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuozzo (company)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kudo417 with the following rationale on talk: "This article is notable because they are the company behind OpenVZ, a widely used paravirtualization system. Notability for OpenVZ can be easily verified", to which I replied that WP:NOTINHERITED. Given no further discussion has taken place for weeks, I see no recourse but to progress this discussion here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The referenced text is predominantly routine coverage about ownership changes (much concerning the period as SWsoft, making it also debatable whether two articles are worthwhile if this article survives?). My own searches are not locating WP:RS coverage of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenVZ. This company is well-known in the industry as the company which originally developed OpenVZ. Since it is only really notable for that, it possibly isn't notable enough for an article in its own right, but I think a redirect would be justifiable. SJK (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, about half of current refs border on primary / fail WP:GNG. Just pulled a lengthy WP:Out of scope from SWsoft and tagged for advertising. I was initially leaning delete but a quick search of G-News sans "(company)" displays several recent refs here and here as well as Silicon, CW and Geekwire. Also caught links in Russian and Chinese amongst routine spammy pr. Needs to differentiate between product v. company as this causes convoluted confusion & cut down advertisement throughout.Jppcap (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through the references you listed. With one exception (Computer Weekly), the rest are WP:PRIMARY sources as they rely on company-generated information/data with no additional analysis. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. To evaluate sources provided by Jppcap.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 05:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable private company, with copy such as "... a pioneer in the operating system-level virtualization field ...". Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pinged back and did a broader search rn and this looks like a case of WP:NEXIST. Alas, a number of primary refs / some overt advert cut out. Above refs added to a temp "External links" header to work through & Russian/Chinese added. Needs more eyes on the current text, as plenty of advert still to revise.Jppcap (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Find sources:books; scholar; HighBeam negates Not Inherited. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why above links are included.. Click-through and found:

Keep There are adequate sources that meet guidelines and establish notability. For example, the book references by Burroughs'10 and the Computer Weekly article mentioned by Jppcap -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per WP:G12. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Thunder

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

Autobiography of an up-and-coming rapper, written by the subject. We don't have articles on up-and-coming musicians, they must have already arrived according to WP:MUSICBIO. The sources provided don't have significant coverage; the interview counts as a primary source. I can't verify reference 2 because I get a malware warning on that site. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christobelle Grierson-Ryrie

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

Still is not notable (limited sources) after a few years... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 5 April 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, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Annie Malone. Sandstein 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poro College

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

This article needs more references to establish the notability of Poro College. The two links under "References" lead to a single source, which by itself is not sufficient to establish notability under the guideline "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The founder of Poro College, Annie Malone, is certainly notable, and simple searches turn up many references to her cosmetology school and business empire as a landmark institution, especially within the African-American community. [1][2][3][4] So deletion is not appropriate. The current article, however, contains little content beyond Malone's story, and the sources I've found suggest that Poro's story seems to be contained within hers (the government apparently seized most of Poro's assets for back taxes in 1951; Malone died, in much reduced circumstances, in 1957). So I'm not sure if there is enough separate content to warrant a separate article for Poro, rather than a redirect to Malone's article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the founder seems appropriate here. Not notable in the article directly due to the present lack of sources, but could be WP:SPLIT from the founder should more sources be found. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varien

