Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 August	20 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (Georgia)

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

Hoax. No references whatsoever about Disney publicly announcing the launch of this channel. Bankster (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I'm also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no references to indicate notability. Could be a hoax. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Georgia)

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

Hoax. No references whatsoever about Disney publicly announcing the launch of this channel. Bankster (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I'm also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and no references to indicate notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, RS, maybe TOOSOON. South Nashua (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence, citations or reasons to presume veracity, let alone notability. Darthamender (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it does not pass WP:GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Junior (Georgia)

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

Hoax. No references whatsoever about Disney publicly announcing the launch of this channel. Bankster (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I'm also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no references to indicate notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence, citations or reasons to presume veracity, let alone notability. Darthamender (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Melbourne Faculty of Arts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Advancing Journalism

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

fails WP:ORG. sources are primary or not in depth eg confirmed that a speaker spoke there. gnews just points to quotes from Denis Muller who works there, which I've also nominated as questionable notability. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No argument for deletion, since failure of WP:ORG is not by itself an argument for deletion. This is either a degree awarding institution, or part of one. No WP:BEFORE D1, no WP:BEFORE analysis of the WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

argument for deletion is clearly stated, no extensive third party sources to meet WP:ORG. the degrees are awarded by University of Melbourne I'm pretty sure the testamur does not even mention this Centre. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were not clearly stated, you should be able to amplify your previous comments and identify a WP:DEL-REASON. Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder your actual motivation for these comments... more than this AfD... LibStar (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirection is not an argument for deletion that includes a WP:DEL-REASON. If you can't advance your argument against the reasons I have provided, then I think you should abandon it. Do you have a response based in reason and policy? Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need to WP:CHILL. I think you are getting very worked up over this AfD LibStar (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in a non-sequitur. Please respond on point. Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please WP:LETGO. I will not respond further. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another off-topic response. As to the mysterious essays, as per WP:ATA#Just pointing at a policy or guideline,

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

Unscintillating (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself contains zero refs supporting Notability. (Nine refs were written by University employees, and the remaining ref doesn't even mention the Centre.) I spent a lot of time digging deep for independent sources on the Centre. Best available independent sources:[1][2][3]. In theory this should probably be a merge. However I fear a merge won't make sense unless someone is prepared to deal with the fact that all of the buildings and fields of study at this university have been excessively split off as individual pages. I looked at Category:University_of_Melbourne and gave up. Even the residence buildings have individual pages. Excluding biographies, it's nearly a hundred pages. Readers would be better served if things were merged into a smaller and more navigable number of pages. I offer my endorsement and best wishes to anyone willing to undertake such an overhaul. Alsee (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments . Are you arguing for a merge? LibStar (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. No, I'm not volunteering to do it, but I believe that it is the correct action in this case. Ross-c (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above states, "In theory this should probably be a merge. However I fear a merge won't make sense unless someone...undertake[s]...an overhaul". So if your !vote is "as above" and you are "not volunteering", your !vote "won't make sense". Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'merge' requires an overhaul. And, that's what I'm voting for. So, I believe that my vote makes sense. Ross-c (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the analysis presented by Alsee. Merging is necessary, and all the unsourced school, residential, and building articles in Category:University of Melbourne are not appropriate. It is a big job. I am guessing the University of Melbourne staff and/or students who did all this. But who knows... --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alsee, far too many split of articles from this university.Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lesley Ann Warren. If anybody feels strongly that Jon Peters would have been the better redirect target, just go ahead and fix it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Peters

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

Delete ~~or Merge~~ ~~with either Jon Peters (father) or Lesley Ann Warren (mother).~~ Notability not derived by dint of parents (Jon Peters (father) or Lesley Ann Warren (mother)) nor has its threshold been reached based on the subject's own accomplishments. Quis separabit? 00:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NACTOR. Redirect per INVALIDBIO to either Peters or Warren as mentioned above is probably a good move. South Nashua (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also fails WP:GNG; I found one source for his producing career, which I have added to both the Jon Peters and Lesley Ann Warren articles (so the redirect can go to either of them) but nothing else substantive about him. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. FIne for redirect, I think to Warren because both she and her son were actors, and actors are more likely to be known in that role than a producer. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Donnelly (actor)

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

Delete: non-notable as actor nor can any notability be derived from being the younger brother of Jack Webb's stock director, Dennis Donnelly. Quis separabit? 23:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A secondary role in Emergency! is the best of his acting credits, and that's woefully short of satisfying WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as he hasn't has significant coverage in major, reliable publications. DrStrauss talk 07:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R-ODD

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

Non-notable music producer. Google search turns up nothing but Soundcloud (and anyone is listed in Soundcloud). Google search on Rodrigo Kirsten also turns up no third-party hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speedy-deleted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page's editor contestation:

Strongly disagree. I added some sources to the article and I'd like to contest if this really fits under A7. (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC-3)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neon Vice and Hexeno are both one-man blogs, not reliable sources. Furthermore, the second source has a conflict of interest as the author employed R-ODD to create the music for a film he made, and is interviewing R-ODD about that soundtrack. Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unfortunately, it appears that reliable sources haven't significantly covered R-ODD at this time. I can't find any critic reviews, either in Portuguese or in English (though since I don't speak Portuguese I may not be looking in the right places). As Richard3120 mentions, the sources that were provided in the article are insufficient to show notability. Overall, I don't think this artist satsifies WP:NMUSIC at this time. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too found no reliable sources, only blogs and user-editable sites (with the same caveat that I can't read Portuguese so might be missing some). WP:TOOSOON at best. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gordana Jovic Stojkovska

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

Unsourced BLP with no clear indication of notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar Krishnan

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

Prod was blanked without any improvement whatsoever. The subject fails WP:GNG; the one source offering any meaningful biographical info is a profile from the company he works for. External links appear to promote anytime he is quoted or mentioned in WP:ROUTINE transaction reports. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a resume on a nn executive. No sources to meet WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than a CV Spiderone 10:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All India Biotech Association

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

non-notable, website does not work Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no media coverage - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no references. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep but allow a merger discussion. "Too niche" is not a reason to consider something non-notable. Having sources does not by default entail notability either, but in this case the sources have not really been contested other than "too many primary sources" which appears to apply solely to some of the sources, and sources that have not been contested (on say lack of reliability, lack of substance, lack of independence or primaryness) are a strong claim to notability. GAMEGUIDE (which is the same thing as NOTMANUAL) may or may not be violated by this page but the arguments that it is not violated seem to go into more detail than the arguments that it is violated. Thus the delete case does not fly. Having said that a dedicated move, merge or restructuring discussion may yield a consensus to change the article, so I'll leave that possibility Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types

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

Various reasons: WP:NOTABLE, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:it's just a collection of links about niche strategy in a niche game, etc Hornpipe2 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically WP:NOTABLE. The article is not necessary "bad" and the editors have clearly gone to great lengths to source info and make it seem as notable and legit as possible - but at the end of the day, the subject itself is just Too Niche to warrant its own space. No amount of citations from WotC and Star City Games is going to help with that aspect. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Yu-Gi-Oh!_Deck_Formats_and_Strategies Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It occurs to me that a lot of CCGs and TCGs etc. have common deck themes (pioneered by Magic, perhaps) that a Notable article could be constructed from. Bits from this article could be used as supporting examples. "Deck Archetypes in Customizable Card Games" or something similar. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Magic: the Gathering. CJK09 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GAMEGUIDE is about video games, which this is not. Well written article, and very thoroughly sourced (there have been whole BOOKS written about this sort of thing). I have cancelled my "merge" vote from earlier. CJK09 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What about the other points though? WP:NOTABLE for example? "Thoroughly sourced" does not take away from the fact that it's still an article about specific M:tG Cards that you can put into your specific M:tG decks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornpipe2 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Minor nitpick, but this should be at (4th nomination), not (4rd nomination). CJK09 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL, which specifically includes "game guides" without qualifiers. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too niche, despite being well-sourced. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, with plenty of independent sources that cover the topic in depth found in the article. Arguments for deletion are mostly WP:JNN arguments. We have articles on chess strategies because they are notable. This game isn't chess, but it is probably the second most important non-computer game created in the last 50 years. This isn't a manual or game guide. It describes (very) basic strategies. FYI, I've not played this game since about a year after it came out... Hobit (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this kind of sourced, secondary coverage (in this case, of deck typologies) is encyclopaedic and appropriate for WP. I see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the delete comments, but no clear policy basis - this is not any kind of "gameguide", but reliably referenced analysis, which is the kind of thing WP should have. The encyclopaedia includes a list of poker hands and a whole series of chess strategy articles; I don't think this one is any closer to GAMECRUFT than they are. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Magic: The Gathering#Deck construction Way too much unsourced detail - using too many primary sources. If this were a company article, the equivalent would be including an entire product operating manual as part of the article. No need for redirect - this should not be a subject that people will be searching for outside of the main article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted. Contents do not match the title, duplicate of Reconciliation (theology). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyabigega Silas

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

Not encyclopedic. Fbdave (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Please see WP:REFUND if you wish to retrieve the article. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Srinivasa Murthy

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

Fails WP:NACTOR —usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Please see WP:REFUND if you wish to retrieve the article. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aniket Harer

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR —usernamekiran(talk) 20:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NDIRECTOR Spiderone 10:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the inclusion of a source verifying the existence of Suriname (important), this rapper fails GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Di General

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

BLP article, which is a year old, with no refs, with little in way of coverage outside social media. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every rapper who exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article. This makes no claims that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC at all, and cites no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media — the only "footnote" present in the article at all is the results of a general Google search which confirms the existence of Suriname (which nobody questioned, and is completely beside the point), and the only other links shown are his own self-published content on social networking platforms. At the time of creation, there was one other source present in the article — but it was a WordPress blog, not a reliable source, and the text it was actually supporting has been stripped as blatantly advertorial. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Utay

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

Delete: blatant business promotion masquerading as an article. Quis separabit? 22:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at the refs in the article. The first HuffPost piece is an article by the subject, not about the subject. The Yahoo piece has a passing mention of the subject, in the form of a quote. Woman's Day; likewise a passing reference. The second HuffPost item is a list of articles the subject has written. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for the same reasons above. I can't find any notability either. Also, the page creator maybe the same user Msrpotus who blogs on [4] and possible therefore an undisclosed paid editor. Although he doesn't appear to make anything other than good edits, it does appear that he is monitoring a small very select range of articles – like what paid editors are paid to do – rather than getting involved in any general WP editing. He also cleans his talk-page of any history - which would look good to prospective clients. Shows competence as not having edits ever challenged. Of-course POTUS also stands for President of the United States and his edits and page creations are mostly about politicians. He is ticking too many boxes. Is this enough suspicion to take this to COIN ? Aspro (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my note on User Talk:Msrpotus. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was quick, straight and to the point! Aspro (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems clear enough from the discussion DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Hariawala

