Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 August	1 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Sheng[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG). I do not see a single reliable, independent secondary source in this article which could support a claim of notability. I tried to identify reliable sources (Google scholar, Google, Google books, Jstore, news) but I found nothing. The earliest version of the wikipedia article was copied from the website of L´Associazione Shengming Shu http://www.dongsheng.it/chi-siamo-2/ (edit history). JimRenge (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page might be a prank, self-promotion, or something else, but it's definitely cruft. The only possible RS is misquoted. Searching Qu Wanli's Shàngshū jīnzhù jīnyì 尚書今注今譯 on Google Books finds no reference to either 東聖 or 聖玫. Neither of these terms in mentioned by any source in the Chinese Text Project. A Google search for the phrase "東聖玫" finds only five ghits—one from the WP article and four from the dongsheng.it website. Also, does the edit history suggest sock puppetry? Keahapana (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This happens to fall under one of my personal areas of interest, but despite searching pretty hard I can find nothing whatsoever about it in secondary sources. It smacks of a modern organisation trying to invent an impressive history for themselves; none of the claims in the article seem to be supported by valid historical scholarship. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the editors who did most the work to this article are separate people, but likely have conflict of interest. (evidenced by saying they had permission to copy a website into the article, which was a copyvio (see edit history). I cannot conclusively confirm any of this meets WP:V, however since the main source is a 2000 year old book I can't find a translation of, I am undecided on it either way. (although citing a 'Private Edition of a possibly self-published book as a secondary source is suspicious) Additionally the 'organisation' is pretty sketchy, even if the philosophy is genuine there are WP:PROMO issues. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Delete You are really funny. You are like children. You believe that something is true just because you can find it on the internet or on a book. You look like my grandmother, who believes that one thing is true just because you watch it on television! Do you have any idea how many authentic traditions are not present in any of the official sources? For confidentially reasons, for example, or just because Mao Tze-tung have destroyed almost everything of the China's tradition, first of all books? I am personally in touch with some Taoist ancient schools in Hong Kong and Taiwan, which have their own "Book of Document", handed down from father to son, from generation to generation. Younger have a secular history. Yet you will never find them in books or on the web. Think about it because today there is no space for these traditions on Wikipedia. Anyway, I agree to delete the page. Greetings.

I agree with the bulk of your comment here, certainly it would be a useful cultural project to reconstruct and publish these traditions, but until this happens, Wikipedia will remain bereft of these matters. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks independent coverage; no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guild Home Video and Pathé releases[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT for collection of raw data. List in it's current form is unencyclopedic and doesn't appear to be able to be redeemed. — IVORK _Discuss 23:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fits section 7 of WP:NOTCATALOG perfectly, as linked by Clarityfiend. Guild Home Video and Pathé already note the most notable releases. Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear case of WP:NOTCATALOG. Ajf773 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. To be valid this should be a list of links to other valid Wikipedia articles. It isn't. Wikipedia is not a place to paste big lists of unreferenced, incoherent crap. We should charge them for hosting. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 12:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary "Polly" Young[edit]

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

She was a granddaughter of one of the Bounty mutineers. However, that is about her sole distinction, and you can't inherit notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Reads like a genealogy. WP:ISNOT etc. -- no need for a list of people. Keira 1996 01:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bakers Investment Group[edit]

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

Sources do not hold up under scrutiny. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like an advert created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NGC 4993. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GRB 170817A[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not need a page on each and every GRB. The only (current) claim to notability is the link with a rumoured gravitational wave detection. However, for the moment there exist no RSs for the GW event, let alone the potential link with this GRB. WP:TOOSOON. T R 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NGC 4993 article. I agree with WP:TOOSOON; WP:CRYSTAL probably also applies. If the GRB actually does represent a new type of gravity wave, then it would definitely deserve its own article, but until then it's probably best to just mention it on the galaxy's page. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for the notice re the possible deletion of the "GRB 170817A" article and related - "GRB 170817A" is a confirmed event^[1] - and seems to have been emitted from the "NGC 4993" galaxy - "GRB 170817A" may be related to a "gravitational wave" event ("GW170817"?), according to "WP:RSs"^[2]^[3]^[4] - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kienlin, Andreas von (17 August 2017). "GCN Circular; Number: 21520; GRB 170817A: Fermi GBM detection; 2017/08/17 20:00:07 GMT". Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
^ Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
^ Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
^ Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