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

Fails notability criteria for musicians. - TheMagnificentist 05:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria 5, "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". - MicroPowerpoint —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micro, but he hasn't released two or more albums on Monstercat or any other labels. The ones listed in the discography section are extended plays which are shorter recordings than an album. - TheMagnificentist 06:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificentist, Fair enough. I see 'My Prayers Have Become Ghosts' as an album, not an EP because of the length (which is over 25 minutes) and that it has 7 songs, which usually determines it as an album, not an EP. Then there is The Ancient & Arcane which is labeled as an album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroPowerpoint (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Diaz, Jordan (2015-08-10). "Variens debut album The Ancient Arcane is a cinematic masterpiece". Dancing Astronaut. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  Amidst the monotony of endless “superstar” DJ press releases it’s rare to find the raw authenticity of musicianship, but when those select few unrivaled talents pop up like diamonds in the rough, true music fans immediately take notice. Varien is one of those artists. The 25-year-old composer, producer and musician, real name Nick Pittsinger, transcends electronic music with not only his cornucopia of musical styles but his TV and film production and scoring credits on Furious 7, 300: Rise of an Empire, The Purge: Anarchy, The Real World and The Walking Dead. After the Tampa native’s collaborations with mega-talents like Skrillex, Two Steps from Hell and Celldweller, he’s now unveiling his experimental 8-track album debut The Ancient & Arcane via Monstercat, primed to offer listeners an existential experience. “The Ancient & Arcane is really a free flowing amalgamation of influences and inspirations for me that I’ve held true for a long time,” states Pittsinger. “A lot of people will think this is a ‘reinvention of Varien’ when in reality, the genre-less nature of this album in whole is really what I’m all about.” Incorporating elements of Latin jazz, electro swing and Japanese future bass, among others, Varien emblazons his sonic finesse for his premiere full-length body of work.
2. Endykiewicz, Paige (2015-08-06). "THE ANCIENT & ARCANE LP BY VARIEN FINALLY EMERGES [MONSTERCAT]". Your EDM. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  After months of anticipation, the moment of truth and unveiling has come for Varien’s debut album, The Ancient & Arcane. The eight track LP features a wide array of sounds and genres that we could only expect Varien to create, including electroswing, Japan-influenced future bass, and much more. This extremely experimental album is an empowering and enchanting experience in its transformation of sonic soundscapes. The Ancient & Arcane is not only an audio-visual experience, such as the recently released ‘Supercell’ music video, but this is a true out of this world endeavor and feeling for all who listen.
3. Laderman, David; Westrup, Laurel (2014). Sampling Media. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 110. ISBN 0199949336. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The book notes:
  One year earlier, Nick Pittsinger, an American teenager armed with free digital audio editing software an an Internet connection, produced an extremely time-stretched version of pop musician Justin Bieber's hit "U Smile." Pittsinger uploaded the version to Soundcloud, a popular social network and music-sharing platform. His remix was redistributed through news aggregation websites and spawned similar sampled mixes of extreme durational subversion that appropriated other pop idols like Rebecca Black and Beyoncé. In 2010, this dislocated world-wide microscene, composed of often anonymous users including artists as diverse as Lopatin and Pittsinger, assumed an interesting position within the discourse of Internet commentary; the formulaic and marketable products of entertainment industries stretched into works of amateur labor and free digital culture. Pittsinger explained flatly: "When you slow down a video by 800 or 1,000 percent, every detail is seen—you see exactly how stuff breaks or people sneeze." ...
4. Matos, Michaelangelo (2010-09-30). "How Justin Bieber gave SoundCloud a boost". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  A month ago, two big pop-music events occurred online. One was Cee-Lo Green's Fuck You, an instant internet smash that vaulted to more than 2m plays via a quickie, follow-the-bouncing-lyrics YouTube clip (since supplanted by a live-action video). The other belonged to 20-year-old Nick Pittsinger, working under the name Shamantis, who slowed down Justin Bieber's U Smile till it sounded like a whale dirge and/or something from the 4AD label, then posted it to SoundCloud; it too has been played more than 2m times. Both are novelties that actually stand up, but the big difference is that most of the people who checked out the YouTube phenomenon knew about that site already. The slowed-down Bieber track, though, was likely the first encounter with SoundCloud for many of Pittsinger's listeners.
5. Yenigun, Sami (2010-08-18). "How It Works: The Art Of Time-Stretching Bieber". NPR. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  Yesterday, a DJ named Nick Pittsinger (a.k.a. Shamantis) posted a track titled, "U Smile 800 Percent Slower" which is a manipulated version of the Justin Bieber song "U Smile," slowed down from its original 3:17 running time so that it lasts for over 35 minutes. When I heard it, I immediately began playing with the audio to see how he'd made the new version. I ran the recording through Ableton, an audio processing software, sped it up to the original tempo, and found that though it is surely Beiber's song, the audio had been processed before it had been stretched.
  Pittsinger says he used a program called PaulStretch to slow the track down.
  ...
6. Richards, Chris (2011-12-30). "A 44-minute disc that takes 4 months to play? It's time stretching". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  The most famous example went viral in 2010, when a Florida DJ, Nick Pittsinger, used a new software program called PaulStretch to transform Justin Bieber’s bubble-gum hit “U Smile” into a dreamy, unrecognizable, 30-plus-minute whooooooosh — the kind of music you might hear when you’re flopped out on a massage table.
7. Aaron, Charles (2010-09-09). "SPIN's 20 Best Songs of Summer". Spin. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
  The article notes:
  J Biebz, U Smile 800% Slower
  When Tampa, Floridas Shamantis, a.k.a. Nick Pittsinger, used the audio application PaulStretch to decelerate Justin Biebers peppy trifle U Smile into a 30-plus-minute ocean of theosophy, he couldnt have known that he was revealing why pop music conceals the mysteries that unlock the universe and why we need to immediately put the brakes on the entire enterprise-literally-before we diddle ourselves into oblivion.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Varien to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 coverage of the group has not been sufficient to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Thundr (Faith Baptist Church)

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

Alleged to be a db-corp article, but there is history here and the article has some references (albeit iffy in quality). Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Other than a couple of news stories and the 5 year old SPLC listing, there is nothing notable about this defunct organization. – S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, NTEMP, etc., although it certainly could use updating. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article cites eight secondary sources. Additional available sources include one book, two magazine articles, and several newspaper articles. The article has been viewed by about nine readers per day for the last year.- Mr X 12:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are 11 reference links provided: 1 is dead, 4 are SoT, 1 is SPLC, 1 is UPI, 3 are local news articles, 1 is gay advocacy which appears to rely on the SPLC. Total: 6 secondary sources. – S. Rich (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Not a run-of-the-mill church. St Anselm (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Delete. The more I look at it, the more I see a WP:COATRACK article here. The "Sons of Thundr" are not a church, but an organization based at a church. It was the organisation that was listed by SPLC (though that in itself doesn't make it notable). So we have a church, a pastor, and an organisation - all of whose notability is borderline. I don't think we can put them all together and say that they add up to being notable. St Anselm (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It appears to be a NN local church, which has become the subject of an ATTACK ARTICLE. If kept, it should be renamed Faith Baptist Church, Primrose. I do not believe the spelling currently used in the name, which is properly a reference to two of Jesus' apostles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient media coverage to warrant an entire article. Even the founder isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. This entire article could be a one sentence line in another article, maybe in Christian fundamentalism#In North America. "The Faith Baptist Church of Georgia is an example of a fundamentalist organization that espouses hate speech."Timtempleton (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Pulvirenti

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

Does not appear to be notable with significant coverage in independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think she's most notable for presenting something several years ago, but i can't find much else. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely routine coverage that doesn't meet notability requirements for bios. As written, the article reads much like WP:NOTPROMO with a lot of padding. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Tofu

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a notable magazine related to their field. Multiple sources from decent sources. Several awards. Cold Tofu has plenty of search results.[5] They give back to the community (Won this award: "Excellence in Community Service Award" - Asian Professional Exchange (APEX) (2014)Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG L3X1 (distant write) 21:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Belize Museum and Cucumber Beach