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

This article is so heavily promotional that it is difficult to tell, but I do not think the subject is notable. Every source I looked at appeared to be a press release. Googling the subject turned up a lot of pieces that looked like a lot more press releases. agtx 16:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think some work needs to be done, many of the refs are inappropriate (I saw one circling back to Wikipedia, which is a RS no-no). After that's done, we might have a better picture, but I think notability might be able to be established given the awards. If someone can provide me with more context though, I might change my viewpoint. I am just barely off the fence. South Nashua (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@South Nashua: I was wondering about the awards too, but when I google, them, they come up awfully thin. I mean, "Indian Healthcare Visionary of the Decade Award"? I can't even tell who's giving this award. Same with the "India's Most Admired Surgeon Award." Wherever these accolades are coming from, it doesn't appear to be any scholarly or governmental body. This article just doesn't convince me that it's anything more than marketing. agtx 22:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Agtx: I honestly am not sure either, it does seem on the borderline of being okay. My personal rule is that whenever I'm not sure of whether or not an article meets criteria to be deleted, I give it some time to let things settle out. I think this is a good example of where that rule comes into play. If I can get some more clarity, I might switch my viewpoint to deletion on this one though, it's just not clear to me as it is right now. South Nashua (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: and *::@Agtx: and Wikipedia Moderators,

Thank you for the valuable suggestions, edits and valid questions. This certainly will improve the quality of the article in discussion regarding Dr. Mukesh Hariawala.

My responses to questions raised: This article is intended to cover new scientific knowledge in the field of Angiogenesis, Stem Cells, and its relationship to Heart Surgery. The references cited are content related to help students, scholars and academicians for supplementary reading. This article is no way intended to promote an individual or any company. I will respect any deletions within article if thought in your judgment to be promotional. The awards in the Select Honours and Awards sub-section are only a small part of Dr. Mukesh Hariawala's academic track and no glorification or promotion of any kind is intended.

1. Question on Notability: Answer: Dr. Mukesh Hariawala can be referenced from his other award in the U.S. listed in the Harvard Gazette for the same scientific work on Angiogenesis. This article.(http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1997/03/newsmakers-109/)

2. Question on India’s Most Admired Surgeon Award: Answer: As per my research this award is selected by peers of the Medical Profession in India. Award Link (http://www.indiamedicaltimes.com/2012/08/01/dr-mukesh-hariawala-to-receive-india%E2%80%99s-most-admired-surgeon-2012-award/) It is delivered by The Government of India appointed Governor at a felicitation event. In this case it was Governor K. Sankaranarayanan whose position is well documented and indexed in Wikipedia. Link to Governor K. Sankaranarayanan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Sankaranarayanan)

Previous Indian Cardiac Surgeon winners of this award include Wikipedia Indexed Surgeons:

a. Dr. Ramakanta Panda Link to Dr. Ramakanta Panda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakanta_Panda)

b. Dr. Devi Shetty Link to Dr. Devi Shetty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Shetty)

3. Question on Healthcare Visionary of the Decade Award: Answer: This award is conferred following National ballot after shortlisting of contenders organised by India Leadership Conclave which is an indexed organisation in Wikipedia. Link to India Leadership Conclave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Leadership_Conclave#cite_note-14)

Other notable winners at the same year event in different categories are Forbes listed Billionaires and highly respected Businessmen in India & Globally. [ http://www.aninews.in/newsdetail-MTA/MzI3NzAz/top-healthcare-economist-dr-mukesh-hariawala-gets-prestigious-award-along-with-industrialists-tata-and-ambani-re-issue-.html Award Link] (http://www.aninews.in/newsdetail-MTA/MzI3NzAz/top-healthcare-economist-dr-mukesh-hariawala-gets-prestigious-award-along-with-industrialists-tata-and-ambani-re-issue-.html)

They are both Indexed in Wikipedia. a. Mr. Ratan Tata Link to Mr. Ratan Tata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratan_Tata)

b. Mr. Mukesh Ambani Link to Mr. Mukesh Ambani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Ambani)

In conclusion, I have made a conscious effort to maintain Wikipedia neutrality standards and my only goal is to add scientific value to this article. I am a new Wikipedia content contributor and any suggestions will be respectfully incorporated in the article. Thanks. --Saipawar4 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC) — Saipawar4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This just doesn't sit right. Even the responses don't add up. There's nothing in the source about the "India’s Most Admired Surgeon Award" that says anything about the governor. The other award appears to be from something called "Network 7 Media Group," who created the India Leadership Conclave article and then was blocked for having a promotional username. I want to assume good faith, but an SPA account creating a long, highly promotional article about a subject where the sources don't really line up with whatis said in the article or the AfD response? It feels like WP:PAID editing. @Saipawar4: Do you have a financial stake in this article? agtx 21:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor presenting the award is in this source with a photo of it here It would be useful to have the view of specialist medical editors Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back on the governor then. But yes, I think input from folks in the medical sphere would be helpful. agtx 21:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Medical Editors

Dear Medical Editors,

As regards my maiden Wiki article which is up for “Deletion.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Hariawala

I have reviewed extensively other similar Doctor Articles and have used them as a benchmark. Additionally, I have ensured neutrality, notability, contributions to society by the Subject and future usefulness to the end User or Reader of this article, particularly Doctors, Scientists, Students, Academicians, Professors of Medicine and the Public at large.

The Content of the article is supported by:

1. Credible "124" Internal Wikipedia Links to the subject matter.

2. Citation Links in articles are to highly credible sources such as National Library of Medicine, Washington/ U.S. Link: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/

3. The results of my research on the article subject is linked here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hariawala&cmd=DetailsSearch

4. No “Press Releases” of any kind have been used in the article as a source of reference to justify content. Other sources that I have used in my “100+ References” in the article are from published materials by Editors of New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Times of India, World Cardiothoracic Surgeons Network (CTSNet), Asian News International (http://www.aninews.in/aboutus.html) this is source of all news outlets in Asia, SIFY News (One of the largest news providers in India.), India Medical Times and Yahoo News.

5. In one of the Awards Listed, Harvard Gazette which has been referenced as a source in my article http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1997/03/newsmakers-109/

6. In the article the referenced people who are mentors of Dr. Mukesh Hariawala at Harvard in Boston. They are noted Professors and Noble Laureates like Professor Amartya Sen and Sir Magdi Yacoub who is Knighted by the Queen of England.

7. All the accreditations and higher qualifications of Dr. Mukesh Hariawala in the article like FRCS, FACS, FICS are directly indexed in Wikipedia.

8. Out of roughly over 50 awards to Dr. Mukesh Hariawala in his career I have carefully stated only 5 which have documentation in the article that were presented by the highest government officials of India. (Governor and President of India.) a. Governor K. Sankaranarayanan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Sankaranarayanan b. President of India A. P. J. Abdul Kalam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._J._Abdul_Kalam

9. In the Article the 2 or 3 companies listed in the content for Ventricular Assist Device or Shockwave or Stem Cells have been provided with a link simply to facilitate the reader for additional educational information. If in the judgment of the editors these links seem inappropriate I would have no concerns to them being deleted.

To the best of my knowledge and editing skills there is no English or Punctuation error in the entire Article.

Finally, I have no commercial interest in this article and have done my best to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. I am looking forward to ongoing contributions to several other Wikipedia Articles that would fall in the domain of my expertise.

Thank You. --Saipawar4 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — Saipawar4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would urge whichever admin closes this AfD not just to close as keep because the user who created the article makes long posts on this page. I understand the user has denied having a commercial interest, but this feels like a conflict. Even the picture description on Commons references direct communication with the article's subject. Something fishy is going on here. agtx 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and author transparency, I have in "Commons" intentionally kept the copy of communication with subject only to procure original signature and photograph that is copyright free with details of photographer.

This communication was necessary as it was the only means to get these 2 items to complete the article. I reiterate that I do not have any conflict of interest. Thanks--Saipawar4 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC) — Saipawar4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Leaning delete. Please, no wall-of-text reply. (And I'm not going to read most of the wall-of-text above.) The page, as is, is a mess and comes across as WP:PROMO. I've looked at the sources that come up via the source links at the top of the AfD, and pretty much everything that comes up is relatively local coverage from India. Also, the awards are given by organizations in India. To whatever degree WP:ACADEMIC applies here, the subject fails that, so we are in WP:GNG territory, and I do not think that I'm seeing the more-than-local coverage that it requires. I'm going to leave a note at WP:COIN, because COI issues should be addressed there more so than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is so inflated with non-notable information that it is hard to tell at the moment whether the article is notable or not. I will try to remove non-notable information, and then will see whether it is still notable or not. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm calling in at Tryptofish's request. I concur that in its current state, it's difficult to sort through the promotional content and see whether there is anything worth saving. It is pretty close to being deletable via G11, and is also a candidate for WP:TNT treatment. (Since writing this it has been substantially trimmed). I have looked through the discussion above, the sources cited and conducted my own searches. Regarding the awards, I agree that there is little evidence that these are important awards that would automatically confer notability. We would need a high quality source to verify that the awards are important, which does not appear to exist. Of the sources cited, this is one of the better ones as it does directly discuss the subject, however, it is from Times News Network rather than the Times of India and I am less certain about the reliability. Searches for him in the ToI proper have not turned up anything and my searches in google news have only turned up dubious quality sources. If the Triple Heart Therapy procedure he has developed was important to cardiology, then we would expect other cardiologists to have written about it, but that does not seem to be the case: [5]. That rules WP:ACADEMIC out and I'm also unable to find sources to meet WP:BIO. Unless new sources can be produced, I'd therefore !vote delete. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROMO.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 95% Deletion by Vandals Copy of my communication to Oversight Management of Wikipedia.

Dear Editors,

This is to bring to your urgent attention the ganging up of a group of people who have destroyed an 110 citations solidly supported article to reducing it to a 1 paragraph and 5 references of a notated Harvard Trained and acclaimed National Award winning Doctor. I had spent about 100 hours working to ensure it met Wikipedia Notable persons article.

This was my final edited version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukesh_Hariawala&oldid=795608544

Versus the current mutliated form:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Hariawala

Deletion Page Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mukesh_Hariawala

You can clearly see here that no true contribution or constructive edits have been offered by any of these vandals especially on the content of the article. Neither of them have any educational background to participate in medical related articles.

