Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne LaFleur (artist)

Suzanne LaFleur (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though the deletion rationale is rather harsh considering there is a list of awards and LaFleur claims to have exhibited internationally (well, Kuwait). However, I can't find any reviews of her exhibitions online, or coverage about her (apart from a photo in Broadway World). The awards don't seem to be significant, from non-notable galleries/museums. This article was declined as a draft at AfC but the author decided to publish it anyway. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: agree with @Sionk that subject is not without claims to potential notability or merit. I just don't think she has arrived there yet -- too soon as they say. Quis separabit? 23:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tayback

Tom Tayback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Really very little reliable source material to be found on this fellow, other than brief mentions as a cast member on a handful of films of dubious notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very limited coverage and what's available is entirely local--I'm personally in favor of local sources counting toward notability, but hometown coverage alone does not suffice to satisfy WP:WHYN's requirement for a breadth of sources sufficient to create a balanced portrayal. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to List of signature weapons. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature weapon

Signature weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is merely a WP:DICDEF and shouldn't merit a page, similar to the deleted "signature move". I couldn't find sources describing "signature weapons" to the extent of demonstrating notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move and re-formulate/refactor as List of signature weapons (maybe starting it out as Draft:List of signature weapons until reformatted), which would be an interesting, notable, and valuable list article. There are already about 20 great examples in the article already, easily cited, and they would make the basis of an interesting and useful list article. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC); edited 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed, but only if it was draftified until said list was not unreferenced cruft. Otherwise, I think Category:Fictional weapons does that job, as most of the things there tend to be "signature" weapons. I also think that might go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fictional weapons" is not the same as "signature weapons", and many or most signature weapons are not fictional but real weapons. In addition, categories and list articles do not preclude each other; both are recommended when a category reaches a certain size and/or particular items in the list do not have dedicated articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to list per the excellent suggestion by Softlavender. I think this article is a perfect candidate for a list, and I agree that there are already many examples in the article that can be used. Agree also that in many cases the weapons will not be fictional and will therefore not present a significant overlap with a list of fictional weapons. In addition, a list such as this should (hopefully) be easier to curate, given that signature should convey some degree of significance/notability. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move I agree with the move, it would be easier to navigate as it expands. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per the above conversation as I agree that would be the most valuable/beneficial answer for this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Fowlie

Jimmy Fowlie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is about a person with a youtube channel who is not notable. The article includes references to primary souurces and unreliable websites. Notability has not been established. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Has appeared on multiple TV shows and been on television many times Thursby16 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Fowlie's notability seems established by coverage of him and his web series in HuffPo, The Advocate, and other reliables sources (three of which were removed by the nominator as citation overkill, which is fine, but I've restored them to the Ext links section of the article, as they speak to his notability). Primary sources (well actually, pretty much only one, YouTube) are only used to cite works in his filmography table, and based on edit summaries I believe the "unreliable website" the nominator is referring to is Facebook, which is used to cite Fowlie's hometown, an acceptable practice per WP:SELFSOURCE.— TAnthony^Talk 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - As the creator of the article I believe this article focuses on a rising star in the comedy and acting world as well as a prominent figure in LGBT culture in the 2010s. His work with the Huffington Post as well as his acting roles with the Disney Channel and HBO should be enough merit for keeping the article with additional citations that I'd be happy to research and provide. Scott218 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The NEWS link above brings up many articles that could be added to the article about the "So Long, Boulder City" show, from People, HuffPost, Variety, LA Weekly, etc. Robman94 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nova bomb (Andromeda)

Nova bomb (Andromeda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure fiction cruft without any notability. Fails WP:NOTPLOT/WP:NOTWIKIA. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, definitely fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:NOTPLOT. This isn't Andromeda Wikia. If I could see some RSes showing that the concept of a "nova bomb" has reached outside of the Andromeda universe and into the mainstream, then maybe. But as far as I can tell, this is not the case. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No merging or redirection, I cannot imagine anyone typing this into the search box. Ifnord (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Winters

Jason Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As mentioned on FTN, the great majority of this is self-published and otherwise non-independent or non-reliable sources. Attempting to remove those leaves a draft that is not worth posting. Attempting to find other sources and improve the article while remaining within WP:CCPOL results in an unsalvagable mess. Much of the text is refutation of casting doubt on the subject's self-claims. There is one WP:RS about the article subject; a Las Vegas Sun article larded with so many "he claims" and "somebody else says" and other qualifications as to render it nearly useless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like pure puffery to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree all very puffy,and seems to be written from an insiders viewpoint.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG Reads like a work of fiction, full of unlikely incidents that are not backed by reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I like the repeated statements of "not verified by outside sources", which is just a wee bit of a red-flag. Delete per above comments - very puffy biography that fails to meet notability after all self-published and non-reliable sources are disregarded. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. Consensus is that the article should be blown up and started over - moved to User:Joe Roe/List of artifacts in Philippine history Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of artifacts in Philippine history