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

fails WP:GNG. applying WP:BEFORE a thorough search for sources found no significant coverage. Those arguing for keep must demonstrate existence of significant coverage LibStar (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can be developed in some form, perhaps with development of coverage at a corresponding list-article then merger/redirect for a while. I removed PROD at article and tried to open discussion at Talk:Old Belize Museum and Cucumber Beach#notability and development, but the deletion nominator opens this AFD instead. This AFD and some others like it rub me the wrong way, it feels like AFD being used for coercion, and I am not really happy about trying to actually find usable sources and develop. I guess wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP doesn't describe the issue; the goal is just to tear down, while coercing unfortunate other editors to go along? Seems like there is no shared value of developing Wikipedia coverage of notable topics anyhow. --do ncr am 05:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a clean up. it is not notable for lack of coverage and fails WP:GNG. I am not really happy about trying to actually find usable sources . the onus is on keep voters to find sources. this is how AfD works. if you're not happy with that...then please read WP:AFD carefully. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the only source you've actually found is the lonely planet guide . If that's the best you can found than the case for notability is very weak. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. Strange and confusing title. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I could find through a variety of gSearches were the website of the facility and one Lonely Planet website review in passing. These do not quality as reliable sources. Therefore, the article fails general notability guidelines. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG L3X1 (distant write) 21:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) L3X1 (distant write) 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden International Improv Festival

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

Non notable "festival" is onyl 2 years old, 2 mentions in English press. L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but endeavor to expand and provide enough notable sources. Knox490 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources don't have to be in English, but have added an Australian source and an Uppsala source too. Appears notable. PamD 15:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the references in the article and in Google News archive, there are sufficient third party sources for notability. gidonb (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NomCom If no good delete votes are produced (Fatty wawa's looks to me like a me-too vote) in 48 hours, I'll withdraw and NAC as snowkeep. L3X1 (distant write) 23:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital de San Carlos

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

fails WP:ORG. no evidence of significant coverage LibStar (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD fails wp:BEFORE. Numerous hits in La Prensa Libre Costa Rica, in Diario de Cádiz, in other newspapers. Also, in general hospitals are going to be notable. To the nominator, please try to refrain from commenting on my opinion, merely to say you disagree with my opinion. --do ncr am 00:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage is routine of what you'd expect in a hospital. There is no inherent notability in hospitals. Again WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Hospitals are major institutions in communities. I will try to add some content to the article this week. Knox490 (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added material to the article. Knox490 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of hospitals. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ~~Neutral, but WP:AGF so Weak Keep~~Delete - however, keeping the general (WP:GNG) and specific (WP:NHOSPITALS) guidelines in mind, the article should not exist solely because the hospital exists - if there is press coverage (beyond routine "the victims were transported to ...") then it should be kept, otherwise it's not necessary to waste the time of Wikipedia editors on improving an article that can't be improved. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC) opinion changed based on new info, 11:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this source, a whole chapter, and an entire book about this hospital. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources appear to be about a now closed hospital with the same name that is notable. It shouldn't be too hard to replace the end of the article's only sentence. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from somebody who understands Spanish (to some extant) - the above source, on page 514, talking about a psychiatrist who worked there, says that it is "[el] viejo Hospital de San Carlos", that is, the OLD Hospital of San Carlos, which confirms what SL93 says. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Looking at the table of contents, I conclude the same thing (sorry for the repeated edits). 02:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Thanks for the help. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, assuming that they are related, like the "new" hospital is the successor of the "old" one, this article should be about both. It is routine to cover the organization and the older and current buildings of the organization, for organizations like churches and schools and hospitals, in one article at the common name (or the most recent name). --do ncr am 03:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. For all we know it could be a small medical practice. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems clear that the old hospital has had significant coverage and the new hospital is a continuation of the old. I don't see why we shouldn't have an article about the old one (clearly it passes GNG), and it seems verifiable that the new is a continuation of the old. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as explained below the coverage found refers to a different hospital. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you are right that the coverage refers to a different hospital, but not the one discussed below. There is a hospital in Quesada, Alajueda, Costa Rica with this name. There is also a hospital in Ñiquén, Chile, es:Hospital de San Carlos (Chile), with the history added by Knox490. A few more hospitals with similar names can be found at es:Hospital de San Carlos. I don't see why both of these hospitals wouldn't be notable - google news search of the hospital name and (either) city give lots of routine coverage and likely could give something deeper. I'd be happy to restore my !vote if this were cleaned up, but I am striking for now. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per Smmmurphy. L3X1 (distant write) 21:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a genuine argument as per WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned page says, if the endorsed comment has a solid grounding in policy, then yes it's okay to simply endorse it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What WBGodric has to say about PERNOM. L3X1 (distant write) 04:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: since Smmurphy has changed his/her vote, you would no longer support keep too. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!vote struck. L3X1 (distant write) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 16:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete what the hell is wrong with people? This page is about a hospital in Costa Rica. this source and this source and this source cited above (the last two of which are volume 1 and volume 2 by the same author, not a chapter and a book) are about a hospital with this name in Spain. The title of the first ref is "Constructing Spain: The Re-imagination of Space and Place in Fiction and Film, 1953-2003", for pete's sake so you cannot even claim the Spanish language problem. It is really despicable for people to just grab some ref that mentions the word X and claim a Wikipedia page about some specific X is notable. This page is another uncited Dr Blofeld special and fails GNG by miles. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - never bothered to look for that, I just assumed good faith. Though, here, the mentioned source does mention (with dates corresponding to the Spanish Civil War) a civil war, so that's it - changed my vote to delete, thus. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, bit confusing, but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of the subject of this article to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mai Jindo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

While tragic, this particular individual doesn't meet WP:GNG, a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has multiple sources from major news outlets. For example: These news outlets: Pakistan Today, The Nation and The Express Tribune. Amnesty International reported on this matter. Excellent story element in terms of article. Justice was fought for hard and very dramatically. Article indicates: "Hakimzadi and Zaibunissa, had to set themselves on fire in order to get authorities to take up their brothers cases", Knox490 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all of which deal with a single issue, hence WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the press coverage is on the incident, not on the subject. The incident doesn't makes the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. Mai Jindo clearly fails to meet basic notability guidelines. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knox490. Mar4d (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and still does not address the WP:BIO1E issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WWE Superstar Shake-up