Since I am not a hired person by the subject or have any financial interest or any conflict of interest, I have now voluntarily removed the article in full and will seize to contribute in the future. Additionally, it is a humiliation of the subject of the article. This is extremely damaging to Wikipedia reputation and disheartening to any future Wikipedia contributor.

This is a clear of internal vandalism who are sabotaging the mission of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saipawar4 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Saipawar4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am the Oversighter who responded to the above ticket, which clearly doesn't fall under the suppression policy. During the investigation, I found that Saipawar4 had moved the target page to someone else's userspace, where he restored the pruned content. (I haven't run CheckUser to see if these are socks, but I'm sorely tempted.) He then deleted the redirect, which caused a bunch of confusion until I figured out what had happened. I moved the page back to its target and I think all is back to normal. I have warned Saipawar4 not to do it again, but just in case he doesn't get it, I have move-protected the page for a week, which I assume will cover the remainder of the AFD discussion. I have no opinion on the merits of the article, but I don't like the behavior here. Katie^talk 12:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have finished removing non-notable information from the article. I may have removed too much, however the article was so biased that any information that needs to be added should be re-added by neutral editors. CoolieCoolster (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands there is nothing notable. If info and sources can be included, within Wikipedia's rules, that might be a different story, but I doubt it will happen. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with *:@Smallbones: . Since 98% of the article is deleted by user *:@CoolieCoolster: there is no point a leaving a thin string of words, since it is no more an article. What's the point of bring back bits and pieces. --Saipawar4 (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Saipawar4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @Saipawar4: I simply removed insufficiently notable information. He is possibly notable for being a surgeon, but not for minor appearances in films. The article was too detailed for the notability of the person it was talking about. Perhaps some things I removed should be re-added, but in a more neutral tone. At the moment, I believe the article has enough information to know whether or not it is notable, as before it was too stuffed with non-notable information to be able to tell. CoolieCoolster (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative keep~~. Delete. His article doi:10.1006/jsre.1996.0226 has 300 citations on Scholar, which alone appears enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC; I'm not familiar enough with cites for doctors to be 100% sure, though. I've cleaned the page up a little, a lot more is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to "delete" – even if he is notable because of his citations, there are too many problems here: it'd be preferable to blow this up, and let a neutral non-COI editor start afresh if that seems desirable. Tryptofish, the highly-cited article is here. It's the same article that Saipawar4 describes higher up this page as "my article". Make of that what you will. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article link. And it gets stranger and stranger, because that article is not a medical study in humans at all, but rather a more basic animal study. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the developments since my earlier comment here, I am revising my opinion from "leaning delete" to delete. The DOI link given just above by Justlettersandnumbers does not work for me, but having that number of citations is not necessarily an automatic pass of WP:ACADEMIC, although it certainly is some indication of notice. However, a search for all of his scholarly publications, [6], yields only 17, which is definitely low for ACADEMIC. And, oddly, the publication titles do not seem to match the terms given on the page for his most important work. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to probably our #1 medical expert at Wikipedia, "triple heart therapy" is not a legitimate treatment (permlink). I have suspicions about this whole article being a brochure, if not nearly fabricated. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of issues, leaning delete The treatments mentioned are not medical treatments but alt med stuff it appears. They were sources to the popular press. The pictures need proper release. He is listed as the author but is not. IMDb is user generate content. Yahoo news is also not a good source. This is too spammy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the issues: where is he licensed to practice medicine? I don't see any listing at State of Mass online search. One of the sources in the article said he underwent a "chanhge in profession" in 2013 or 2014 to become an actor. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add to the oddities : found this name at the FRCS search, but granted fellowship in 2003, which doesn't match this biography. Something is very odd here. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Approve Speedy Deletion This article is no more of the biography of the subject. No attempts should be made to edit or revive it. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as per CSD G7 since I am the original author of the article. Thank you --Saipawar4 (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Saipawar4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't think it's eligible for CSD, but the consensus here is becoming pretty clear, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tryptofish, plus the whole spam thing going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this is just an attempt at a spam piece. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a rather blatant piece of promotional editing to my eye. Also I am not seeing the significant coverage in high quality, reliable, independent sources about Mr Hariawala needed to create a proper biography. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JSS Medical Research

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

Just created by a largely single (or dual) purpose account whose only other edits -- to Paris & Simo -- are equally promotional, this detailed advertorial article is for a company that fails to net any coverage beyond news releases and non-RS trade publication stories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Shawn in Montreal, have you checked if John Sampalis is a notable researcher? If he is, we could redirect the article to him. gidonb (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gscholar searches are not my area but I doubt it. He is currently an associate professor with co-authorship on just three papers. Associate profs rarely meet WP:ACADEMIC, from what I've seen at Afd. Moreover, redirect to what? There's nothing about Sampalis' research in this blatant WP:ADVERT for a company. Any such bio article would have to start from scratch. If you'd like to try your hand at that, that's great. I've no intention of doing so, as I have no competence in this area. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article, self-sourced. I'm willing to redirect/rewrite to the principal, if he's notable, but found no such indication. Neither did the nominator, whom I asked for his opinion. Thanks for the response, Shawn in Montreal! gidonb (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. "Page creator was paid to write this" as-is is not yet a reason to delete anything Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basecamp (company)

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

Written up in a paid editing stint. Low quality promotion Carl Fredrik^talk 21:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question The most recent nomination was closed as keep a month ago - can you give more explanation for why it needs another discussion, such as any supporting evidence for the article having been written as paid editing? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Company is obviously notable, paid editing or not. There is no WP:PROMO language as the nominator claims._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per the last AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am pleased with the improvements previously made to the article. If the article fell victim to "brochure" appearances, as one of the ongoing editors in its first years, I take that as constructive criticism (and an incidental testament to improved article standards). As the article creator, I stand by my statements that I have NO FINANCIAL CONNECTION or even a DIRECT PERSONAL CONNECTION to the company, its founders, or any employees, and I take strong exception to any allegations otherwise. This is a slur. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH per my WP:BEFORE source searches. See source examples below. The article does not have a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Newsweek
Beginning Ruby: From Novice to Professional
The Globe and Mail
Time magazine (subscription required)
Wired
Wired
Inbound Marketing
The Lawyer's Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies. Chapter 14. pp. 105–112.
PC Magazine
PC Magazine
Crains Chicago Business
PC World
Making the Most of the Cloud
The Whuffie Factor. pp. 192–194 ...(subscription required)
Dreaming in Code
Business Insider
The Register
Business Insider
Basecamp for Beginners. Cengage Learning. 320 pages.
Sams Teach Yourself Basecamp in 10 Minutes. Pearson Education. 256 pages.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio, handled via CSD StarM 02:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Drive-In Theater

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

Non-notable business. Severe lack of no-third party sources limits the potential growth of the article, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is a copy of [7]. I have CSD'd the article. reddogsix (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, nothing useful found. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've not found significant coverage in reliable sources. A few local news stories here and there (e.g.) and blurbs in travel guides and enthusiast websites, but most of what I see concerns the similarly named drive-in in Connecticut that may be a bit more notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12. Apparently, there's already a tag on the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Fixed by RileyBugz. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 20:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grierson Spring (Texas)

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

Speedy deletion template removed by another user. Original rationale for deletion was "I didn't think it was possible to be unambiguously promotional about a lake but an article riddled with phrases like "fleeting glory" is clearly G11 content." DrStrauss talk 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cleaned it up, and it is obviously real—just look at the many references to it in books and the like. When this is over, it should be moved to "Grierson Spring", without the unneeded disambiguation. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Elaine Picker

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

WP:COI article sourced only by WP:UGC Cabayi (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few reliable sources with passing mentions, but none more than any other governmental functionary (such as my contemporaneous grandfathers). Bearian (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kansas's 4th congressional district special election, 2017. Sandstein 13:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Thompson (American politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia by itself -- to pass WP:NPOL, he must win the election and thereby hold political office, not just run and lose. But this is not referenced to the degree of reliable source coverage needed to get him over WP:GNG as that rare special case where the candidacy is more notable than usual -- there are just four references here, of which one is his own self-published campaign website, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a blog post about his opponent, one is a YouTube video by an advocacy organization and one is a dead link whose content is impossible to verify. This is not even close to the volume of sourcing required to get him the Jon Ossoff-Christine O'Donnell "this candidacy is an isolated special case because it got so much more coverage than usual" treatment — as of right now it's not even showing one acceptable reliable source, let alone Ossoff's 60 reliable sources or O'Donnell's 150. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not ready to take a stance just yet, as "James Thompson" is too broad of a search term for online news and it will take some research and time to pick through the results. However, I disagree that a politician (or anyone) must "win" the election and "hold" office to be notable. It's possible that one could run and lose and still be notable if there is enough coverage to surpass WP:GNG or perhaps another notability guideline. We have yet to see if that is the case here... but it's not an absolute. I think this is what the nominator is stating. I agree that the sources provided are not enough to pass WP:GNG as I don't see them as independent, but I'm not convinced that there are not some out there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it is indeed possible in very rare, specialized circumstances for a candidate's campaign-related coverage to explode to the point that we have to keep the article because the candidacy has become a lot more notable than most other candidacies. Jon Ossoff, Christine O'Donnell, that kind of thing. But the vast majority of candidates don't achieve that — it requires a depth and breadth and range of coverage that goes way outside what could be ordinarily expected to exist for any candidate in an election, not just the run of the mill level of coverage that candidates always get, and candidates are not deemed to automatically pass our notability standards for politicians just for the fact of being candidates in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also urge caution on a pro-forma deletion on the basis of the UNELECTEDPOLITICIAN high bar. This was a candidacy which drew national media attention beyond the ordinary norm for such a race. There may need to be a merge target found and a redirect left up, that would be fine, I suppose, but this is not ordinary-run-of-the-mill deletion territory. Carrite (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any evidence that his candidacy drew national media attention beyond the norm, it sure ain't being shown by the sources — every one of which is unreliable, routine and/or primary — that are present in this article as written. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP and that there was a bit more than the usual, local coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kansas's 4th congressional district special election, 2017. A redirect to a page about the election is an appropriate outcome for a candidate for Congress. The election contest is notable, even when (or if) the candidates may not be. - --Enos733 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Wygant