List of artifacts in Philippine history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recent page creation by banned WP:SOCK account from a few days ago. Shaded0 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JournalmanManila Shaded0 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Do we delete articles just because they are created by a sock? There is quite a lot of good, well-sourced content here. For consistency with other national archaeology overview articles we should probably rename to Archaeology of the Philipines and clean it up a bit (it looks like there are some copyvio issues), but it seems a shame to lose it altogether. Also, I don't see a tag on Hunter05, are they a confirmed sock? – Joe (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Split. Not just because it's created by a Sock (no further comment on that for now, because I haven't reviewed the evidence), but because it ignores some fundamental problems of "Philippine" history - which is that it really wasn't "Philippine" history per se before the 1500s. Ask any historiographer or anthropologist and they'll agree that "Philippine" history presents a patently false sense of politico-cultural continuity. The presence of the article alone is a POV-push issue. An article like this is important, yes, but it really should be reconstituted as (1) Lists of Artifacts from separate ethnolinguistic regions (The Sulu archipelago, Mindanao, the Visayas, the Bicol region, the Tagalog Region, Central Luzon, The Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley and the Cordilleran peoples); plus (2) a list of artifacts from the prehistory of the Philippine archipelago (to cover the early habitation and migrations period); (3) a list of artifacts from Philippine Colonial History (I will argue that this is also needed); and possibly (4) a list of artifacts from Philippine Contemporary History (say, after Philippine independence from the US. I'm a bit more iffy on this, but this includes things like Ninoy Aquino's bloody bulletproof vest, remnants from the Magsaysay plane crash, etc.) I agree that the content here should be kept as much as possible, but organizing it this way is just... misleading. - Alternativity (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Additinal comment - Upon considering more options, I now support the idea of renaming this as Archaeology of the Philipines, although I still feel it needs to be reorganized to avoid POV/synthesis issues, and rewritten to remove nationalist peacock terms. - Alternativity (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there was no relation between the reliability and sock puppetry, and the article was proven to have a valid references and it had passed the categories of being an encyclopedic, all what we need is to review for if theirs a copyright or neutrality issues. (122.54.197.173 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)) — 122.54.197.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since when a wikipedia article serves as an artifact /archaeological findings catalogue? If followed through completely, this article might developed into an extra long page. Imagine if a country with a longer and richer history and tradition than the Philippines — such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Greece, India or China, create this kind of article? A serial book or a catalogue is more suitable for this kind of long article/list. Plus in the "List of artifacts in Philippine history#Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" section that contains obscure and spurious claims of Philippines past contacts to Greek kingdom of Ptolemy, Ancient India, and Persia is kind of stretching too far and went out of historiography discipline. But then again how I'm not surprise.., since this article was created by a sockpuppet with an agenda to rewrite Philippines history through creating a pseudohistory. Some of of these artifacts or findings is maybe valid, so with its references. However, considering the notorious bad practice of this sockpuppet to provide false refs; which providing a reference that look so valid, but after careful examination, mention nothing about the claimed section. I do not have the time and patience to examine each of these refs, but then again.., this subject is not suitable to be composed as a wikipedia article. So please delete it already. —  Gunkarta  talk  15:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gunkarta: See Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology of and Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology in. Of course it shouldn't be comprehensive catalogue, but an outline of notable discoveries is a perfectly encyclopaedic topic. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Still did not convince me to keep this article. Plus thanks to Hunter05 and Dashcam that has invested their interest, this article has already developed into a confusing jumble of Philippines artifacts list, that some of them are even too obscure and unclear to be categorized as archaeological findings and lack of notability. Also some parts contains dubious claims with questionable refs, especially that "Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" table that links Philippines to all that faraway civilizations including Ptolemaic Kingdom. Plus by inventing that obscure term "Archaic epoch" (?) of the Philippines history. Previously I've been interacted and witnessed the work of this JournalmanManila sockpuppet aka User:Hunter05 that created this article. I strongly believe he does not respect copyright, the scientific approach on writing history, nor possessed a required discipline in historiography, as he often spinning to fringe theory, inventing pseudohistory and resorting to spurious claims, even falsifying refs while editing to back up his claims. Possibly motivated by undue nationalistic agenda to rewrite and represent the history of his country in a more glorious light, he often invented a pseudohistory that despite the scarcity of archaeological findings, he describes pre-Hispanic Philippines as a strongly Indic-influenced civilization that somewhat in par with Angkorian Cambodia and ancient Java. Delete this article, and create a new "Archaeology of Philippines" article from scratch, free from all that rubbish, spurious claims and false refs, is more make sense and economic than trying to sort through or try to make sense of all this jumbled up information. —  Gunkarta  talk  23:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i find out the list of references are comes from academic sourcing, even the external links are valid there are mentioned NO fabrication or pseudo-history so far in any stated items, because of supporting references and passed as encyclopedic (WP:Source) despite of it was created by a sock good for this is ; we should review and correct the terms of some stated artifacts instead

Suggestion considering of the Academic sourcing, I support of renaming it as Archaeology of the Philipines or Archaeology in the Philipines instead of deleting this and check the page for the clean up in shorter terms the page is legit but we should check and clean this up, we need to be sure of its accuracy for the improvement.(Pricedelink (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) — Pricedelink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Potential keep but rename somehow. We have a series of articles on Philippines history and prehistory, but having something by way of overview is also potentially useful. This has the potential to become a useful list article. Whether or not some of the content is FRINGE is not an AFD issue: that can easily be removed by editing. As to the target, I am not sure that "archaeology" is right. Unless some one indicates that "archaic" is a term that is used, I would suggest "medieval" instead. In some Nordic countries "prehistoric ends at a similar date. I do not think it is so bad as to need TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and start entirely afresh I have already expressed my position regarding the organization of the article in my comments above. I've had to think a lot about the usability of the sources in this article and in light of the suggestion of User:Gunkarta above, I'm now also convinced that we should start afresh with an Archeology of the Philippines article. Such an article, not being just a list, would be able to put the listed artifacts in context. I'd like to participate in writing that article, but I'll await the community's pleasure regarding next steps, first.- Alternativity (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum: Please note that the sockpuppet in question has had a history of borrowing citations from other wiki pages and using them to assert "facts" which aren't in the original. (I have particular concerns about his past use of Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials, and of Bellwood's "Pathos of Origin" (Paths of Origins - he doesn't even bother to get the title right.) .Gunkarta and I have both had to undo some of the damage done in the past, and the cost he is referring to is of reviewing the article line by line, and checking not only if the fact is in the reference cited, but whether it has been misrepresented through cherrypicking or through peacock terms and weasel words. To be fair, the sockpuppet has indirectly led to the improved coverage of precolonial Philippine articles. But that's because s/he keeps manufacturing fringe articles so fast that other editors are forced to come up with orthodox articles, lest the coverage of Philippine prehistory and early history be made up completely of fringe theories and nationalist/postcolonial mythologies. - Alternativity (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Alternativity has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but prune , as WP: Source stated and rename also needs a little clean up because the content are Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax and any false histories. You may wish to review the criteria for WP:Deletion (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Suggestion rename it to Philippine Archeology (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)) — 124.104.94.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Totally support Alternativity suggestion to delete and start entirely afresh the Archaeology of the Philippines. We both have shared experiences on dealing and cleaning the mess of fringe theory and examining false refs line by line created by sockpuppet in question in some other articles. Moreover, the problem on dealing with sockpuppet is their tendency to pretend to be other users to rig the vote in an attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions and distort consensus. The practice of this sockpuppet to deceived, mislead and disrupt the discussion can be examine in Talk:Kingdom of Tondo that finally revealed that JournalmanManila, Theseeker2016, Parashurama007 and Hunter05 are actually the same person. I started to suspect that those IP adresses above: 124.104.94.92, 122.54.197.173, and Dashcam might be the same person, which ultimately User:Hunter05 and JournalmanManila. —  Gunkarta  talk  14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Gunkarta has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the article is deleted, could it be copied to my userspace please? I'd like to try and salvage at least some of the content for other articles. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please see this latest account edit also to make sure it is not the same IP: this edit. Shaded0 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. - Expressing support for Joe's request. Given the tainted slant of the text, I still think a total restart is more feasible than having to do a line by line revision for source verification and POV/Neutrality issue resolving. But it would be useful to have a draft version of this temporarily stored somewhere. While the text is oftentimes suspect and usually weasely-peacocky, the sources merit evaluating and checking one by one, and the best way to do that after a delete is to have a temporary draft. That said, may I ask where the community thinks it would be appropriate to discuss the organization of an Archaeology of the Philippines article? That topic will require a lot of input since anything earlier than the 1570s has to deal with the separate cultures and polities plus socio-technological eras. (Some combination of the proposed outlines of Scott (1994) and Jocano (2001), I suppose? I don' remember if Joaquin (1986) or Samuel Tan proposed anything specific. I'd have to check...) Anyway. Eager to get to work on that, but not sure if the List of artifacts in Philippine history talk page would be the right place, considering its afd nom. - Alternativity (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While one shouldn't toss out an article simply because of the sockpuppet origins, the behavior here reminds me of the parable of bad fruit coming from a bad tree. And both the tree and fruit here are rotten. Delete and start over. Ifnord (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to User:Joe_Roe's perferred space. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been expanded from a dicdef since the AfD started and the discussion has moved from a preference for redirecting towards one for keep/merge, so I'm closing the AfD to remove the ugly red box from it since clearly there is clearly no consensus to delete. The decision of whether to keep the content as a standalone article and expand it, or merge it into another article, is one that can be made through discussion on the article talk, without a deadline. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious assimilation