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

Non-notable event. Predominately relies on primary sources. There does not appear to be a breath of coverage as justified at: Wikipedia:Notability (events) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every other "draft" the company has had has an article. What makes this different? More sources will come. Give it a little time to build up before jumping on the delete button. --JDC808 ♫ 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that. Doesn't change my point. You're jumping on this way too early. --JDC808 ♫ 01:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Come on now. Lets not get silly. This is a significant event in the world of pro wrestling and definitely shouldn't gey deleted. --ZSJUSA 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for 120 days and then reevaluate. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I see, you also nominated to delete the article about WWE Draft 2016. Every draft has own article, especially 2008-2010 as featured articles. It's a notable event, changes storylines played on TV and others. --Wybielacz (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over that keep/delete discussion, almost all the points to keep for that article can be applied here. --JDC808 ♫ 02:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's last year all over again. It has significant coverage (The AV Club, FOX Sports, CBS Sports, Daily Mirror etc.). Failure to perform WP:BEFORE. Nickag989^talk 07:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral note Please note AfD rationales are keep, delete, redirect and merge, not oppose/unoppose; please keep this in mind and change your rationales for proper tracking by admins and bots. Nate • (chatter) 09:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major promotion [WWE] that's having a draft, which makes it significantly notable. Optimistic Wikipedian (User_talk:Optimistic Wikipedian) 13:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just like every other year's draft article. Nomination is a waste of time just like last year's deletion nomination. Great Dessert (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WWE Draft and the WWE Superstar shake-up play a very relevant role in the WWE. It's a tradition of the WWE since the start of the brand extension. Also, as with the other WWE draft articles, it must not be deleted as there might be additional sources (Pro Wrestling Torch, Bleacher Report, Cageside Seats, WhatCulture Wrestling, etc.). Hansen Sebastian 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The latter three sources are not reliable per WP:PW/RS, but your statement is solid. Nickag989^talk 16:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable source coverage --w^L^{<speak·check>} 03:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I do agree that it was a significant event in WWE History. But I would recommend adding this page as a subpage in WWE draft- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWE_draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbirCB (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that means that we should do the same thing with 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 (featured article), 2009 (featured article), 2010 (featured article), 2011, and 2016, right? Well, that's just redundant. Nickag989^talk 18:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you did the same thing with last year's draft and it was agreed to be kept so why try it again with this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwefan5x (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources are deemed unreliable/promotional; that LinkedIn suggests something is OR and not an argument--and yes, promotional material can be removed, but without sourcing there is no topic, no GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Machinio

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

Non notable company. Killer Moff (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of citations from major news business sources. Google and Google news shows quite a bit of search results. In addition, their LinkedIn profile says they are hiring so they are a growing company. They are expanding globally and hiring in several countries. Inc. Magazine says they are disrupting some markets.[6] Knox490 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo material on an unremarkable business. Copy include such trivia as "After graduating from the Entrepreneurs Roundtable Accelerator,[5] Machinio raised $1,000,000 in seed capital from Angel investors like Rony Kahan...." This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- promotional content can be removed. Awsber (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC) — Awsber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -- I see that AfC draft has been declined, but moved into the main space anyway: User_talk:Awsber. This is quite possibly an undisclosed WP:COI situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 05:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete *None* of the references meet the criteria to establish notability. The usual run-of-the-maill advertorials. Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yukti Kapoor

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

Comment:This article does not meet wikipedia's notability guideline and contain information without any citation that's why I am nominating the article for deletion.ABCDE22 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs to be expanded. Better to be expanded than deleted. She is a popular Indian actress. Lots of Google results for her name (and the word actress).[7] She was also cited by International Business Times in the Wikipedia article. In several movies and television shows.Knox490 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Looks like her career could take off as of March 2017, based upon her new TV role. If notability is lacking during and after this production then Delete. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ABCDE22 Can you please elaborate on which policies you think she flunks? L3X1 (distant write) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) f e minist 05:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of AR platform calibers

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

The list does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. It is virtually unsourced. It amounts to original research. It has been tagged for many months without any improvements. Felsic2 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources;" articles surveying alternative calibers for the AR-15 platform are a mainstay of gun mags, e.g.:

http://www.gunsandammo.com/tactical/best-ar-15-cartridges-right-now/

http://www.outdoorhub.com/how-to/2017/03/20/ar-15-deer-hunting-cartridges-magnificent-7/

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/12/15/variant-chamberings-ar-platform/

http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/beyond-223-alternative-cartridges-ar-platform-roundup/

The article's poor formatting and lack of citations are not valid reasons to delete it; WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." TiC ^(talk) 13:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD above Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Carr (activist)

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

Improperly sourced WP:BLP of a writer and activist. There's definitely a valid potential claim of notability here, but there's not enough substance or enough reliable sourcing to get the shot into the net -- as written, this only just barely goes any further than "Robert Carr is a person who exists", and both of its references are to content written by him rather than about him. As always, a writer gets over our inclusion standards by being the subject of media content written by other people, not by being the bylined author of media content about other things. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find better sources than I've been able to, but nothing here is good enough as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an article on the Human Rights Campaign website about Carr's death, Human Rights and HIV Activist Robert Carr Mourned, as well as an article at The Jamaica Observer (here) but the latter ties in with the former. I also found an article about an award in his name. It seems to be a lot easier to find articles about his foundation that the man. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's also important to recognize that widely regarded activists like Dr. Carr (as seen by his remembrances), who are coming from developing countries like Trinidad and Jamaica where there is little to no social, political, legal, etc. mobilization/support/dialogue on HIV/AIDS and gender identity issues, are not going to have the same size editorial trail as their American and European counterparts. He is in a unique position because he appears to be a pioneer, of sorts, for the Caribbean region, in a relatively recent global movement that is still ongoing. I think the fact that he is cited by the publications and organizations that he is, easily satisfies the notability requirement. I've found the following secondary sources pertaining to Dr. Carr (a few of which have already been mentioned):