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

Apart from some brief coverage in this NYT article, I am unable to find any substantial coverage about the subject in reliable sources. WP:BIO does not appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the NY Times article, there are other resources as well quoting/referring to him. E.g. the womenshealthmag reference, and other references, e.g. http://www.tsbmag.com/2008/11/11/david-wygant-and-jordan-harbinger-both-claim-they-were-the-inspiration-for-the-movie-hitch/ His own site has a section on press. E.g. https://www.davidwygant.com/press/national-post/ https://www.davidwygant.com/press/marie-claire/ https://www.davidwygant.com/press/globe-and-mail/ http://www.coachmag.co.uk/exercises/1987/spice-your-sex-life-some-more There appears to be enough coverage of this person. Ross-c (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: tsbmag.com is no way a reliable source... Even if it were though, all of these sources and the NYT source do not provide the substantial coverage that we require. We need biographical sources that actually tell us something about him. Rather they are articles that quote him in relation to dating which is very different from a notability perspective. SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: I'll point out that I am not particularly incline to defend this man. However, looking objectively at the sum total of the coverage on this person, and where it is published, there is enough to justify WP:GNG. I've re-read the guidelines, and I think you have your own version of WP:GNG not justified by the general description. How do you justify your claim that tsbmag.com, one source among many, is not a reliable source? My personal conclusion is still keep'. Ross-c (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for verification of claim in lede that subject was the model for the title character in a minor, 2005 will Smith film called Hitch. Sources aren't good, although my searches did show Wygant promoting the idea on his web site. Wygant is quoted in a number of books, articles although his won books are not notable. I also looked ans could see that this is a new article created by an editor now blocked for being a "semi-disclosed" paid editor who has edited under a series of names. Although now-blocked editors have created many articles on notable topics, in this case, it sort supports the picture of a self-promoting guy who fails BIO despite the plentiful sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm always suspicious of BLPs that scrape up every article somebody wrote for a notable publication, but somehow can't actually find much about the author in a reliable source. This does exactly that, and has no critical commentary on the works of this supposedly notable and influential author. These sources do not impress ... the HuffPo author profile and another subject-provided speaker profile are the high points going downhill to journalistic dregs like Snipe News, millionairesclub123.com and the like. Bleah. You can't rest a whole article on a few sentences in the Times. As for the new sources listed above, this gem from The Globe and Mail is typical: "David Wygant [is] a Los Angeles-based dating coach". It says literally nothing else about him. Quips and dating tips in pop media can't possibly be a foundation for a well built BLP. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious promotional spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noxtton

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

Per WP:NCORP. Established in 2016 - without any significant coverage regarding the notability of the subject in reliable secondary sources, I think this is WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article lacks significant coverage and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Filtering out the extensive socking. SPAs, etc, I can only find a single established user who is arguing to keep, and that user fails to provide any policy-based argument; simply asserting that this is definitely notable doesn't carry any weight. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RHAPSODY( Annual social of MEDICAL COLLEGE , KOLKATA)

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

Non-notable event. This is a student-led school festival. Coverage is all either ads for the event or local interest coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment--This is a 71 year old event,one of the most famous college festivals in eastern India, definitely just not an event of local coverage. It's been associated with Medical College Kolkata since the middle of last century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DipamoyB (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC) — DipamoyB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the article on the school, with appropriate trimmage. Anmccaff (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviewing admin should note the presence of several comments on this page's talk page (for what they're worth). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--
- @WikiDan61 sir, I really don't understand why do you think this page is about local interest !! This is the culture of Oldest medical college of Asia.How can this be a non notable event?? Best print medias of lndia, like The Telegraph, The Times of India has given news of it. Enough resources are provided. This must be included in Wikipedia. Dipra Dattasarma (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipra Dattasarma (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — Dipra Dattasarma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India deletion policies, it is clearly mentioned that any article which gives resources from renowned print medias of India are considered notable. It is already mentioned in the page reference section, Times of India & the Telegraph, 2 well known news papers of India have already published report about this cultural event. However, if u have missed it, I request you to visit the reference and further reading section of the page. Plz go through it and reconsiderDipra Dattasarma (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already spoken on behalf of this page, again and again, why this page should be kept in wikipedia. For the last time I want to summarize my points. Firstly I would like to request all to visit two Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism & Wikipedia:Notability (Organizations and Companies).
- According to the 1st article, A new page can be deleted if-

- - 1. It can not be verified. But this page is obviously verified with reliable source references

- - 2.If It is not notable,... but again this page is notable, because it shows significant external coverage. It has got enough notice from famous print medias of India, The Telegraph, The Times of India etc. It has got notice from Famous question- answer sight Quora also.To verify that I request all to visit the Reference and Further reading section of the page.

- - 3. If it does copyright violation. Obviously again, no copy right has been violated in this page..

After discussing these 3 main points, I would like to counter @WikiDan61 sir's very first objection about this page- " This is a student led school festival, coverage is all either ads or local interest coverage". Sir,

- - 1. These are not any ordinary students, these are future doctors, the best minds of India

- - 2. This is no ordinary school, this is 182 years old, the oldest medical college of Asia

- - 3. This is no ordinary festival. This is a 71 years old tradition, where students from 150 colleges of India participate, thousands of Doctors come, many social activities are performed. Sir, this is not only a event to laugh, sing or dance, this is a movement for the betterment of society.

- - 4. Coverages are surely not mere ads or local interest coverages. Times of India, The Telegraph have reviewed it, Quora has mentioned it. Are these local or ad sources?

- - 5. Finally, this page must not be merged with with the college page, because it is an independent tradition, not only students of Medical College, Kolkata but the students of over 150 other colleges of India also participate in it. It is a culture to all.

- When similar pages like Spring Fest of IIT KGP or the festival page of AIIMS DELHI , Pulse (festival) are existing with reputation, why delete or redirect this page?

Being a new editor I might falter, but as master editors, should not you have guided us how to improve the page, instead of trying to delete it? I have nothing more to say.Hope, you will consider with reason and heart and keep it in Wikipedia. With respect to all Dipra Dattasarma (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge with trim), per nom. Coverage does not satisfy WP:NEVENT. All the claims from the WP:SPA WP:COI do not touch the fact that all coverage is in passing with no WP:DEPTH, nor any of the other WP:COVERAGE requirements. --Muhandes (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visit these wiki pages @Muhandes. Pulse (festival), Saarang, Unmaad, Mood Indigo (festival), Spring Fest. Are these pages of any different type? Have they anymore special coverage? Are they merged with their institution page? Please, think and reconsider.Dipra Dattasarma (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of which is already tagged for notability, with, I suspect, more to follow. This neither advances nor detracts from keeping this article. Anmccaff (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dipra Dattasarma: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notablw because articles from ^[1] and ^[2] and ^[3] available 110.227.77.152 (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2017 DipamoyB (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)oDipamoyB[reply]

References

^ Times of India
^ The Telegraph
^ thequora

Keep-- Because this is one of the oldest college fests of india ; it is notable because enough independent resources are provided Arpanpra (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — Arpanpra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep--this article is notable. Times of india and the telegraph are reputed newspapers of India. They have reviewed it. This page should be kept.Arnavdub99 (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — Arnavdub99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep.-- People must know about such a old event. It is no ordinary school fest. The event is notable too. Enough resources, provided. Further reading section and external link section gives more proofs. It should be kept as an individual page ArunavaGupta (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — ArunavaGupta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep.--This is the annual social of the oldest medical college of asia and has its repitation of its own.its not an prdinary college fest,its the biggest college fest of eastern india in 2015.it is reviewed by the telegraph,times of india and several other mostly circulated newspapers.so it should be kept.keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghyasa (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — Arghyasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep.--This is the annual social of the oldest medical college of asia and has its repitation of its own.its not an prdinary college fest,its the biggest college fest of eastern india in 2015.it is reviewed by the telegraph,times of india and several other mostly circulated newspapers.so it should be kept.keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.156.221 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the extensive (quite impressive, actually) sock-fest, there's only two real comments here, and that's not enough to call a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, at a pinch, merge a very trimmed-back version to the article on the institution). I have no doubt that it's all kinds of fun, but it's also all kinds of non-notable and even more of promotional. At such a time as coverage mandates spinning a non-promotional version back out, there's no problem in doing so, but this isn't the time or the version. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- funny is not it after providing 22 independent resources.you guys are still shouting, this page is not notable. what do you want? a refrence list longer than the content of the page.just because you dont like it and a group of new indian editors have created this page you are voting to delete it.what is funnier, this is an india related event and no indian master editors have commented once here.please, come above your personal choices and explain,why this page is not notable. even after providing 22 independent resources which include times of india,the telegraph and quora . Prtkbsws (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)— Prtkbsws (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep--Fix the title of the article, remove promotional material. Has a lot of work to be done, but definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two national newspaper references may swing it for me. That famous performers perform at the festival helps as well. I note the people here (and on the article's talk page) who are very keen to keep the page. I think the long list of references isn't helping their case because among the higher quality links there are lower quality links. Since the festival has been occurring since 1947 there is significant historical background. Are there major media/entertainment stars who participated in the festival when students? If so, this would help establish notability for the festival. E.g. in the same way that the Cambridge Footlights are notable because of the large number of famous comedians/actors/etc. who participated in footlights. (And probably there are other reasons for notability too.) Can one of the proponents of the page tell us if there are such 'graduates'? Ross-c (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--Doing some own local-language investigations!Godric on Leave (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Delete the article and redirect to the article on the college.For what it's worth:--this reference is non-proffesional journalism from a college-goer for a wing of the Telegraph whose targeted audience are the students and hence delves on camp-us news et al.Also, this is effectively a section on the City events section in a daily supplement(T2) published by the paper.I searched for notable coverage about the event on local vernacular dailies but there were almost nil covg. barring some short, trivial mentions in the City events column(s) at the time of the year, they were organized.(This column mentions about 10-15 events everyday(including art exhibitions, local sports tournaments etc.)!So, that basically entails zero notability.And that some famed artists performed at the event also leads to no notability/encycloepadicness.(Even, in our annual neighbourhood Puja function, some of these names have performed!)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Godric on Leave, this is a college fest and there seems to be other articles about college fests such as Rendezvous (festival) and Tryst, IIT Delhi. How do we decide if those are notable and this one is not?--DreamLinker (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DreamLinker: We don't. This is a discussion about this fest, not about those others. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the festival where current stars of west bengal, like Kamaleswar Mukherjee, Dr. Plaban Mukherjee, Dr Nirmal Maji, Dr Sikha Banerjee etc have participated during stednt life, is definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.185.78.109 (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpenDoe

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

WP:BLP of a rapper, "referenced" exclusively to his own self-published video on YouTube with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. Nothing here constitutes evidence that he passes WP:NMUSIC for anything, and people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist if reliable source coverage about them in media isn't present to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stuff like this can be speedied deleted based on G11. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No reliable, independent sources. Article claims notability by association despite not having an official album release. Mduvekot (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Consensus is that issues with article can be solved by editing, not deletion -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bag face

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

WP:BEFORE checks reveal little coverage of the topic. Interesting, but unencyclopedic and written like a blog post. DrStrauss talk 16:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or Keep I usually comment on people, so I'm not so confident about what is suitable for wikipedia articles in other areas, and what isn't. 'Bag face' appears to be a ... thing worthy of mention by major museums. E.g. http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O68518/bag-face-unknown/ https://collection.maas.museum/object/402329 http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/681589 https://collection.cooperhewitt.org/objects/18420069/ https://www.artsy.net/artwork/bag-face http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/bag-face-rug-68721 http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=534787&partId=1 (Christies!) http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-lebab-turkmen-bag-face-torba-front-5419823-details.aspx etc. etc. etc. I find the article confusing as it seems to jump back and forward between discussing the bag face, and more general discussion about bags. It also lacks citations. But, perhaps this is a reasons for a multiple issues box mentioning that the article needs to be improved, rather than a delete. Ross-c (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the initial author of this. If I remember correctly this was done when I was working on the articles requested project. I had to contact a subject matter expert, who wrote the bulk of the article. I think the main obstacle to improving this article is the lack of sources, which makes it difficult to improve the article for someone who isn't an expert. The sources for this article will probably not be English sources though. BFG (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I realized the problem with the article is the main term, the way to solve this is to change the main term to Nomadic Bag, or Bag (Nomadic), I'm not sure which term applies. Bag face would then be a subheading and a redirect could be placed on Bag face. BFG (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs sources, not deletion. The subject is notable. This is the kind of thing that is discussed in the article. If such objects are collected by museums and of scholarly interest, they have a place in wikipedia. Khorjin currently redirects to Kilim. Bag face should be renamed to Khorjin, and replace the redirect. Mduvekot (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Readily can find many (thousands?) of hits on such items in museum collections. Seems to be more than sufficient WP:NEXIST to keep. Yes it needs referencing. Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchs Fine Guns

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Few independent, reliable sources which give WP:SIGCOV can be found. DrStrauss talk 16:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the article's claim that the double barrel repeater is there most notable gun, I find little information about them. Here's an article I found. http://www.range365.com/double-barrel-bolt-action-rifle#page-2 While I haven't found enough to justify the article yet, I don't know anything about guns and comment here to prod others who know guns to check for articles in magazines, etc. Ross-c (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP and GNG. References fail WP:ORGIND, are promotional or rely on company material and are not independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Free Speech rally

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

Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the rally is still in progress. Standalone notability may be difficult to establish and it might be an idea to redirect it to Unite the Right rally. DrStrauss talk 14:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- This nomination is too soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Too soon to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has made BBC News in the UK; ergo it meets the threshold of notability for me. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too soon to tell – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy incubate and salt until 2 Sep 2017 Also, move the article to a generic name in draftspace, such as "Rally in Boston on 19 August 2017". Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the article states that the event took place today. A look at the sources shows dates from before today. There is a source from CBSNEWS described as "live updates". Its not clear at this point that people in ten years will remember or care about this event. The title of this article itself is WP:OR, as there has not been time for the world at large to decide on a name, and there is risk that Wikipedia is now involved in the naming of this event. Unscintillating (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe rename reactions to Boston Free Speech rally as it seems the counter-protesting is getting all the press. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rally over now. Nothing significant happened. Also WP:NOTNEWS Rossbawse (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of consequence here. A line or two in appropriate articles such as Unite the Right rally, to which this was an addendum. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Merge any relevant information to Unite the Right rally and redirect to that article. It is also worth noting that a similar rally happened in Berlin today, so perhaps there should be a subsection that briefly discusses these events. This is Paul (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Protest event covered by numerous reliable sources. None of the 4 criteria at WP:NOTNEWS is applicable, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" this is not. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To suggest "nothing significant happened" is astonishing. I've seen this reported in UK newspapers as a crowd of 15,000! RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And U.S. ABC evening news reports the number at 40,000. We have no deadline. We follow the sources. Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the rally itself was not notable but the counter protest was. The mayor estimated that 40,000 ppl participated -- a march does not need to be deadly or violent to be significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Eeesh. We're not talking a monster truck rally. We're talking an event that made the international newswires, and part and parcel of an ongoing saga with a measurable and heavily cited effect on the United States government. To suggest that it's "nothing of consequence" is so very far off the mark that I've a hard time coming up with ways to describe it that conform to Wikipedia civility policies. Ravenswing 01:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The counter-protest seems to be the largest anti-Trump protest since the Women's March.--GeicoHen (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep with no prejudice against re-nomination in 2 weeks time. These "breaking news" articles are generally never deleted immediately, even if they are clearly nothing burgers later. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For now at least. I cannot see the likelihood of establishing a long-term impact but the event is still new and I can be proven wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of consequence here. A line or two in appropriate articles such as Unite the Right rally, to which this was an addendum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Size and presidential comment leads me to think that this was a watershed event. It's far more irritating that we have these fast deletion challenges of breaking events than we have the articles about the events themselves. Carrite (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't care what the title ends up being, but it is too widely attended and too widely reported not to receive coverage on Wikipedia. Merging it with Unite the Right rally would propagate an utter falsehood as this event was not held by Nazis. Connor Behan (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question to those voting "keep for now", does not policy dictate that we should only keep articles once notability has been established?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And with this morning's news, a glimpse of what history might see is that this was the largest of many protests across the U.S on 19 August 2017. We don't have a sense yet what history will call these events. Why is this article still in mainspace? This article is yet another example of why we need a "CSD" for speedy incubate. Unscintillating (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Indeed, history might turn out to call these events something different. In which case we (drumroll here ...) change the name of the article. This is scarcely an onerous or challenging task. And why is this article still in mainspace? Obviously because the overwhelming consensus is against your POV that this is a NN subject. Ravenswing 19:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: I don't have a POV per se, I don't think protests are NN in general at all. DrStrauss talk 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does "overwhelming consensus" (which is far from the case here anyway) override a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow"? That is up to the closer to decide, and since most keep !votes to this point have disregarded the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" policy, the closer has good reason to take this article out of main space. The one !voter who mentioned the related WP:NOTNEWS misquoted the policy, identifying examples as criteria. The damage will continue as long as a mainspace article that is really a draft is copied out to the Wikipedia mirrors while this AfD languishes. Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, overwhelming consensus does not override a standard. What overwhelming consensus does do is assert that the standards have not been overridden, and that neither you nor any other Delete proponent have made your case as to the purported "damage" this article would inflict on the encyclopedia. That you don't care for the outcome is as may be, but the definition of whether a guideline is met or not doesn't hinge on your personal approval any more than it does on mine. Ravenswing 01:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't !vote to delete, and my !vote is not based on a guideline. And the point is improving the encyclopedia going forward, whether or not you are on board with improving the encyclopedia going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the fact that I contributed an image, this is an excellent example of the appropriateness of embargoing breaking-news stuff for a while. A month from now it this debate will be much more clear-cut. E Eng 00:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol (that means keep in case it wasn't obvious) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: cheers :P DrStrauss talk 17:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This generated a big response from officials, 40,000 people counter-protesting isn't normal for Boston. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward Camp

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

No legitimate sources (three of them are just links to places related to this camp and one is a YouTube video). I did a Google search and not many articles written on this camp. Andise1 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent addition of independent reliable sources. bd2412 T 03:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Woodward_Camp, I am relisting this for further comment on the sources presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG as per available sources about the topic. See also WP:NEXIST: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The [first source provided by WikiOriginal-9 above provides substantial coverage. This seems like it should not have been nominated for deletion. --do ncr am 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I never care about state of sourcing, changed vote per WO-9's source grab. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This appears to violate WP:V, which is a bright-line requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faizabad Medical College

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

Does this college actually exist? This appears to be a possible hoax. I can find no evidence for a medical college in Faizabad that corresponds with the one as written in this article. The apparent formal name is Government Medical College & Super Facility Hospital, Faizabad, but there is no such facility. The one working reference in the article appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation. The title of the news article purports to be "UP to have new medical college in Faizabad", but if one actually goes to the OneIndia article, one finds that the article is actually "UP to have new medical college in Azamgarh". According to Google maps, the Azamgarh and Faizabad are 140 km apart. Ther are two official websites listed. The one in the infobox does not resolve. The one in the external links is to GMC, the motor car company. Note that much of this article appears to have been taken from Government Medical College and Super Facility Hospital, Azamgarh. Whpq (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I confirmed the absence of a primary website in the article, one that could be used to confirm the name. I also tried searching for the Hindu name on Google and Google images. I sorta doubt that this is a hoax, but I don't know what else it is. Unscintillating (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unscintillating:: You might sorta doubt this is a hoax, but this isn't the only article from this editor that seems to have been just invented out of thin air. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9X Odia for another example. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not moving back to draftspace at this time, since it's already been rejected numerous times there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qoob Realtime Frontend Page Builder for Wordpress

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

Despite being declined three times at AfC, the author has elected to move this into mainspace themselves. The Wordpress plugin is totally non notable, with the provided references 1) from extremely dodgy list sites 2) of the 'I'll rub your back if you'll rub mine' kind of list websites. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Author posted a question to the helpdesk and ignored the advice. Also ignored the suggestions from the AfC reviewers, of which I am one. David.moreno72 13:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could have been speedy deleted as spam per G11 Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable software. Contains just enough description to avoid G11, but that doesn't make it pass software notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable, all the 'refs' are trivial mentions or promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move - move back to draft space to continue AfC process (if this is even a possible option) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFC is chronically overloaded, we don't need to add this obvious junk to the pile. It's already been declined three times for not being notable, another decline will achieve nothing but waste precious reviewer time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Gheur

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

Apparently non-notable advertising person (I think that's what he is, though it's not entirely clear from the sources). 0 hits on G-news. There's some discussion of edits by the principal editor at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Marcomgirl.