Religious assimilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Dicdef, no sources found, article untouched since 2009 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cultural assimilation. Religion is a part of culture, and is ultimately assimilated like any other part. bd2412 T 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cultural assimilation per bd2412. We could perhaps add the second and third paragraphs from our article there, but only if they were sourced, which they aren't. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Distinct enough from cultural assimilation that it merits its own article. The fact that it's stubby at the moment doesn't keep anyone from fixing it--nothing here strikes me as OR, more like not much more than DICTDEF... Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for this term and found relatively few uses, but did find an example like this [1] that begins by specifying it as the religious aspect of Cultural Assimilation. The term Religious Assimilation seems to be always accompanying Cultural Assimilation. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: It is a longstanding practice to merge stubby content into supertopic articles, and then break it out again when the material is sufficiently expanded within the supertopic. Merging now would not bar breaking it out into a separate page if the necessary expansion occurs. bd2412 T 20:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of organizational decisions are really best left to article editors to work out. ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cultural assimilation; no sources have been presented at this AfD to indicate that the subject is independently notable. None are present in the article, and my searches have not produced anything amounting to SIGCOV. The term gets used link, but it's unclear whether it's been a subject of study independent of cultural or ethnic assimilation. No prejudice to restoring to a full article if can be done with sufficient RS. A redirect works for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not redirect. I've narrowed the definition to avoid the WP:DICDEF problem (syncretism is a separate concept). I've also added a major reference (a Princeton University doctoral dissertation) that makes the point that dominant cultures treat religion differently from other aspects of cultural assimilation. A specific focus on religious assimilation, documented in sources, warrants a separate article—even though of course the more general concept of cultural assimilation will be discussed, if only to distinguish religious assimilation as an important special case.

There is a severe problem with access to sources due to copywrong and paywall issues, as well as old paper-only documents. For example, I cannot use the following, simply because I have no access to it:

Farr, Eugene (1948). Religious assimilation: a case study of the adoption of Christianity by the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi (ThD dissertation). New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The same is true of the books on Rwanda and on Eastern European Jews that show up at the top of the Google Books search. Nevertheless, WP:NEXIST states: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." By that standard, the warrant for a separate article on this topic should never have been in the slightest doubt.

—Syrenka V (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added two more references, with inline citations and further discussion of the relationships between religious assimilation and other aspects of cultural assimilation. Although still a stub, this article already establishes notability.

—Syrenka V (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent article improvements. Enough sourcing to establish notability independent of Cultural assimilation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to cultural assimilation, with no prejudice against a selective Merge. Of three sources in the current version, two are unpublished. A dissertation and thesis can be good sources, but (a) both talk about this in the context of cultural assimilation, and (b) in the context of this article, both are primary sources, the point of which is to make a novel claim. When a dissertation is published and/or other people start to take up that idea is when Wikipedia covers it. Cultural assimilation is a huge subject, too, so I'd want to see a great deal of sources to justify a stand-alone article for a subtype. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off separate treatment of subtypes, particularly those seen in the sources as significantly different from the general case. As noted above, there are many more sources behind paywalls; these are the ones I could easily access on the timescale of an AfD. Of the sources cited, only LeMay 2010 is being used as a primary source, and then only as an example to show that a particular kind of viewpoint is in fact held by some researchers—not to attest to the validity of that viewpoint. Both citations from Connor 2010 are from discussions of the prior literature, and Yang and Ebaugh 2001 is likewise used to attest to the views of Will Herberg and other religious pluralists in the earlier literature. WP:NOR, section WP:PRIMARY: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." Except for LeMay 2010, these sources are being used as secondary.

The sources cited are all unequivocally published by Wikipedia's standards, which are very broad. WP:V, section WP:SOURCE including footnote 6:

Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.

Availability on ProQuest or on Sophia University's website would definitely count. WP:RS, section WP:SCHOLARSHIP, explicitly allows use of publicly available, completed doctoral dissertations.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off I think I get what you mean by this, but what I mean is, effectively WP:NOPAGE. It's a minor subtopic of a subject we already cover.

Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". We're not looking for verifiability, which is what this sense of "published" means (literally everything on the Internet meets this definition). We're looking for notability and the reliability of sources to establish notability. That requires sources to be published in the sense of a third party determining that the content meets standards for quality and has merit/is worthy of notice. That's why it matters if an article about a subject was on someone's blog or in the New York Times. Granted, a dissertation is better than a blog, and I think it could be used in the article, but I don't think it contributes much to WP:GNG unless it's been published (in the sense of a press). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOPAGE itself, within WP:N: "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". "Is", not "may be". A generalized preference for merging stubs goes against the GNG, except in the case where they cannot be expanded for lack of existing sources. And "minor" is not a reasonable description of the scope of the topic by any stretch of the imagination, as even the few sources already in use demonstrate, let alone the many others easily found by search but not easily accessible as full text.

WP:NOPAGE also mentions cases where merging with a larger topic provides context needed to understand the more specific topic, or where many similar topics are better handled together because more or less the same things need to be said about all of them. In this case, even the very brief stub I have (re)written already demonstrates that there are fundamental differences between the sociology of religious assimilation and that of other forms of cultural assimilation. A treatment of religious assimilation that considers it first and foremost as a subcategory of cultural assimilation would, by that fact alone, be actively misleading.

As to reliability of dissertations as sources: although WP:N does have some additional requirements for sources to establish notability (independence, and at least one secondary source), nothing anywhere in WP:N supports a different or higher standard for reliability of sources than the general standards of WP:RS. The scrutiny provided by Princeton University's sociology department—which must approve any dissertation used to support conferral of its doctorate—is likely more rigorous than that provided by most book publishers (although likely less rigorous than that applied by Princeton University Press). WP:SCHOLARSHIP within WP:RS does mention citation in the literature as further confirmation of the reliability of a dissertation; Google scholar shows that Connor 2010 has been cited 7 times.