°Hon. Barbara Lee in United States House of Representatives (here) °The Atlantic (here) °The Robert Carr Doctrine (here) °amfAR (here) °UNAIDS (here) °[World] (here) °The Global Forum on MSM & HIV (here) °LA Times (here) °ICASO (here) °Human Rights Watch (here) °Pan American Health Organization (here) °UNAIDS Caribbean (here) °The Jamaica Observer (here) °Metropolitan Community Churches (here) °Stabroek News - (here) Channyloulou (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou (talk)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete GS cites of 106, 36, 38, 37, 30, 64, 5, 5, 12 a bit slender for WP:Prof#C1. Above claim that that allegedly under represented communities should be subjected to lower standards of notability has been dismissed WP:Notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I don't think it should be held to lower standards, thus my citations and ongoing additions to the page that continue to satisfy notability. I mentioned it because I think it's an important perspective to consider. Channyloulou (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

The core issue is that because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we are unable to guarantee that every possible "anybody" is always editing with good intentions. Our articles are quite regularly dirtwashed with poorly sourced criticisms or POV epithets or insider gossip about their personal lives, or even have outright false information added — and reliable source coverage is the only defense we have against any of those things. So as unfortunate as it is that some groups of people may not have gotten the depth of coverage they deserved, we can't waive our sourcing requirements just because an article subject happens to be part of an underrepresented group — because many of those same underrepresented groups are also the most vulnerable to attack editing (e.g. attempts to "reveal" the unpublicized former name of a transgender person, attempts by homophobes to smear notable people who are gay or lesbian, etc.) A Wikipedia article is a double-edged sword which can have negative consequences for the subject, so our includability standards have to keep an eye on protecting people from that harm — namely by not keeping an article at all if they're not the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I think he has shown a bit of notability and more time should be given for editors to expand the article. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fww. The article has something about that seems off, beside the style, but I can't nail it down. Author is SPA, perhaps a sock of PROMO hub? L3X1 (distant write) 21:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions I think the time to close this discussion and remove the deletion banner at the top of the page has come.Channyloulou (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

That can only be done by an administrator who has not already participated in the discussion, no earlier than seven full days after the last relist. There's nothing I or you can do to make it happen any faster than that. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. I've searched, but I can't find much, pretty much just the mentions of him that already source the article. Most troubling is the lack is an obit in a major newspaper, a notable would have had one. And in the four years since the death of a truly notable activist, there would have been mentions of him if he had been notable. Moreover, while he wrote chapters in several non-notable ebooks, he wrote only a single book (2003) and I cannot find that it was reviewed. My JSTOR search on one title "Black Nationalism in the New World" + Carr came up empty. as did a gNews search. Not a single academic or popular review. This is not notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a review of one of Dr. Carr's works on JSTOR (here). It took me 5 seconds. I hope that all of these comments claiming lack of notability aren't just automatically accepted as true, but thoroughly verified before being considered as legitimate input with respect to whether this page should or should not remain up.Channyloulou (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

Note that my comment was about the sole book that he seems to have written. The review you cite is of an edited work containing chapters by many authors. Carr is the third of tree editors, not the author. The review does contain a favorable comment about the chapter in the book that he wrote. The journal in which the review is published, Social and Economic Studies published by the University of the West Indies, however, is not a leading scholarly journal, but even if it were, a single review of a collection of scholarly essays of which one is third editor adds very little to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, all academics publish, mostly they publish non-notable articles in non-notable journals and non-notable books. For a scholar to claim notability as a scholar, the published work has to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out above, efforts in the third world are not going to get as much media coverage, but I'm basing my vote more on his published scholarly output, and that there's an award established to keep his legacy alive. Timtempleton (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on publication history and for the other reasons mentioned above. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (or Draft) as nom indicated, this article has potential, just not in it's current state and I see that in order to quickly add more content to sustain it, we may've skimmed over copyright violations as well - full report available here. Needs massive copyedit too as it mostly has copy-pasted content in quotes; although the original sources do not present as such. TopCipher (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (Brand New song)

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

Non-notable outside of the album. Notability is not inherited. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are articles which have been at Wikipedia for a long time which are less notable. This is notable: "In the US, the single reached number 30 on the Billboard Hot Modern Rock Tracks chart." And so are these factoids: Song performed on Letterman and Conan O'Brien shows. Also, performed on television show Friday Night Lights.Article could use better footnoting. Knox490 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song was #30 on Billboard in 2007 (I added a source) which meets WP:NALBUM #2 Tobyc75 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this song has charted that does not by itself establish notability. I've found no detailed independent RS coverage of this song independent of the album. Fails WP:NSONG. Gab4gab (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This song fails Wikipedia's notability guideline. As User:Gab4gab suggested above, the piece does not have any detailed independent coverage. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New 94.3 FM Kentville, Nova Scotia