Note: the article was formerly much longer; I've attempted to limit it to what is relevant, neutral, and supported by the sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ennio Emmanuel

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

Emmanuel fails notability guidelines for musicians. A quick Google search reveals little in the way of independent, reliable coverage. Much of the content about his life and music career is unsourced, failing the biographies of living persons policy. DrStrauss talk 12:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, nor any peer reviews, media coverage or reasons to presume notability. Claims are vague and outsourced, mentioning upcoming albums and unpublished books and things that haven't even happened yet. When they do happen and receive widespread review, perhaps the entry on Wikipedia can be re-assessed. Until then, delete. Darthamender (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ennio Emmanuel has released albums, has released books, only Hispanic able to travel in the Public school system with Justo Lamas Group. Has won a Premios Arpa Dove Award. and much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.151.19 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Some people want a page move; I am seeing a move discussion/request on the talk page so I'll direct people there Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Australian constitutional crisis

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

Duplicates content from Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia#2017 cases, no need for a separate article as far as I can tell. "Constitutional crisis" has been used to describe the situation by a handful of commentators, but these are mainly newspaper columnists using hyperbole rather than actual constitutional law experts. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to section 44 as duplication of existing content without a sufficient basis for a split. The section 44 article already discusses all previous cases. Mélencron (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant political issue with substantial coverage in secondary sources. Clearly passes GNG. I agree that the title of the article is less than ideal, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Cjhard (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a huge issue in the news right now, with serious consequences. Should be the "main" article the subsection redirects to. Could do with a better title, I concur, but I couldn't think of one either - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS. Few sources call the current situation a 'constitutional crisis', and it manifestly is not one: the legal processes needed to resolve these cases are working fine. This can be covered well in the article on the relevant article of the constitution as noted in the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this is a duplicate of the article about the section of the constitution - indeed some of the content there would probably be better in this article. This article is about the wider context of the cases, the context linking them, and the actual and possible consequences thereof. As noted there are lots of secondary sources about this as a whole, not just the cases individually (which is how the the constitutional article seems to be treating them). I don't have a strong opinion about the title, but that isn't a matter for AfD in any case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article actually has less content than the Section 44 one, and much of what was posted in it was factually wrong. We'd be much better splitting out the 2017 content from the Article 44 article if/when it becomes to long than to have this duplicative and much lower quality article. Nick-D (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Indeed, my point is that this article is the better place for much of the information about the individual cases that is currently in the article 44 article, given that this provides the connecting context to them and deals with the actual and potential consequences for the government as a whole rather than just the individuals. Certainly some of what was removed from the article appeared to me to be sourced explicit speculation based on one of the possible rulings rather than factually wrong. Whether it was notable speculation is a different question, but simply declaring it "wrong" when the question on which it is based is what is before the courts seems incorrect and possibly disingenuous to me (although as I have no reason not to assume good faith, the latter should be unlikely). Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (For the time being)If the High Court rules that two of the Coalition MPs were wrongfully elected, then the Turnbull government would be in a hung parliament that would need the support of the crossbench, all of whom have said they won't support Turnbull. Essentially meaning that this could have a high chance to collapse the government, if the high court's ruling is otherwise and the MPs keep their jobs then I think it appropriate the delete the article.--Luckyowl10 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Its a major event in Australian politics which has affected greatly the presence of a major crossbench party in the senate, members of cabinet, and the leader and deputy leader of a coalition government party. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very important, several prominent politicians have been affected by this, therefore it has affected notable people. whether it should have its own article is arguable, but failing anywhere better to merge it too, i would like to see this kept. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least for now. This will only be "important" if the High Court actually shows any of these politicians the door, which is far from certain. Saying that this will have a lasting impact (let alone the absurd hyperbole of calling it a "constitutional crisis") is pure WP:CRYSTAL stuff. If this brings down the government or causes wider effects then we can come back to it with cooler heads. More generally, this was created as a WP:POVFORK of the section 44 article, and covers a lot of the same ground but in a much less satisfactory method. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Several federal politicians are having their eligibility determined by the High Court, and the High Court will presumably be making an interpretation of the Constitution and setting new precedent. Therefore, on this alone, I think it is already notable and significant enough to merit its own article, regardless of whether anyone gets booted. There is plenty of content ready to be moved into this article from the "2017 cases" section in Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia - the section is growing fairly long now and would suit being moved to its own article. As for the title, I don't know if it can currently be called a "constitutional crisis", a different title should probably be adopted. Liguer (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Liguer: I've moved the content over to this article. I'm surprised by the time you mentioned it, nobody else had done it already! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's well sourced. It doesn't duplicate, it expands, which is within policy. Whether ultimately the current bunfight turns into a big deal or not, only time and/or the law courts will tell, but this is a valid topic. I'm not wild about the name. Perhaps "2017 Australian constitutional eligibility cases" might be a more appropriate name. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's good to have all these related issues in one article, but calling it a constitutional crisis as of now may be over the top. Zelpa (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Name may need to be changed, but is clearly an ongoing matter of relevance with material that is well sourced and does not naturally fall into any other article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Luckyowl10. No comment on changing the name. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced, and relevant story in Australian politics. Timeoin (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. This is a relevant story, but calling it a "constitutional crisis" is just creative writing by the author: no one is referring to it as this in the noun-sense. Where is the sourcing for this framing of the article? And why wouldn't it go in the Section 44 article - which has more than enough space for it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information from the Section 44 article got to the point where it was more appropriate to move the info to a new page. As said above the name should probably change though.MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely change the name, either to Constitutional disqualifications from the Parliament of Australia, 2017 as proposed, or to the name of the High Court case that provides the relevant ruling once this is known. There is now too much detail to be covered in the Section 44 article, especially compared to other relevant cases in that article, which never have non-legal historical details longer than a couple of paragraphs. This is a well-documented political event, and while it is not a crisis on the same scale as 1975's, it is an important, unparalleled moment in the history of the Constitution. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename ~~OR restore to Section 44 of the Australian Constitution~~. This is vital information on a political crisis that involves major constitutional issues. All of these cases have been or will be referred by the Parliament to the High Court as Court of Disputed Returns. The Court will need to give s 44 the biggest going-over that it has ever had, deeply revisiting Sykes v Cleary (which is why I have just given that case a long summary). I too wouldn't describe this as a constitutional crisis: there is constitutional uncertainty (of s 44), but (unlike 1975) nothing that it looks like the Court won't be able to handle. If not kept, its content must be restored to Section 44 of the Australian Constitution. Logically, I would prefer restoration, but in an editorial light there are now so many of these cases - and could be more - that the series was threatening to become unwieldy where it was. There will be an occasion to add the Court's decision(s) to the article on s 44.Wikiain (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Wikiain (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See now the summaries of Sykes v Cleary in Section 44 of the Australian Constitution and the article Sykes v Cleary. Wikiain (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change my Comment to Keep but rename and have amended accordingly. I think the article is developing well. Wikiain (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, topic is undoubtedly notable and meets WP:GNG with numerous sources available, problems with title is a side issue. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the size and scale of the issue, it definitely qualifies as an article under WP:GNG. One sub-chapter of another article can't quite capture the scale of the issue. An omission of this issue from Wikipedia's growing database of articles would be at best a severe oversight. On another point, people looking for information regarding these disqualifications will be more inclined to look up "dual-citizenship disqualifications" or something similar rather than "Section 44". Maybe the title of the article needs changing for the meantime but link the section on the disqualifications on the Section 44 article to this as a main article.Fremantle99 (talk to me) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to, well, anything else. There is no "crisis" per se, but it's a notable issue. St Anselm (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something I can't quite work out what it should be at the moment. It's clearly, as per any number of well-thought-out comments above, a notable thing and deserving of its own article separate from the one on the relevant section of the Constitution. I don't read it as a "constitutional crisis" just at the moment (not in the way that, say, the Dismissal was, anyway), and the point that it may not develop into one depending on what the High Court says is also valid. It is certainly a something, though, and a "fairer" name is never a bad option. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly coverage independent from that which can be reasonably be included in Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely rename. How on earth is this a constitutional crisis? The government is still in charge (just). If the High Court rules Joyce & co ineligible, the government will lose its majority. This may lead to a change in government, but that may be only a temporary change pending the probable return of Joyce at a by-election. All very orderly and predictable. Less certain is the ministerial decisions made by Joyce, Nash and Canavan during the period they shouldn't have been in parliament. Maybe some things will be rendered null and void and will have to be revisited. But whatever happens, we're nowhere near a constitutional crisis. Just because some media person has so labelled it, that doesn't make it so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is certainly not normal, at least for a mature, democratic country, for such a big number of politicians to be disqualified, to the point of a government's survival being threatened. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename A very notable sand unusual set of circumstances which has been covered extensively. Renaming is needed but that is a separate discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An absolutely crazy political situation that has the potential to bring down the government and wipe out or atleast harm the reputations of large sections of the political class. Superegz (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per JackofOz and others above. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should we invoke WP:SNOW and just call a day here? The top of the "2017 Australian constitutional crisis" article has been clogged with notices for a while now, and from what it seems here, it's not like there's much of an argument for deleting the article. Shall we close the discussion and mark it as "keep", so that we can clean {{Article for deletion/dated}} from the top of the article? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The current results are:

Keep (including 'Keep and remain') - 22

Weak keep - 3

Delete (including Merge with Section 44 article) - 4

I'd say that 75% + of votes for Keep if conclusive enough to be considered consensus. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Kian Loyd delos Santos

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

WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. Just one of the drug-related murder cases in the Philippines that is sensationalized by the mainstream media Slightlymad (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now, the death has implications to the Philippine Drug War in particular. The case itself has been used as a big leverage by opposition figures against the campaign and even DOJ secretary Aguirre has ordered the NBI to probe the case. The reactions to the subject death is notable.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No longer sensationalistic. The shooting incident has reached the national level, and there is no doubt that the 16-year old's death has raised enough controversy and public outrage, from the general public to human rights groups, celebrities, and the national government. The national government calling for a probe to the death of that teenager in an antidrug operation makes it already notable enough, given its implications to the war on drugs. I agree with Hariboneagle927.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the incident has received more than enough variety and prolonged coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not an ordinary drug-related killing or as they say, extrajudicial killing (EJK). It has really big implications and notability (as said by commenters above) on the nation's war on drugs. This very killing has even reached the international media. Both executive and legislative branches of the Philippine government are calling for an investigation. ~Pog ing Juan 08:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as other users above and User:Jollibinay on their talk page: "Slightlymad by this reasoning, 2017 Ozamiz police raid, Death of Rolando Espinosa, and Kidnapping and killing of Jee Ick-Joo should also be nominated for deletion. Jollibinay (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

This particular incident related to the Philippine Drug War has reached both the national and international level of news coverage. Kian Loyd delos Santos' death and its consequences have similar notability as the aforementioned articles by Jollibinay. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 07:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the deletion looks like a whitewash of several of those notable deaths in the drug war, in my opinion. While most EJK cases are not notable, the Espinosa, Jee Ick-joo, Parojinog, and delos Santos cases are notable, given the implications to the drug war and strong condemnation (including calls to end the antidrug campaign). Calling all EJK cases, including extraordinary cases like those above, non-notable and just sensational would look like bias against them already.