—Syrenka V (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cultural assimilation. The content quality here is better than that at Cultural assimilation (much of which should be reduced). Syrenka V has significantly revised this article since the nomination. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the complimentary remark as to content quality! I could do better yet if I had more expertise in interpreting the hundreds of pages of Connor 2010, and access to more of the existing paper or paywalled sources—indeed, a real sociologist with in-person access to a large university library could probably make a Featured Article from this little stub, whose modest size conceals a vast topic. Because of that topic size, however, as well as the very different sociological behavior of religious assimilation versus other forms of cultural assimilation that I mentioned above, I continue to oppose merging with Cultural assimilation.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not opposed to a keep. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article has been much improved by Syrenka V so that it now is sufficiently referenced. Distinct enough from cultural assimilation to merits its own article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kollam Cantonment. The redirect target seems to be better than the alternative C. Kesavan. Town halls et al are a feature of the locality and they rarely have any link with the subject (after whom it is named after), save as a token of homage. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall

C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A local municipal hall. Not sure "first air-conditioned" hall in Kerala is enough to warrant inclusion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:RS, 3 References are by one of the most reliable and reputed Indian news media The Hindu. Citation no 1 provides independent significant in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, Citation no 1 is also by the Hindu. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: WP:GEOFEAT reads "A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them." - (This article has significant in-depth coverage especially at citation no 1 by The Hindu which is an independent of the subject (private news media), historically used by wikipedians as a reliable source check the references of Air India Express Flight 812, most of them are by The Hindu. This article clearly passes WP:GEOFEAT, WP:RS and WP:GNG) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to C. Kesavan and add one line to that article mentioning this memorial. The memorial hall fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. The sources mentioned within the article, mentioned above by the editor, and otherwise available through my research, all have insignificant one line mentions about the hall. The only two sources (both from the Hindu newspaper) that mention this hall more than one line pertain to one which says that rents of the hall have increased; and the other that says a statue of C. Kesavan was unveiled in front of the hall. That's it. Lourdes 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Commenting on this overdue for close AFD. It seems likely to me that the subject is notable though the article is no masterpiece, typical of articles on many structures in India. If this was all we could find on a similar hall in New York City, where online access to newspapers information is much more robust, I might feel differently. I would also be comfortable with a no consensus close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to C. Kesavan. I disagree that it's notable enough for an article of it's own, even if it were in New York I doubt it would be the subject of news articles. Being mentioned in an article ("The meeting will be held at...") isn't a claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A funny manhole cover could get an article if its in New York. I agree that being mentioned in an article is insufficient by itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Delete - per WP:GNG, "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source". - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kollam Cantonment as the town hall is situated there. I disagree with the other redirect targets. Buildings can change names but their location is usually fixed. Merging the useful information to the cantonment article seems to be a reasonable solution. I am not in favour of having a separate article because there are not enough references to justify one.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamLinker, hope you're doing well. I feel that when a person types the term "C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall", they're not intending to read about Kollam Cantonment. It is more pertinent to redirect them to a page on C. Kesavan so that they can get a background of the person on whom the hall is named. If a page on C. Kesavan had not existed, I would have been okay with a redirect or merge to Kollam cantonment. But we do have a page on Kesavan that is appropriate. With respect to your contention that buildings may be renamed in the future (and therefore we should only merge to Kollam cantonment), that's a future premise that can't be predicted. If the building gets renamed in the future, we could revisit the redirect or create a separate article. But basing a merge suggestion on the premise that the building's name may be changed in the future, is perhaps incorrect. Warmly. Lourdes 04:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your answer. However, as I stated in the first sentence of my vote, my reason for redirecting it to the cantonment is because the building is a part of the kollam cantonment. Regardless of the name, it should be merged to the next larger geographic entity which contains it. This is for consistency with other similar articles on artificial geographic features. In this particular case it is a community hall which is connected more to the immediate community in the locality. Btw, in India, buildings are often named after politicians even though the politicians may not have any significant connection to the building. In such cases, it seems weird to redirect it to the article of the person. A Mahatma Gandhi road in X city should redirect to the transport section of the article about x and not Mahatma Gandhi.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying DreamLinker. So in other words, if an article like Gandhi Smriti were a redirect, then as per you, it should be a redirect to New Delhi rather than to the individual in whose name the museum exists... (iffy, as per me) I can see the advantage of placing details of the hall in both the C. Kesavan article (he's not one at Mahatma Gandhi level and his relevance seems to be local) and in the Kollam cantonment article. Therefore, would you consider changing your !vote to "Redirect to Kollam Cantonment while Merging contents to both C. Kesavan and Kollam Cantonment". What do you think? Thanks. Lourdes 11:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The example you quoted is not exactly analogous. Gandhi Smriti is a museum dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi. (Interestingly, I had no idea it was called Gandhi Smriti btw. I have always heard it being called "Birla House"). On the other hand, this community hall is not a building dedicated to preserving the memory of the person. I would simply merge and redirect to the Kollam Cantonment article. I agree with you that a sentence or two should be be mentioned in the C. Kesavan article. (I will just add it myself). Thank you for your reply and proposing a good solution.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DreamLinker. You say: "On the other hand, this community hall is not a building dedicated to preserving the memory of the person." The building is named "C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall". There is a notable statue too of C. Kesavan placed in the building premises. As much as an observer like me would understand, the town hall is named so purely to preserve the memory of C. Kesavan. I'm not sure I understand you correctly. At the same time, I'll extend my efforts and place the contents of this article to Kollam Cantonment so that the Afd can be closed as a redirect to Kollam Cantonment or to C. Kesavan; I'm okay with either. Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional note: I've already merged/added the contents of this article to Kollam Cantonment and to C. Kesavan. Thanks. Lourdes 00:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Owensboro High School. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Curtain Players

Rose Curtain Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Drama group which fails the general notability guideline. A search for sources shows little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, suggesting no encyclopedic notability. Owensboro High School doesn't even mention it which is why I would opt for deletion instead of a redirect. DrStrauss talk 16:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That Owensboro High School does not mention it sounds like a reason to merge this article there, not delete it. There seems to be quite a number of mentions of this club in older newspapers but indeed no substantial coverage. Regards SoWhy 06:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Owensboro High School per SoWhy. Ifnord (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Printing House

The Printing House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doesn't appear to pass the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though well done for keeping going for over 50 years, there's nothing in this short article to suggest what might make this company notable. I can't find anything indpendent online. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see the sourcing either, I'm afraid--in Books or in News. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability - fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barasat Central Bus Terminal

Barasat Central Bus Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:OR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. The Banner talk 18:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nominator. Wefihe (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brick god sosa