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

A yet-to-launch radio station which does not even have a proposed callsign and launch date yet. Per WP:NRADIO, such stations generally are not considered notable yet. While I did find a few local hits about the proposed station, they do not appear to be enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Although the station is going to be launched by a reputable broadcaster, Newcap Radio, IMO it is not notable yet. Patience. Regards, Aloha27 talk 02:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but super open to reevaluating once they launch and have a chance to show notability. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No calls, no license, no article. Also, Newcap was told a year ago by the CRTC that the market can't support this new station and I doubt that's changed, so it's not coming in the near future anyways. Nate • (chatter) 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The station never went to air — because, as previously noted, the CRTC rejected the application because it doesn't think the market can support a new station. (Indeed, it appears the CRTC will not seriously consider any future applications for new stations in Kentville before 2018.) There is, of course, no presumed notability for unlaunched stations (and when a station does launch, we do need sources to verify operation — but that's not happening for this station, since it wasn't even approved); it seems unlikely that this and other unlaunched stations can ever meet the general notability guideline, even with any local coverage the station managed to receive when it was applied for. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if this was a good faith error by a user who saw the application but missed the denial or a deliberate attempt to hoaxify an application the creator already knew was failed, but the above comments are indeed correct: Newcap did submit an application to launch the station described here, but part of the CRTC's licensing process is to do an economic evaluation of whether the market can support a new station before it even gives the application a hearing — and as correctly noted above, they did reject this application on the grounds that Kentville was not able to support a new station at this time. While certainly it's possible that Newcap may try again in the future, (a) that won't be for at least another year, (b) Kentville isn't really growing fast enough that the CRTC findings in the market capacity phase of the process would be likely to be different in 2018 than then were in 2016, and (c) even if they do decide to proceed with hearings next time, a radio station doesn't get an article on here until it's actually on the air — merely having an application in the approval pipeline, or even approved but not yet launched, is not in and of itself enough. (Also, just for the record, I've listed the creator for an SPI check because this puts me just a little bit too much in mind of another editor with a problematic edit history pertaining to radio stations in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.) Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cook's Bookcase

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

Lacks substantial support. References are no more than a single line mention and some do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) 17:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As the nom says this has very poor sourcing (including a two sentence mention in a major publication which seems to have been duplicated verbatim, which I think might be a copyright violation). There's some more significant coverage on questionable sites, e.g. personal blogs and regional interest websites so I'm not dismissing it out of hand but this wiki-article author is clearly reaching to demonstrate notability. I'm suggesting a weak keep more for the effort that's been put in to TRY to cite this subject than the effectiveness of that effort. Notability calls for 2 non-trivial secondary sources. This appears to have 0.5 trivial secondary, 0.75 non-trivial minor secondary and about 3 x 0.25 trivial questionable sources. That math theoretically adds up to a solid 2 but obviously it's shaky math. If this article is deleted that will be understandable, but I suggest the article author be encouraged to add at least one better citation before that point. -Markeer 19:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regional interest website and personal blogs fail the criteria for references to establish notability. A reference is either good .... or its not. There's no such thing as a fraction of a good reference. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to find a few better sources and to reword any areas that may have breached copyrights (as that was unintentional). -Bumsnuggler 4 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. The references provided are regional interest and not national. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam sourcing does not quantify Independence of sources, and regional-interest-only is another issue. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Winters v. United States. Sandstein 05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous rights to land along rivers

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

Personal essay/term paper-like content/content forking from places where relevant text should go, namely indigenous land rights or aboriginal title. As one might expect from an essay, it is a synthesis of other sources to make a point (i.e., original research).

As an alternative to outright deletion, I initially suggested a redirect to another page. This has been reverted without comment or discussion by the editor, who is a student creating this as part of a very sloppily organized class project. There is nothing worthwhile to merge (the article is compromised almost entirely of unsourced statements, statements cited only to Wikipedia itself, or statements not supported by the cited source) so deletion is appropriate here. Neutrality^talk 01:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some content, but not necessarily article (needs rewrite) If article is not kept, copy and paste some material to another article with some rewrite. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Riparian rights is a well established area of law, and I have no doubt it is complicated by the complex relationships of the U.S. government to Native American tribal law (see Indian_Country_Jurisdiction). This article is typical of our legal articles, which often have NO or few sources (but may include well written portions by an expert in the field): e.g. Licensee,Condominium, Bundle of rights, Petit jury, Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage law#Equitable_mortgage, Concurrent estate, Accord and satisfaction,consideration, Pacta sunt servanda. Unfortunately, there are not enough editors with expertise in law interested in addressing the problems of proper referencing. Deleting all of our legal articles that have this problem is probably not the best solution. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is proposing "deleting all of our legal articles." This article is basically a rambling essay that discusses matters that have nothing to do with water rights. And in any case the articles that discusses tribal reserved water rights is Winters rights. Neutrality^talk 03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Sorry. I should have read the initial post more carefully. I didn't realize you were the one who posted this. I mistakenly thought this was like the post trying to delete Enterprise law by an editor who knew nothing about that area of law and did not know about the shabby state of our legal articles--I know you do. Wrong audience. Yeah, I can go along with what you are saying, if the subject is properly handled in Winters rights. I will change my vote accordingly. You are right, it does look like an essay. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy essay. Redirect page to Winters rights. Merge anything that can be easily be saved. Changed vote per above discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TNT and redirect to Winters rights Statements like "His administration does not respect environmental justice or indigenous rights." and "The history of displacement of Native Americans is one of the biggest genocide histories" and citing to Wikipedia Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFTOPIC - has nothing to do with whether this article should exist under WP's policies and guidelines

Please do not delete or redirect this page: Hello all, This project is being done for a grade in a semester course and to have all of that suddenly disappear is very disconcerting. I hope you understand we are students and if we had to redo the work we have done it would be extremely time consuming and we would suffer from that. The content of the page is a discussion of the land and water rights to set a stage to discuss our Environmental Justice case studies/subsections on Shasta, North Dakota, Colorado and the Klamath. We can link this page to the land rights page as well as the other relevant wiki pages that were already linked. Additionally, we have not finalized the project yet and will continue to edit the content for neutrality and overall cohesiveness. If it is still concerning and you think the page still needs to be redirected please let us know so that we can make sure the content is not lost.Drgood13 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Drgood13[reply]

@Drgood13: What's your deadline and when will the final assessment of your work be made? I suggest you *request* that it be userfied. You can also copy all the Wiki-code to a user page that is a subpage of your talk page. If you want to know how to do that, please ask--very easy. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Drgood13, I think you've been shortchanged by your instructor and your university. You should protest your shabby treatment. St Anselm (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: On what basis do you make the claim that the instructor or the university has done anything wrong? Remember to WP:AGF. There are any number of reasons for problems. One problem could be experienced Wikipedian editors who are not encouraging and helping students, but instead biting them for trying to learn how to edit here. Perhaps, the instructor might not have warned students that Wikipedia can be a snake pit of incivility. Is that really the instructor or University's fault?