I do not believe anyone is questioning the fact that it is a confirmed event; the question is if the event is notable. It may be, if in fact it actually is related to a gravitational wave event. The problem is that we don't actually know yet whether it is or it isn't, and I don't believe the event is notable enough for a standalone article if it isn't (GRBs are detected all the time). There is no scientific consensus about the event yet because it is so recent, and as such it is my opinion that should wait to create an article about it until there is such a consensus. Cthomas3 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has nothing at all to do with whether this is a gravitational wave event, it has to do with whether there are suitable sources. And there are. Thincat (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing news coverage (which is what the above sources are) is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG as per WP:NEWS.T R 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my issues with this article (and the others I put up for AfD) is that they contain factual inaccuracies (don't ask how I know). However, without RSs these inaccuracies cannot be corrected, demonstrating a fundamental issue with the existence of this article. Lets wait with the creation of these articles until actual sources exist.T R 07:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in that because we should try hard to avoid that problem. If reliable sources are generally making false claims there is little that can be done and your concerns will be discounted as OR (even if wrongly so). However, if one (or so) reliable sources are outliers from the mainstream, or if not very reliable sources are being used for incorrect claims, then the article can be improved. However, because WP regards secondary sources as being preferable to primary these sorts of conflicts do tend to crop up with science topics. Why not raise the matter on the talk page? Thincat (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the so-called "reliable sources" in this case are openly speculating, as such some the things they say are bound to be wrong. I would actually argue that because the source are speculating they should not be considered reliable (and most certainly not as secondary sources as their speculations are their own synthesis of the information that is currently in the public domain). The situation for these articles is just plain awkward for Wikipedia for as long as the results of the GRB follow up observations (and LIGO's O2 run) are under embargo. Until this is lifted the articles should probably simply not exists since stuff like WP:N and WP:V cannot be properly satisfied. T R 09:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is policy, and says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." You are correctly pointing out that this policy is not perfect. But we are expected to make decisions based on WP policy. So long as we are clearly relaying RS speculations as such, your objection is that policy is wrong. Take it up on the policy talk page, not here.

The RS speculation is secondary sourcing. We have not looked at the primary sources (in this case, mostly logs of telescope time, also some tweets, but obviously no observations) and synthesized conclusions, we have let others do so.

You are correct that until the insiders release definitive information, things are awkward for WP. That's just not relevant. See the essay WP:FLAT. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mentioned above are NOT "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in the field" but essentially news reports.T R 15:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nature, Quanta magazine, New Scientist and National Geographic are reliable sources, quoting known experts. I know nothing about WIRED, Forbes, the Independent, the New York Post, or Popular Mechanics regarding their astronomy coverage, but their existence does indicate that interest regarding this event is higher than usual. Of course, the GCN circular is a primary source. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likewise for GW170817. The possible GW candidate rumour got more than enough notice in the press to be notable. I've got no objections to a merge to NGC 4993 however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see WP:NEWS being linked above. The correct link is WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy, and it makes it perfectly clear that news is allowed, so long as it isn't routine news. This is not routine. Please restrict discussion to actual policy. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, the primary sources (the actual science reported by scientist) are NOT reporting on this topic, and secondary sources are reporting a rumor. Even if Wikipedia considers the secondary sources to be reliable, they are still reporting a rumor, which we have no way of verifying unless and until it is first reported in primary scientific source(s). The testing protocols are there for good reason: to identify "false" signals and avoid propagating misinformation. Wikipedia should not be in the business of spreading any rumors, let alone rumors of scientific fact, which have not yet been published (and might never be published) in scientific journals. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re "Wikipedia does not need a page on each and every GRB", that's not an argument for deletion, just an opinion, which I disagree with. They are sufficiently rare and generate a lot of scientific interest. This one seems more notable than others that have their own page, see List of gamma-ray bursts. Tayste (edits) 22:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per NASA: "A GRB is a fleeting blast of high-energy light, often lasting a minute or less, occurring somewhere in the sky every couple of days." (emphasis added) I would not call that sufficiently rare, and they don't all generate a lot of scientific interest unless there is something otherwise noteworthy about them. In the list you just mentioned, there are only 23 entries (with 3 redlinks); in the link I provided, it notes that the Swift spacecraft just found its 1000th almost two years ago. Note that every one on your list has something notable (first ever, closest, first with <x> characteristic, most energetic, etc.). Note also that none are "rumored to have been" anything. If the rumor turns out to be true, I am 100% in agreement that it is at least as, and in most cases far more, notable than those on the list. But if it isn't, it's simply not notable at all. And that's why the recommendation to wait on creating the article. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Perhaps it ought to be merged into the galaxy article NGC 4993. Tayste (edits) 03:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NGC 4993 per User:Cthomas3. Keira 1996 01:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 4993[edit]