Brick god sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was deleted in May, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick God Sosa. Edwardx (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he's an 18 year old who doesn't appear to have any songs that have charted and has no coverage in mainstream sources. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple feat

Apple feat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hoax? I can find references to the "apple feat" of Cuchulain, juggling nine apples, but this "apple feat", which involves throwing the specially prepared brains of enemies, seems to be much harder to verify (it may appear in some books I can't access, but even then it has to be pretty obscure, much more so than the Cuchulain apple feat. Fram (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  10:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - That there was an (almost entirely notional/mythical) "warrior feat" called the "apple feat" is somewhat documented. Mainly in 19th century Gaelic revival works that cover some of this folklore. However, as noted, much of what we see in this article is uncited (and potentially therefore invented). I would recommend that this be deleted. On the basis of WP:GNG (only references I can find are of the passing/trivial kind, where this "feat" is listed with 29 other such mythical feats). And on the basis of WP:NOTDICTIONARY (just because a term was used at some point, we don't need an article for it). If required, this concept can be covered (as it is in the sources) as a passing reference in a broader article. Like Irish folklore of similar. Guliolopez (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficiently sourced, in addition to everything said above. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Yiding

Luo Yiding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be (at least based on a cursory search) a non-notable author. Unless notability is established, delete. (It should also be noted that this was pretty much a single-editor article, and that editor has only edited this article and the related article listed below.) Nlu (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for deletion because it is the series of books that Luo wrote, which also (seems to me) to lack notability, independently or otherwise.

Words on the Scenery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Nlu (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I also submitted a deletion request at Chinese Wikipedia, for the same reasons. If anyone can establish notability, please also note it at the Chinese Wikipedia discussion if possible. --Nlu (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Luo Yiding as "the diary of the painting," the author is gradually being concerned about, Because his work is unique and true, but also involves the deep cultural exchanges between Europe and Nepal, hoping not to remove these unique small works of art and author entries just for the reason of attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsonlord (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both; not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Regrettably, because the illustrated travelogue did receive excellent reviews on douban.com. Unfortunately, user reviews do not count as a reliable source, and References 2-4 aren't independent (Amazon.com listings and Baike Baidu entry which is likely self-written). Reference 1 doesn't satisfy WP:BKCRIT, and try as I may I can't find "two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The zh.wiki articles have already been deleted. Timmyshin (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Catholic Immigration Society

Calgary Catholic Immigration Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promo for an organisation of dubious notability, unsourced self-serving claims, dodgy refs even where they exist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Local run-of-the-mill religious nonprofit of no national or international notability. Promo. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SoftLavender, fails WP:MILL and GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In2Musica

In2Musica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The are no reliable sources in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an 'in-house' vanity label. No indications of notability or significance and no SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP, no indications whatsoever of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AEIT

AEIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A search only turned up the college's own website, which is filled with placeholder text. Does not satisfy WP:ORG in the slightest. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 05:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nominator, fails to meet WP:VER and WP:ORGDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:ORG. No suitable independent reliable reference found. Tecrum (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not notable; clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Jha

Vaibhav Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It look like a promotional article. the sources are either not independent like SocialPost which accepts users articles or the subjects own university not reliable sources like tenfizz an interview with no additional coverage on the subject. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The editors Arunzyz, Robertcarter, and Contributerdc are suspected to be the same person. Comments made on this AfD's talk page have been moved here by me. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arunzyz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Robertcarter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Contributerdc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Keep per nom, this article contains relevant information of technology. I think the technology on which they are working is one of the best in terms of cyber space.Although the notability of the article is less , which can be increased later on. I had heared about him a lot about his free training on digitalization and cyber awareness in rural parts of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcarter (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Robertcarter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Jha Should not be deleted. Vaibhav Jha is a notable person and i think it should not be deleted as , it has a good source. It has some more Sources which will get updated in a day or two. So i request to all of you to kindly don't mark it for deletion. Thanks a lot. Contributerdc Contributerdc (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So i suggest to KEEP Vaibhav Jha in mainspace Contributerdc (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Contributerdc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is about a notable person , who is a published Author, Trainer and Innovator. So i also suggest to KEEP Vaibhav Jha in mainspace.

Thankyou Arunzyz (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Arunzyz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This statement copied over from Crystallizedcarbon's talk page.

Hi I understand about the notability of the subject is less. But it is my personal request to you not to delete this subject and kindly remove the mark from deletion of the page. As this can help many young children and entrepreneurs. He is really a talented guy who is doing a great job in educating people free of cost. He belongs from a very humble and low-middle class family, despite of all the ill circumstances he made it possible. So i request you to kindly don't make it out of the main space.

Thankyou so much Contributerdc (talk) 4:42 am, Today (UTC−4)

• Delete per nom. I don't know what sources these users are talking about in the nomination page. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability in the article, and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have cleaned up some of the most promotional text, but the notability concerns can't be fixed by editing the article. --bonadea contributions talk 09:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self published, non notable student fails WP:GNG WP:TOOSOON. Theroadislong (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Neither it is self published and nor i know any of these two users.Contributerdc (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person is most definitely a self-published author, whose book was published through the print-on-demand platform Lulu. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter the author is self published or not.At the age of 18 , child is doing this much of work and the subject is enough notable personContributerdc (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)— Contributerdc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete We would require in depth coverage in multiple highly reliable independent sources to consider the 18 year old author of a self published book to be notable. In this case, none of the references meets that standard. They are blogs, social media posts and announcements by his school. We do not extend leniency to biography subjects who are young, "talented" and from lower middle class families. All article subjects must meet the threshold of notability, and this one doesn't at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Malynn Brashears, Ph.D.

Mindy Malynn Brashears, Ph.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Probably notable, but WP:NOTRESUME ought to apply, I believe, to this article that's basically a resume and that appears to have been created by its subject. Largoplazo (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS h-index of 17 not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this very highly cited field, awards not significant enough to pass WP:Prof#C2. Fails WP:Prof as WP:Too soon. Nothing else for GNG. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fails WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted above, it is clear that the subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines (WP:PROF). Deli nk (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Article has been moved to Draft:Thiripuram. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiripuram

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 by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

Thiripuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As of yet non-notable film that fails WP:MOVIE and lacks significant coverage. December 2017 release date, so qualified for WP:TOOSOON. The inclusion of a notable individual's (Mayilsamy) son as an actor in the film does not confer notability per WP:NOTINHERITED SamHolt6 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough materials available in the media websites regarding this upcoming movie. Its clearly an upcoming Tamil Indian language movie. Not to be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgrockz (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fine and only needs improvement. Should not be treated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.134.240 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiripuram upcoming Indian Tamil language movie content verified through media and news links. You can approve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.133.241 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be fine and valid. Submit for approval. This article can be moved out of Articles for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.141.246 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. 210.18.141.246 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deletion nominator Now that the page has been restored, I have more comments. In my view, the article still lacks notability and is in danger of reaching WP:BOMBARD, as the article section regarding the film's musical score contains citations more about the career of the score producer that of the movie itself. There remains no credible coverage of the film itslef, as the only citations that meet Wikipedia's criteria are about one actor in the film (who is the son of a famous comedian, as can be seen in the titles of the sources in question) or the film's score producer, not about the film itself. It is still to early to keep this as an article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aside from the suspicious behavior of those in favor of keeping the article, there is no real evidence of notability. The plot section in particular in not written in an encyclopedic style at all. It appears that this article was created by someone with little to no knowledge of how Wikipedia works, perhaps with the motive of promoting the upcoming movie. Lepricavark (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Revised to DRAFTIFY per WP:NFF addressing not yet released films. ^{revised Alsee (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep, or if necessary draftify until the movie is released.