That said, I do wonder if students are reading the guide provided in these courses. Careful attention to that guide might have avoided the problems that have led to some of these WP:AfD. If the students are not reading and following the guide, is that entirely the instructor or University's fault? Perhaps we could provide more guidance to these students and not be so judgmental of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis, for example, of the POV course description (whose blatant BLP violations have now been removed). UCB can teach whatever they want, of course, but the instructor should have realised that his approach was at odds with Wikipedia's. Grading a student on the basis of an assignment that has a high possibility of getting deleted is also poor educational practice. St Anselm (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I doubt the instructor would have anticipated the articles would end up here and that the hard work of the students would be treated with such disdain. It seems to me the problem comes from our end of making Wikipedia sound more welcoming than it actually is. Please look over the guide and show me the warnings in it that this would happen when you write on a controversial subjects or the problems with WP:BLP. I did not see them. It's written for scientists dealing with non-controversial subjects. I have looked over some of these courses and I don't see how the instructor did anything substantially different from the other courses, except that the topic of study is political. I would be curious to hear from the instructor, EJustice on whether my assessment of the issues is accurate. I would be happy to take this discussion to a more appropriate place--not sure where that would be, possibly the course talk page? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim:Hi...I will keep my thoughts here fairly short and incomplete as my students and course have been further targeted as a result of the times (one time actually) I have commented on the broader nature of what's going on here. I hope this comment does not ignite any further fury on the part of their critics. I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility. I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world. (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.) And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements.

I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Wikipedia. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Wikipedia? The students' intention is to neutrally discuss this topic, and they're getting a lot of learning out of this for sure. Environmental justice is an increasingly broad and deep field of study and yes, politics. And almost all environmental issues have social and economic (and therefore justice) dimensions.

But we're working through it and will get good information out where we can! Thanks to all of you for the constructive attention.

EJustice (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, but the Instructor is responsible for being familiar with WP policy (including, in this case, discretionary sanctions). Yes, it's a political subject, and that's what's causing the POV - because the course is "Enviornmental justice", all environmental topics are seen as justice issues, even when there is no reliable source explicitly making the connection. St Anselm (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim, the deadline is April 24th. How do we *request* it be userfied? Thanks! Drgood13 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Drgood13[reply]

@Drgood13:Hi...your prof here. Please check the bcourses page for how to proceed! (for everyone else there are really great people guiding our students at WikiEdu and we have 4 TAs on campus...180 students contributing...some mistakes will be made!) --EJustice (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drgood13: How do we *request* it be userfied? Just make an entry here like the all other editors did here and give reasons for your proposed action for this proposed Article for Deletion.

Also, take a look at {{ping}}. The ping didn't work by just putting my name with an ampersand (@); It requires the proper use of that template or one similar. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Winters rights as synthesis, with a slightly plausible search term. Redirects are cheap, anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winters v. United States (the correct name of the article) per the above. St Anselm (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Winters v. United States. In this case userification is not an option as the article is SOAPBOX about the RW with BLP violations, and should not exist anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Duarte

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

WP:BLP of an actress, who has a potentially valid notability claim per WP:NACTOR but lacks the reliable sourcing needed to actually carry it. Her role in Degrassi was not actually significant enough to constitute an NACTOR pass in and of itself -- she appeared as a supporting character in eight episodes of a series that produced almost 400 episodes over the course of its run. So in reality, her notability would actually have to be parked entirely on Hard Rock Medical -- but no reliable source coverage about her performance on that show is being shown. The references here are one article in a community weekly newspaper in her own hometown, a Q&A in a men's magazine, Robin Leach's entertainment gossip blog and a directory entry on tv.com -- so none of this constitutes the depth or quality of sourcing required. An actress does not get an article just because it states a significant role per NACTOR #1 -- she gets an article when it reliably sources that she's gotten significant media coverage for that role, but this doesn't show anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect) - Duarte has worked in a production role in Verona, and has performed in Hard Rock Medical, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Haven, Longmire, Being Erica, Against The Wall and Warehouse 13. If the article cannot be kept, it should, at a minimum, be redirected to one of her latest, or most prominent roles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person in the film industry — producer, actor, film crew, doesn't matter — is not automatically entitled to an article just because her work exists. She must be the subject of reliable source coverage about her work before her work gets her a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There are multiple in-depth reliable sources in the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't. My nomination statement already explained why exactly zero of the sources in the article count for anything. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I disagree, but OK. We will leave it to the populous to decide. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our reliable sourcing standards do not accept every possible type of source as equally valid. Blogs and directories do not count as reliable sources at all — while Q&A interviews and community weekly newspapers cannot carry passage of WP:GNG by themselves, but are acceptable only as supplementary referencing for stray facts after the person has already been major-market-dailied and CBCed and Macleansed over GNG. You can "disagree" all you like, but Wikipedia has objective standards for what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, and the sources you used here just aren't satisfying them. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but open to revisit. Not enough citations from press yet. Knox490 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bearcat. Subject lacks sufficient coverage of independent reliable sources reliable sourcing Cllgbksr (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat wrote: "Our reliable sourcing standards do not accept every possible type of source as equally valid. Blogs and directories do not count as reliable sources at all — while Q&A interviews and community weekly newspapers cannot carry passage of WP:GNG by themselves, but are acceptable only as supplementary referencing for stray facts after the person has already been major-market-dailied and CBCed and Macleansed over GNG. You can "disagree" all you like, but Wikipedia has objective standards for what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, and the sources you used here just aren't satisfying them". I agree that not all citations are created equal. In addition, standards should be as objective as possible. I do think, however, that in developing countries where they do not have a robust press that this creates problems so people deserving of an article are not covered, Dean Esmay (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I meant to work up a draft on Duarte, but never got around to it. But she doesn't clear WP:NACTOR/WP:BASIC, at least not yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Wheeler