There is a similar whitewashing on Portal:Current events/2017 August 20 by an IP (registered to PLDT), calling the delos Santos shooting case "non-essential news", but connecting it with Slightlymad is all bad faith. I reverted the IP edits there, plus I added a general notice added to the IP's talk page.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this has been the big topic of conversations (online and IRL) by the expatriate Filipino community, and the incident that's triggered massive protests supported by the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines. It's not just one day's news cycle. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for common sense's sake. Wakari07 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakari07: And if you're not aware, there are attempts by some IP's to censor out again those related to the reactions to the delos Santos case again on the current events portal, specifically those on August 20 and August 21. Well, all of us agree that the article must be kept as it gained already enough notability already.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's sparked massive protests and is being discussed internationally. Sunomi64 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The event is evidently significant enough to warrant its own article. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's not to say the article should be deleted, but an AfD looks rather pointless if nobody's at least suggesting as much. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien Delage

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

The subject appears to have received little to none biographical coverage in reliable sources. None of his works appear to be notable. He seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE.

In case further research establishes borderline notability, a WP:TNT deletion should be considered due to the article's other problems, which include:

misrepresentation of references (e.g. ref #16 to Guardian)
significant COI issues
reference bombardment
original research (e.g. the sentence "He specialized in typography with typefaces like Dead Kansas")
use of unreliable sources

--Rentier (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ali Waris

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

fails to pass basic WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nom made by mistake. should be closed. --Saqib (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salting Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanath Sivaraj

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

An article on the same subject was deleted at AfD last month. This one is sufficiently different to avoid G4 speedy deletion but the subject is still not notable, and if deleted I would suggest salting. Michig (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current article looks very similar to this version of the autobiographical User:Sanath Sivaraj (since blanked). AllyD (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: An Indian media search found a passing mention of the subject editing a short Youtube film: [28] but that is far too slight to support WP:FILMMAKER notability. No reason to overturn the July 2017 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Recreation of page leads me to recommend creation protection.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has improved since the last discussion. Jupitus Smart 09:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. NB: the creator has also been repeatedly attempting to do a pov fork at Thiyyas - that has now been addressed but there seems possibly to be a competence issue here. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shendi Ashraful Ulum Hafizia Madrasa

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

This article lacks reliable sources so everything said in the article now is just a claim. This location can be searched from Google Maps, but other than a phone number there is nothing else--not even a detailed address, nor an official website. A regular Google search turns out mainly phone books, no detailed introduction or any introduction at all, nor does any news report this institution, so this article doesn't look conforming to WP:GNG to me. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 05:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some sources establishing any notability whatsoever can be produced, I'm not sure how it can be kept. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above statement — IVORK _Discuss 10:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . This really fails every criterion we have for inclusion. I won't list them all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia-Elizabeth Christian Favale

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Google search does not find independent in-depth coverage of her. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not a single reliable secondary source. What might look like one, the references to the SSRN paper, frankly says is "Dr. Atif Ansar and Ariell Ahearn prepared this case in association with Marcia Favale-Tarter " DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a spammy article likely created for payment; pls also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BME917. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omm'A Givens

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

Article subject hasn't met notability guidelines since 1995, years before Wikipedia was created. Nothing new or notable about article subject anywhere since the 1995 championship season. There is nothing meaningful in online sources on him in the last 18 years. Not even in the last 15 years, the last 10 years, the last five years. He never made any kind of "splash" after he played in the championship game for UCLA in the mid-1990s. As far as basketball is concerned, his career beyond that season didn't happen. Seems to me to soundly fail to meet WP:GNG per WP:1E. -- ψλ ● ✉ 04:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. There are 2 independent, reliable sources on the short article already. I am sure more exist. Meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Captain Raju. Past notability is still notability. Ross-c (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playing on a college team that won a championship over twenty years ago equals WP:1E. A 1E bio subject doesn't meet GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:GNG, do a Google search. Or, better yet, let me help you out with this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1E. If he had gone on to play pro-ball, even for just one year, I could agree. But playing on one winning college championship team 22 years ago and that's his only claim to fame? Still not seeing how that satisfies GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he played pro ball (which he did, in the D-League) if he meets GNG. Wikipedia notability guidelines are clear on this. It's also clear that how long ago the person met GNG doesn't matter. And he meets GNG by virtue of being covered specifically by reliable, independent sources such as those in the article and those I linked in this discussion. He's not notable only because he was on a championship team, so one event is irrelevant. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D-League is semi-pro, is it not? Question (because I don't know the answer) how long did he play for and do you have reliable sources to support it? The "coverage"you mention is 20 years old. There is nothing on him that is in the last 15 years, the last 10 years, the last five years, or currently or that comes from a reliable secondary source. How does that qualify the article subject for meeting GNG? If the article truly does meet GNG and the article subject is not 1E, fine, we should probably keep it. But, I'm just not seeing it. You have to convince me with real evidence that it meets GNG and he's more than a 1E rather than just saying over and over that the article meets GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is professional, but it doesn't matter. No one is arguing that he meets WP:NBASKETBALL. He meets WP:GNG because multiple major papers have written in-depth articles about Givens specifically, not just him as a member of a team. Once again, there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that says a person has to have recent coverage, in fact policy specifically states notability is not temporary, a guideline I linked in my first post on this thread. Also, I don't have to convince you, an admin will make the final call and make it based on policy. I linked three sources in this discussion and two more are on the article, and that's just what is quickly available on-line. Rikster2 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 4-year college basketball career (plus later time spent playing in the D-League) is definitely not a BLP1E. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rikster2. In addition, the entire nominating statement flies in the face of WP:NTEMP. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rikster2. Past notability is still notability. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded and improved the article a bit, added infobox and more references. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFC 133

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

This is an event for a minor MMA promotion. Events for promotions like Belator do not have individual articles. Fbdave (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems we barely have an article for Alaska Fighting Championship, just created. There isn't a huge amount of coverage for it but seems like it might have enough to qualify for an article however. I might add the sources I found to that stub of an article. Short mentions of upcoming tournaments obviously belong at that article. I'd suggest a redirect, but since the title of the AfD article is an acronym and not the full Alaska Fighting Championship 2017 name, I'm not sure. To begin with that's what the title of this article should really have been. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I removed the uncited BLP mentions and the facebook reference. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a future event that is unlikely to be notable even after it exists. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to be used to promote this event. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event with the parent article also of questionable notability and up for AfD (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Fighting Championship (2nd nomination)).PRehse (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable event from a non-notable MMA promotion. There is no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and no indication that WP:NEVENT is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event and doesn't meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSF 323 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beeson Carroll

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

Delete: non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 03:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of the references listed is a google image search results page. His claimed notability is based on MASH, in which he appeared in a single episode. Half of the article is explaining why he wasn't on more than one. Sorry Beeson. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete , blanked by creator. ... discospinster _talk 23:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Tour

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

No idea what this tour is about, I can't find any sources about it. Content previously appeared under the title Automatic World Tour which was under AfD but blanked by article creator. ... discospinster _talk 02:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not enough context to identify the subject. I've tried all of the venues on those dates, but not one has announced any dates past December 2017. menaechmi (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment possibly related to Tokio Hotel (article edited by the same contributor). They released a single called "Automatic" in 2009. Certes (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a good keep rationale appears. As pointed out previously, attendance and revenue figures are either psychic or a hoax. Certes (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathcha

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

Non-notable software. It is hard even to find it by Google search, although documentation does exist on YouTube. (Google search also finds a captcha package with the same name, also non-notable.) No third-party discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Is any thing that is written on this article is consider wrong? If it is a potential website that actually worthy to take a look by the community? We all know that we don't have a strong WYSIWYG math editor compared to TeX and it is not easy to type math online without learning TeX. Not like other services, software can prove itself worthy or not by normal people, you can not cheat if it is bad software. For example, Does Mathcha consider a strong and best WYSIWYG math editor? Give it a chance before you remove this article for non-notable software that still not exist on google search because it is too new? We don't judge a software by google engine right? If anyone can prove this software is useless - Please feel free to prove it here.

Take a look at this wiki post Ket_(software), please explain how a page can improve better than quickly decide to remove it permanently.
Also see on TeX Stack to understand more.
Also see on Hacker News Hacker News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamtudethuong (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Must know the difference between TeX compile online tool and WYSIWYG math editor (We almost don't have good WYSIWYG math editor)

Following i will quote wiki policy:wiki policy

It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough.
An article that looks inappropriate may simply have been tampered with; you can fix this by reverting it to the better, previous version.
If the article duplicates another, you can redirect it to the other one; there's no need for it to be deleted first.
It's polite to let the article's author know that you are asking for it to be deleted; you can find them in the page history.

Thamtudethuong (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thamtudethuong: This essay explains core problem of the article: WP:TOOSOON. Pavlor (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: Agree! It is so true soon+non-notable..., but still consider worthy of notice, so please reconsider base on other factors, if anyone really want to delete it, I accept without debating (That is why our opinions is more than rules, why we have this page for deciding) Thamtudethuong (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thamtudethuong: One of Wikipedia's core tenets is Notability. As there is no coverage of Mathcha, sadly it can't really have an article. But you can think of it as of yet, that maybe it can have an article in the future once coverage has been attained. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry to the developers, but no coverage to be found. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new software item. Regarding the comments above, whether something is worthy or useful is not the issue here. As it is, there is no substantial 3rd party coverage which can demonstrate it to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borders on G11 as unambiguous advertising. No value to the project and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday (1969 film)

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

The subject does not pass our notability criteria, nor it passes WP:NFO. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: searching for Sunday Nedjelja Lordan Zafranović in Google Books, there appears to be some relevant results as seen here. Considering that this film predates the Internet and is not in English, we need to make sure we check Croatian-language sources. I'll post a notice at WT:CROATIA. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Erik. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY – I expanded the article somewhat based on sources available online, one being a reprint of a 1968 magazine. Debut film of a highly acclaimed director. There's probably more out there, but as Erik hinted, not much more can be found online. Some sources [29] hint that the film received awards, but exactly which I can't tell. No such user (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent expansion work. There are sources in Google. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are those sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the subject is not still notable enough considering the the only sources found from an unknown place! I suggest to userify if it can be expanded using RSs. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In contrast User:Lugnuts, I see no available sources that indicate notability per NFILMS, GNG, and WP:NFO. According to one source, Zafranovic made this film as a student [30], and it is a debut film. No reason to think a student's film will garner the notice required to pass our notability criteria. There is nothing to indicate this film is a benchmark that is still discussed five years, ten years, and 48 years later (in year 2017) and so fails it fails WP:NFO.Steve Quinn (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being derived from a student film isn't grounds for deletion, else we wouldn't have articles on Killer of Sheep, Bless Their Little Hearts, THX 1138, The Wedding Party (1969 film), Black Sister's Revenge, or many more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable book sources in Croation and English as stated by No Such User so passes WP:GNG which overrdes the qualifications of WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, No such user has not presented enough sources to conclude notability. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnegat Fund Management