The multiple disruptive attempts to close this discussion were extremely unhelpful, and the IP supports were also unhelpful. However this is about sources, not the author. In addition to the sources in the article, I found a few more: ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Given the difficulty of getting sources from a foreign language, and given that the film isn't even released yet, it seems to have received a credible amount of notice from various sources. Alsee (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As before, the new sources cited do not (in my opinion) cover the subject in depth. The first source [2] is a press release, three sources report on the debut of Anbu (the son of Mayilsamy, a famous comedian) in acting, but do not cover the movie in depth, and the last source ([3]) is a link to a movie poster. Per WP:NFILM, none of these sources (and none of the previous ones) indicate the encyclopedic value of a future film.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, There seems to be few people who wants this page to be taken down for invalid reason. First of all to clear the doubts, am not the one who has created the page. I have added and modified the page with further information that I got. I hail from Chennai and I know about the movie progress and hence decided to contribute to this article. The movie is in final stages and nearing its release. Does it mean that unreleased movies are not subjected to appear in wikipedia? I have seen so many film pages with only few lines and have months to go for its release is running fine in wiki. I wonder why you guys are showing this much interest in deleting this upcoming film page! You can still find enough material online to cover on the film subject. Yes, there are not much of news or articles about the movie in depth but that doesn't mean that it should not be on wikipedia. I wish you people read more local cinema news so that it can be helpful in covering the topic on a wider range and contribute. Looking forward in approving the page. Cheers! 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgrockz (talk • contribs)

@Mrgrockz: Per [4], you are the creator of the article. This would normally not be of great concern, but in this case it is due to your attempt at a non-admin closure. As to your points, subjects without in-depth coverage fail Wikipedia's sourcing criteria (WP:VER) and as this is a film article it fails WP:NFILM. You stated that other editors should read more local cinema news, and while Wikipedia has no issue citing local news, editors have to keep WP:GEOSCOPE in mind and traditionally significant coverage must be found for a film at any rate. My views on this issue remain unchanged--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrgrockz, the article will probably be moved to Draft:Thiripuram. Once the movie is released you can move the page back as an article, or ask for assistance at WP:Help desk. (Do not copy&paste the content as a new page.) You can update the page with new information while it is a draft, or any other time. Alsee (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - None of the coverage is substantial. That may change closer to the release date, or after its release. A few lines about this being the movie acting debut of the son of a famous person does not represent significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article needs more and better sourcing, not deletion. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed this article needs more and better sourcing but it does not appear to currently exist. And if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't meet notability. --Whpq (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, there exist no sources with which to expand the article at the moment. Also, note that deleting (WP:TNT logic could be used as this is a short article) this article once does not preclude us from re-creating it once the movie has been released, assuming the film has longstanding impact per criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wait 3 months, recreate. GNG TooSoon issues. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Allopatric speciation. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicariance

Vicariance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have struggled to decide whether to nominate this for deletion, as it is a frequent word in the scientific literature about speciation and biogeography. My concern is that, in contemporary literature, it is used interchangeably with allopatric speciation. Biogeographers use the term vicariance, while evolutionary biologists use the term allopatric. The allopatric article gives a full description of vicariance as it is vital define allopatric separation, the vicariance article; however, covers very little. It is under-referenced and contains a few contradictory statements. It seems largely irrelevant and should probably be deleted and turned into a redirect to allopatric speciation. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with nominator; this appears to be a partial content fork of allopatric speciation, which clearly lays out the usage commonalities and differences between the two terms and covers all facets of the concept in considerably greater depth. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that, if you look at the redirects to allopatric speciation, it has the terms Vicariance theory, Vicariant, Vicariant event, Vicariant specation, Vicariant speciation. This is basically a testament to the fact that Vicariance is a content fork. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 07:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - the obvious conclusion. BTW we don't even need to come here to AfD for an uncontentious redirect like this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't know that. So can I just create it? Does the discussion need to "close"? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - author request. This is the second time I have had to delete an article about the school. Is there no-one in the school capable of writing a Wikipedia article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Perkin Church of England High School

William Perkin Church of England High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG the only mention I could find was this Domdeparis (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a single sixteen-word sentence that does nothing more than tell us where the school is. For some strange reason, if you click on the hyperlink "free school" in this article, you get taken to the name of a song-writer. The only reference given is a link to the school's own website. Vorbee (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards being recreated as a redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shojun the Warlord

Shojun the Warlord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A contested WP:BLAR. I cannot find any notability outside of the Judge Dredd universe, but I am far from a comic book expert. As far as I can tell, this is a minor character that only appears every so often. To me, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, and WP:PLOT seem to apply. That being said, it would be a handy redirect to List_of_minor_characters_in_Judge_Dredd#Shojun_the_Warlord. menaechmi (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. No real-world notability (and he doesn't even appear "every so often", he appeared in six issues in 1986 and that was it), plot only, and has a paragraph in the "minor characters" article. Not notable, not necessary, not encyclopedic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting or expressing a view either way, but as a point of fact the only reason the character has an entry in the "list of minor characters" article is because this article had recently been redirected to "Judge Dredd", and so a condensed version of it was added to the list. It shouldn't be cited as a reason to delete or redirect. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep. Character was the catalyst for major impact on Dredd universe and long term story treads, forcing the Chef to resign leading to a new Chief, who causes major errors over a number of years causing the old Chief to return new demented. Using no real world notability as an argument to delete is mute reason as 98% of the comic characters with pages on Wikipedia have no real world notability for example, the guy who shot batman's parents or uncle Joe have no importance to the comic world other than plot points and only appear once when the series is being rebooted so frequency is also no argument for deletion in this case. 86.167.83.232 (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand what "real-world notability" means. Impact on the Judge Dredd universe (which in any case is pretty minor) is irrelevant. Is Shojun the Warlord, as a character, known to anybody in the real world beyond Judge Dredd obsessives? Does he have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? The answer to that is clearly no. He's a plot point from thirty years ago.