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

This article's subject does not meet the criteria for notability of college athletes: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage to show notability for a college athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) 17:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not yet done a detailed search to determine whether he passes WP:GNG, but a quick search shows that, in 2016, he was selected as a first-team All-American by at least one lesser-known selector (see here) and was also a first-team All-Pac-12 player (see here). A couple quick examples of significant coverage include: (1) this, and (2) this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. RCFrance (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, due to article being skimpy/skeletal. He won some notable awards.Knox490 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. Also, since he's due to enter the draft this year, he may soon meet WP:GRIDIRON which would for sure put him over the top. ansh 666 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Ameer

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

Subject in this article meets WP:SINGLEEVENT and it also passes WP:TOOSOON as the event is yet to occur (i.e. movie for which the subject is being considered significant is yet to be released) TopCipher (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete acting notability requires multiple significant roles, one role is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is being the first transgender actor to take a lead role in an Indian film not a valid case for notability? Spiderone 09:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet notablity requirements Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy (video game)

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

No reliable sourcing found. Only sources are blank frames in gameplay encyclopedias; reviews consist of unreliable ancient fansites and a non-notable gamer on YouTube. Further searching revealed no reputable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little results can be found on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impacts of animal husbandry in the United States

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

Starting trying to clean this up but it is a hopeless WP:COATRACK that was (and still is) full of WP:SYN, POV claims, badly sourced/unsouroced content.. Better (more neutrally, better sourced) covered at the subtopics like Concentrated animal feeding operation and Intensive animal farming etc. The lower part of the article is full of dire WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff about what the Trump administration might do.

Would have to be almost completely rewritten to make this is a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be another student article, in a course, which I saw mentioned at ANI (although I don't think there is any real problem with it being a student article). ANI discussion not yet archived, is at wp:ANI#POV forks being created as school project. These articles should not be given any different consideration, it was suggested, but I think it helps to understand where they're coming from. See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America‎
- Draft:Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming

Calling for a complete rewrite can be done by a tag, {{Rewrite}}. But that means you think there is a valid article topic, right? --do ncr am 05:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i am not at all sure that there is a valid topic here that is not already covered by many other articles - i listed only a few of the overlaps above; there a a bunch more. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Between Concentrated animal feeding operation, Intensive animal farming, Environmental impact of meat production, and manure lagoon, it is an entire overlap of existing articles. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Concentrated animal feeding operation. The article has now been moved to Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations, but Concentrated animal feeding operation already has "environmental impact" and "economic impact" sections. I'm not convinced of the need of a spin-off article at this stage. St Anselm (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article that is entirely covered by existing articles that we have, many of which being significantly higher quality. I don't agree with a redirect, because I don't see the title as a plausible target. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge/redirect to Concentrated animal feeding operation or Environmental impact of agriculture or Environmental impact of meat production. Could certainly use a little streamlining, but the central statements are important and do not appear to be covered elsewhere. -- Kku (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wordsmith summarized it well. Other articles already cover this topic to the point a merge would not provide new information, and a redirect wouldn't be useful because a redirect to a single article isn't justified over the others covering this topic, nor is it likely something that will be directly searched. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTESSAY — JFG ^talk 21:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A WP:RM discussion may be started if anyone considers the current title inappropriate. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive editing

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

The only place where this is described as a formal technique is in the source by Rude. The description of the technique is not substantively different from editing in general. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, but retitle article to "Substantive writing" which is the more prevalent term. Article is informative, decent length and well-written. If this article is deleted, it will only discourage editor who took the time to write a good article. Wikipedia needs more excellent articles on writing as this will attract more Wikipedia editors and could help the writing of Wikipedia editors. Knox490 (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that it is well written, but substantive editing, otherwise referred to as content editing, is already described at length in the copy-editing article, and I do not see how that description differs from this term -- the article is predominantly redundant in that context. More importantly, the notation 'comprehensive editing' is not widely accepted, and essentially a tautology. I am also concerned it is an oblique attempt at self promotion. Perhaps if more sources were found to show it as a distinct and more generally used terminology, but tough to accept the article as it stands. Could merge portions into copy-editing so the novice editor does not feel their efforts went to waste and to lessen the perception of biting, as they certainly know how to express themselves clearly and would be a welcome addition to the site. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having had some time to consider it, there is probably enough novel content to keep this as a separate article with a retitle/maintenance tag as content editing (rather than substantive editing), to allow it to be retrolinked more clearly to copyediting. I have made some additional revisions as well. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S-Paint

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

Contested proposed deletion without reason for contestation given. Reason given in proposed deletion was: "Article has no serious claims of significance or notability in our standards, notability cannot be inherited and especially not when it's an apparently new software." Sjrct (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article contributed by User:ISwaggMaster123 on software co-developed by Swagg and Kulmetor43. The given links are primary, and I am seeing nothing better. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, short-lived personal project. Dgpop (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per AllyD. No coverage, no nothin'. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point 453

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

Only a few mentions in local sources. Does not meet WP:NFILM NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, WP:COI promotion. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the author clearly has a COI, and this is clearly WP:TOOSOON for an unknown 2017 film to be notable. We really need a WP:CSD criterion for blatantly non-notable films. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the aforementioned reasons. I also second Anachronist's idea of a speedy category for non-notable films - maybe even a more generalized non-notable "creative works" (e.g. films, books, etc.). These types of junk articles are way too common. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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