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to assert corporate notability. It was a spam article but was fixed a while ago leaving virtually no content and no independent, reliable sources. A quick Google search reveals no major reviews. DrStrauss talk 10:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This source from 2010 is explicitly about the fund. This is a press release, but the claims that "Barnegat Fund was named to Barron's Top 100 Hedge Funds for the sixth year in a row and is the only fund to receive that honor for the last six consecutive years." and "Currently, Bloomberg ranks the Barnegat Fund as the #1 Fixed-Income Relative-Value hedge fund in the world for the period from 2001 to the present date." are credible claims of notability. There are sources available if one looks for "Barnegat Fund", not just "Barnegat Fund Management" and they can and should be added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This reference from the nypost in 2010 fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The press release fails WP:ORGIND. There are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advocacy platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Article is TNT-eligible, with an easter egg link from nn Bob Treue to [[Fixed-income relative-value investing|Bob Treue]]. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Mouse

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

No incoming links, seems like more of an advertisement than an informative article. Not a notable device. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note. Previously proposed for deletion and so WP:NOQUORUM does not apply. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hate that cold mouse feeling Theodolite (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad spam. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sources that suggest notability. It's a nifty novelty product, but the coverage is all advertorial or trivial in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note that there is a bit of coverage (already included in the article) at PC World and CBS News. Whether this is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, I'm not sure. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Munga Mibindo

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a public utility company is a valid notability claim if it can be reliably sourced to enough media coverage about his work in that role to clear WP:GNG — but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles him to an article which rests on two glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears non-trivial biographical information (mentions that would support notability) is available here (what appears to be an Afro-centric news website) and here (an economic supplement issue of Jeune Afrique). The table of contents of this French book would seem to suggest that a whole page is devoted to discussing Mibindo. The Quarterly Economic Review issue cited in the article already appears to describe only a statement he issued in pursuance of his duties as president of the parastatal (less helpful for GN). Here it briefly says that he was the chef de cabinet for Prime Minister Kengo wa Dondo (less helpful for GN). This web news article mentions his more recent work in coordinating foreign investment for the construction of a large dam in the Congo. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Starke

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lliam Webster

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither routine sports coverage nor playing in lower tier IIHF events is enough to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ezzy

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG is not met by routines sports reporting and WP:NHOCKEY is not met by playing in lower tier IIHF events. Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kakha Ambrolava

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 21:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet any criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Gigauri

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 21:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither WP:GNG nor WP:NHOCKEY is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hathazari Degree College

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

Also the following article:

Non-notable college. It doesn't even have a functioning web site, because its web site contains Lorem ipsum placeholder text. The article, at the time of nomination, consists only of an infobox that links to the dummy web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) The following article also consists only of an infobox linking to a non-functional web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatever of notability. These are two of a series of articles (most of them speedily deleted) created by a single purpose editor about non-notable colleges, all or almost all of them with cloned web sites which are virtually identical and almost all of them containing "lorem ipsum" text on their home pages and empty place holder pages on the rest of their sites. Searches for further information about these colleges in most cases produce large numbers of Facebook pages and little if anything else in the way of significant coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following article whose web site is in Bengali:

Speedy the above article per G5. Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original author was being a jerk, creating a hot mess of extra work for other wikipedians. So I sympathize with a knee-jerk desire to delete. But these are bona fide, bachelor's-degree-granting colleges, and we don't usually delete such institutions. At worst we would redirect as an alternative to deletion.

What Robert McClenon and JamesBWatson have written above is true. These colleges are far from world-class. But bear in mind that as recently as 2008 only 0.4% of the population of Bangladesh used the Internet,[31] and English is not the country's first language. So notable organizations don't always have websites, and it can be difficult to find sources to prove notability. I put a few hours into finding sources, and think the articles are now acceptable stubs. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the WP:V improvements in the current article, therefore the concerns are addressed; while I will say I hardly ever support keeping a banned user's contributions through evasion; but in this case, there can be enough to improve beyond that of G5 (which would need only the 1 user itself, as opposed to other uninvolved users who contributed). SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I'm not that familiar with assessing the notability of schools, as they are not my area of expertise, but Worldbruce has put forward a good argument in my opinion. Given that Robert and James voted before written prose was added to the articles, I'd like to know what they think about the articles now. Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved a great deal by Worldbruce. They both confirm to notability guidelines and also should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Neutral now that articles have been expanded to include text. I will note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be cited in a deletion debate because it is an outcome essay, not a notability guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as degree-awarding institutions per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark H. Chilton

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as mayor of a town not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL. He could still qualify for an article if it could be sourced well enough to satisfy the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but the only references here are two primary sources and a single "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire of the type that every candidate in a local election gets -- which means that none of the sources here are building a strong case for inclusion. Also, conflict of interest as the original creator was User:Mark chilton. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of cities of this size (20,000 people) are not usually considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. As a note, there exists List of mayors of Carrboro, North Carolina where the subject is listed. --Enos733 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Lloyd

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

Biography of a person notable only as mayor of a town not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL. He could still have an article if it could be sourced well enough to satisfy the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but the sources present here aren't showing that at all -- of the five references here, two are simple transcription lists of all the headstones in a local cemetery, one is a 40-word blurb on a genealogy website, and the other two are just brief namechecks of his existence in articles about the town rather than him. This does not constitute evidence that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of cities of this size are not usually considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. As a note, there exists List of mayors of Carrboro, North Carolina where the subject is listed. --Enos733 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Consensus is to not keep the article as a stand alone; a redirect seems appropriate as this is a plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Waldorf

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former mayor, which is resting on a single source and is thus not referenced well enough to satisfy the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders. While it used to be the case that mayors were automatically presumed notable as soon as the city surpassed 50K in population, that's since been deprecated by a lot of more recent AFD discussions -- a mayor's notability is now much more purely dependent on how much sourcing and substance can actually be shown to actually get them over WP:GNG. But with one source, and literally no substance here besides "she was elected, she was reelected twice, she stepped down, the end", what's required simply isn't being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of cities of this size (57,000 people) are not usually considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First female mayor of Chapel Hill, one of the state's most influential cities. Similar status to Howard Nathaniel Lee's status as the city's first African-American mayor and Mark Kleinschmidt's as Chapel Hill's first openly gay mayor, both of whom rightly deserve their bio articles as well. Scanlan (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To address the questions over coverage, Waldorf served as mayor from 1995–2001, during the early days of online news and government sources. Regardless of location or city size, much of the content from local & state news sources from the mid-to-late 1990s are offline or no longer posted (link rot, etc.). It's why comprehensive sources are more readily available for more recent mayors like Mark Kleinschmidt or current mayor Pam Hemminger (whenever her bio is created in the future). Scanlan (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first member of a politically underrepresented group to hold an otherwise non-notable public office is not an inclusion freebie. We do not automatically accept the first woman mayor, or the first non-white mayor, or the first LGBT mayor, of every place that ever had mayors as an automatic notability pass — the inclusion standard for mayors begins and ends at "enough sourcing is present in the article to get him or her over WP:GNG", and that sourcing has to go above and beyond the exclusively local. And it's not enough to say that sources probably exist somewhere, either — hard evidence has to be shown that the necessary depth of sourcing does exist. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearcat's later comment. - GretLomborg (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. A redirect to List of mayors of Chapel Hill, North Carolina may also be appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a line about her being the first female mayor to List of mayors of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Doesn't meet NPOL or GNG, but since the list article exists, it should go there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of mayors of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The sourcing is just not good enough unfortunately, as much as I'd like to hold onto this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Foy

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a former mayor, not reliably sourced well enough to get him past the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders. While it used to be the case that mayors were automatically presumed notable as soon as the city surpassed 50K in population, that's since been deprecated by a lot of more recent AFD discussions -- a mayor's notability is now much more purely dependent on how much sourcing and substance can actually be shown to actually get them over WP:GNG. But what we have for sourcing here consists of three primary sources, one article in his alma mater's student newspaper, and one (deadlinked) daily newspaper piece which wasn't about him, but merely namechecked his existence in an article whose core subject was somebody else. None of this counts as significant press coverage at all -- and there's a looooooooot of completely unsourced content about his personal life here, too, deep enough to suggest "insider knowledge" editing by somebody with a direct conflict of interest. This is simply not enough to deem him notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick google search found me multiple reliably sourced articles [32] [33] showing that he considered running for senate seriously enough to be included in independent polls for the Senate race. The article definitely needs to be rewritten but that means fix it, not delete it. CJK09 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Considered running for senate" is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — a person gets a Wikipedia article out of a Senate election by winning it and accordingly holding the office of Senator, not just by being speculated about in the media as a possible candidate but then not actually taking the plunge. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Foy was a mayor. A mayor is a public figure. However, this article does require some cleanup. SWP13 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, mayors are public figures, but they're not all automatically accepted as notable public figures just because they exist — per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES, Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to public figures at the local level of political office. A mayor's includability on Wikipedia is contingent on being able to reliably source the article well enough to satisfy the "who have received significant press coverage" criterion. So no, we don't keep a poorly sourced article about a mayor just because cleanup might be theoretically possible — to be kept with a cleanup tag on it instead of deleted, it would have to be shown that the depth of sourcing needed to salvage it with does actually exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of cities of this size (57,000 people) are not usually considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG that I can see/find. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully agree that the article needs work (a copyedit and reorganization would be a big improvement), but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Plenty of sources available. Scanlan (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say there are plenty of sources available — anybody can claim that about anything even if there actually aren't. You have to show hard evidence that there are enough sources available to get him over WP:GNG — specifically by showing the actual, substantive results of an actual search for sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There appears to be only a few local WP:RS sources about the subject. A redirect to List of mayors of Chapel Hill, North Carolina could also be appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not large enough city to presume notability, no content in article demonstrates notability or non-local sources. Reywas92^Talk 22:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Times of India

[2] The Telegraph

[3] thequora

[1]

[2]

[3]