The Judge Dredd comic series itself has real-world notability. Its publishing history and significant plot points should have (proportionate) coverage, and Shojun the Warlord's attack on Mega-City One and the resulting resignation of Chief Judge McGruder would merit some place there. But this is fancruft. Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a place to summarise plots. If this were a Judge Dredd fan wiki, an article like this would be perfectly fine - but not in an encyclopedia. The existence of other articles that fail real world notability does not justify this one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No is you does not know what is notable and what isn't, this page has plenty of notability (just claiming he has not appeared in thirty years is no excuse on notability). All the Judge Dredd wikipedia page are very frequently used by people (just check youtube) to research the subject not just the Dredd obsessive as you call them and just saying its un encyclopaedic is non argument just used by people with no real arguments to fight with. My support for this page stands.86.167.83.232 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of real-world notability. I wouldn't oppose merging if a suitable target can be identified. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no strong indication of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISURU Linux

ISURU Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't have references. Bonvallite (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bonvallite: "Don't have references" is not a valid criteria for deletion. Peacock (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep no valid rationale presented for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The issue raised is valid although its argument to warrant deletion is not. The article should be improved rather than deleted, and is urgently in need of in text references. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Americans in San Francisco

White Americans in San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable, non-notable, unencyclopedic, etc, besides, whites in San Fran are not necessarily American. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- from the PROD last week. Concern = Adds no value to WP beyond the statistics already found in San Francisco Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable content fork; any pertinent info belongs in demographics of SF. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• How in the world is this topic considered "non-notable" when white people are half the population of San Francisco?--Prisencolin (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable article. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The community has indisputably come to the conclusion that the subject notable on her own merit. Otherwise, cash me ousside how bout dah? ℯxplicit 06:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhad Bhabie

Bhad Bhabie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is a case of WP:TOOSOON & fails WP:GNG She isn't discussed extensively in any reliable media, at best she is mentioned but never discussed with in-depth. Celestina007 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant coverage [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] (passes general notability) and has a song charted in the United States and Canada (passes subject-specific notability). — Zawl 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that people are uncomfortable with Bhad Bhabie's lifestyle and behavior but I hope rationality will prevail and not let their emotions affect their judgement on her notability. — Zawl 17:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - notable per WP:MUSICBIO #2. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep her single entered the Hot 100 chart. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With my experience writing articles on historic and obscure (but notable) music figures, the fact Danielle, a person with absolutely no musical talent whatsoever, is a "singer" makes me lose faith in the modern music industry. Now that my personal opinion is out of the way, here is my take on policy and notability: she did record a song which entered the Billboard Hot 100 and is signed to Atlantic Records, a major record label. She passes WP:NMUSIC. The fact the article creator waited until this recent breakthrough, instead of hastily pushing an article about an instagram "celebrity" months ago, discredits the assertion this is WP:TOOSOON.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your opinion, genius, but she isn't even a ""singer"" as you put. Glad to know we get to have such knowledgeable and impartial people keeping Wikipedia up to date. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a month ago I would have said delete but it seems she just keeps getting more famous. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her single debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 and she is getting a lot of press, therefore notable following the guidelines for a musicians page. WolvesS (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject now meets general notability guidelines; in the past 48 hours, her debut music video reached over 20 million views on YouTube, entered the Billboard Hot 100, earning her a deal with Atlantic Records. I think the article name should be Danielle Bregoloi, and not her stage name. ElCheche (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep as per above; the subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO #2. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've never heard of this person until today, but it seems clear that she qualifies for notability according to WP:MUSICBIO. We have plenty of articles on musicians with less claim to notability. It's also not a case of BLP1E, since I'm seeing at least two newsmaking events here, even if the coverage isn't that in-depth. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Danielle Bregoli: She is now notable under WP:MUSICBIO for infamous reasons, but she charted. Also, she is known as Danielle Bregoli in most media, and name should be under WP:NCP guidelines. Tibbydibby (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Heepman1997 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Significant coverage on her already, and the other reasons above. Abequinn14 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As others have said, a charting song along with pages worth of articles. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I share the nominator's probable desire to delete the subject of the article (I'm NOT being literal), but from a policy standpoint, she has had plenty of coverage at this point to keep under WP:N and WP:V. I agree with renaming the article to her real name. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Single made the Hot 100 chart. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now signed to Atlantic, a major. Also a notable meme. What we really should be discussing is whether or not to move the article to "Danielle Bregoli" or not. --Aleccat 01:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Renaming can be discussed at its proper venue: the talk page with an RM tag at the top of the section. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject is notable as in addition to the significant coverage of the catch phrase, she has a charted song and is signed to a major label. --DoubleuWW (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lázaro Venturine DeOliveira

Lázaro Venturine DeOliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league and who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously tagged for PROD in 2011, but the article's creator removed the tag without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence this guy meets subject specific guidelines (WP:NFOOTBALL) and no in depth coverage by independant sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the links provided in the article, several are dead links or to non existant domains, the others are to his club website and there is no in depth articles even there. ClubOranje^T 10:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline Airways

Mainline Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to have been a hoax that never got off the ground. The single external link is broken. The page has no incoming links. — RossO (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Never got off the ground." I see what you did there! Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see what you did there too. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's astonishing this page has been on Wikipedia for 14 years without an AfD. Possibly a hoax/fraud, possibly a failed business venture. No sources to help determine which, but it doesn't matter, as it should be deleted in both cases. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever this was it did receive some coverage at the time ([14], [15]) and the odd brief mention in more recent years ([16]), but I doubt there's enough for a whole article here.

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Alvarez

Jesús Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable footballer, who plays in a non-professional football league. Fails WP:NFOOTY. — Zawl 17:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which doesn't satisfy the general notability guideline (there are only a few online sources which are simply routine match reports and a signing announcement). Jogurney (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly non-notable. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom Domdeparis (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, B team footballer who has never managed to step up to 1st team. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no in depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. ClubOranje^T 07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL by a pretty comprehensive margin. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, the nomination is not valid--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Byungsng

Hwang Byungsng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There must be an article in Korean Language and violates the WP:A2 Bonvallite (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm reluctant to delete the other articles just this minute as none of them were tagged for AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes

Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As a non musician, I have no idea at all what the purpose of this article is, because it does not explain what "Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes" means!!

It also relies on two "sources" which are not WP:RS as they are either crowdsourced, or written by anons on the internet. Roxy the dog. bark 16:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is part of a series of articles. Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes, EPIDSM Ionian, EPIDSM Dorian, EPIDSM Phrygian, EPIDSM Lydian, EPIDSM Mixolydian, EPIDSM Aeolian and EPIDSM Locrian. The names refer to the Ionian, Dorian, Phrygia, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeoliana and Locrian Diatonic scales. As far as I can tell, it's all Original research, but you might want to consult an expert. Mduvekot (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All obviously not an encyclopedia article. I tried to speedy and/or draftify this a while back but it didn't stick. All the pages Mduvekot mentions should be deleted for the same reason. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - This doesn't seem to be notable, nor does the article appear encyclopedic. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. General consensus is that it is too soon to have an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citybound

Citybound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article for a game that is in the pre-alpha stage is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON the sources do not prove notability. 13 of the 21 sources are affiliated and are mostly the developers own blog or youtube videos. 4 do not mention the subject, 4 are from 2014 and smack of churnalism et rehash of a press release. This looks like an attempt by someone linked to the developer to promote his game. The article was moved to draft space and was then moved to the mainspace by the creator without having been submitted for review. Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are many reliable sources that come up. Gamasutra PCGamer RockPaper Shotgun Kotaku Your deletion argument accuses WP:RUBBISH, which is a surmountable problem, and WP:ASSERTN, an incorrect argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Those sources are all from 2014 and talk about the project none of them are reviews of the game itself which is understandable as according to the article it is in its pre-alpha phase. PC Gamer and Kotaku are simply quoting Gamasutra and the developer's blog (possible churnalism or simply rehashing) and Rock Paper Shotgun says he is skeptical that the game will ever come off and, I quote "the other big concern is that this project could fizzle out before it ever really picks up steam,"...3 years down the line there are no new stories about this project apart from the developers blog and this wikipedia page...I'm afraid I don't call that notable. No-one has reviewed any version of the game itself. We are judging notability of a game and not a project. If I contact a few gaming magazines saying that i am going to build a game that will outdo the Number 1 (which I have no intention of doing) and it gets reported that I am making that claim is my imaginary game notable enough for an article? There are no reliable independent sources to prove that this Citybound project has got past the stage of saying "this is what I plan". Is this a basis for notability and your keep !vote? have you found any other sources because I am still far from convinced? Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also add that WP:NVG in a nutshell says " A video game release is appropriate for a stand-alone article if it has been the subject of significant commentary in multiple published sources which are independent of the video game developer." There are 2 words that don't apply here, "release" and "significant"...the game hasn't been released and signifiant commentary is defined as "Significant commentary should report more than basic game data (such as its title, platform, publisher, and creative staff). Commentary should be critical and detailed." These articles are far from doing that. Domdeparis (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "Those sources are all from 2014 and talk about the project none of them are reviews of the game itself" Umm... by "project" do you mean the development of the game? A game doesn't need to be finished to have an article, which seems to be what you're insinuating. It doesn't even need to be finished ever, as long as it was notable while in development. If it was talking about an external project like a Kickstarter, that's a different story, but they are literally just mentioning a game in development._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Beware WP:SUSTAINED. Your line of argument has tripped me up before. In general, we should have something more than announcement coverage before an article is created. What ideally seals the notability is the reviews, and we don't have any (though from the official website it looks like the game will soon be at a point where we might be seeing previews). --Izno (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm We only have the developers blog as proof that the game is in development. He sent some graphics to a few magazines with some PR stuff. It got talked about 3 years ago and then nothing. I can't get my head around how you think this is notable. I quoted the NVG essay and you just seem to have zapped that. I am far from being an expert on video games but there must be literally thousands of projects that never see the light of day. The developer made some statement that creates a buzz but if you read the comments on the different sources no-one thinks that this guy is capable of doing what he says he will do. And 3 years down the line there is nothing more being said about it from secondary sources...unless you've found some. The sources on the page and the ones you found do not support notability... it's as simple as that. This story has gone to bed and noone is interested in it. Maybe when he does release a version that reviewers can test then it will become notable but as of now it just ain't! Domdeparis (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've nuked the primary sourcing, which is indeed trash. I'll take a look at this later this weekend to see if I've got a !vote on this. --Izno (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So, most of the sources available to us are from spring 2014: RPS 1, RPS 2, RPS 3, Gamasutra, PCGamer, VG247, USGamer, Kotaku; while one is from fall 2014: RPS 4. My inclination, since we haven't really seen coverage since, is to add a paragraph or so to SimCity (2013 video game), since this project appears to have been started as direct "SimCity 2013" remedy. Merge. This can-or-should be WP:SPLIT from there at a later date, if more coverage is garnered. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I reread the 2014 autumn article and at the end it says an alpha version was planned for later that month and the WP article claims it's at the pre alpha stage...3 years later...and this article is the very latest independent source about this game...I'm sorry but this can't be worthy of an encyclopedia article not by any stretch of the imagination. Domdeparis (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you miss the bold merge in my comment? --Izno (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You can delete this article if you wish, I originally created this article as I had been watching this game develop and it seemed it was on the verge of picking up momentum. You can delete this article as the game has been stalled (again) and development has ground to a halt. BSOleader (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The other arguments and that of the creator of the article have convinced me that it's still non-notable due to WP:SUSTAINED._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think a full delete is necessary; a sentence or three in the 2013 SimCity article will probably suffice. --Izno (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note User:BSOleader has cut'n'pasted a copy of the article to User:BSOleader/sandbox. I have undone that as a license violation (loses attribution of who wrote what), as usual for WP:CUTPASTE situations. If that user wishes to have the article revived (with history!) to userspace for ongoing development after deletion via AFD, he is welcome to request it. However, user has quit wikipedia, and draftspace is not an indefinite holding pen for deleted content. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough to circumvent TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Obviously meets NFOOTBALL, now it is not an unsourced BLP - keep to improve. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Bencini

Graham Bencini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

With no sources, this article about a living person could be a complete hoax and no-one would know. My WP:BEFORE shows a few sources which seem to prove his existence, however I am unconvinced he is notable as there is no evidence he meets WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree fails WP:GNG and does not WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator's initial point is void, as the external links prove the article could not be a "complete hoax". Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL criterion one, having played in two international matches. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the observations raised by Mattythewhite. Lepricavark (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mattythewhite, WP:NFOOTBALL, etc.

  What would help, both at WP:BEFORE and to improve the encyclopedia in general, is if sports bio editors were to follow MOS:BIO#Positions and roles and use the lead to say what makes the subject notable. There are far too many footballer pages like this one where the lead consists of one sentence that says what team the player currently plays or last played for, however minor that team might be, while failing to mention that they played for their country, as here, or made 100s of appearances in major leagues before dropping down the levels. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice if someone could verify the articles content. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject has played for Malta national team per this passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he played for his country Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article really is poorly sourced, but per WP:RUBBISH that is not really a valid argument for deletion. Subject passes WP:NFOOTY, and with a little research should also pass WP:GNG. I've already added a citation to the article so far and am looking for more. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - international player, clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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