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

This galaxy currently cannot satisfy WP:N. Being the source of a GRB does not really make a galaxy notable. The GW detection is currently still a rumour, and even if it pans out I do not see how it makes the host galaxy particularly notable. T R 21:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does pass WP:NASTRO, specifically requirements 2 (listed in New General Catalogue) and 4 (discovered before 1850). I would suggest merging the content from GRB 170817A here, although the GRB article doesn't appear to have a lot more information than is already on this article. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and it also passes the general notability guidelines. GRB's are not excluded by WP:NOT. Thincat (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously meets WP:NASTRO, as you can tell by catalog number alone - but not hard to confirm in the article. The nominator seems to have a problem with recent research in gamma ray bursts and is trying to delete all relevant articles. Who knows why? Concerns should be raised in talk pages not by (possibly) maliciously nominating articles for deletion (which is against Wikipedia rules). Anyway, regardless, clearly meets notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with any of the research. I have a problem with pages being created of rumours before the actual research that would make them notable has become available in the public domain. In this case, I did not realize that being in the NGC was considered enough for a galaxy to be notable. (This seems like a rather weak bar as there are nearly 8000 objects in there. Do we really feel each of those should have a Wikipedia article? But I'll leave that to WP:ASTRO). I take serious offence at my legitimate concerns about these articles being referred to as malicious.T R 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TR has challenged articles related to one particular rumor. He has given some reasons for his viewpoint, others have given reasons for the opposing viewpoint, the discussion has been proceeding with GF all-around. Colapeninsula's comments, however, are so obviously inaccurate and out-of-line, they are essentially a personal attack. I am marking them as struck. See WP:RPA.129.68.81.110 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NGC objects are clear passes of WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on supportive comments noted by others above - well stated imo atm - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article, and I know this isn't a voting poll so I'm not "voting" keep. Thanks to those above for investigating the article's notability. In addition, I note that many other language Wikipedias have this galaxy article and many others not found in the English Wikipedia, for better or worse on either side. Perhaps they have set the bar lower or are in general more interested in such things. Tayste (edits) 22:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since TR, the AfD nominator, agreed that WP:NASTRO clearly covers this article, and no other objection has been made, it seems this is a Speedy Keep. According to WP:NACD, any user who has not commented yet may close this discussion, and so may TR, by following the instructions at the link. TR may be right that the bar has been set too low, but that would be a concern to discuss on WP:NASTRO's Talk page, not here. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Transport in Cambridge. Opinion is scattered, but no policy-based arguments have been put forth for keeping, so this seems like a good compromise. If whoever does the merge feels that East West Rail Link would be a better merge target, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge South railway station[edit]

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

Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge South railway station (I did consider WP:CSD#G4 but am giving the benefit of a discussion); history of previous article is at Special:Undelete/Addenbrooke's railway station. I can find no evidence that construction (or even funding) is any more likely than it was eleven months ago. Indeed, an edit earlier today indicates that an application for funding has been declined. Wikipedia does not deal in what might happen, or what people want to happen - but in what has happened, or in some cases what will definitely and verifiably happen. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that it's more likely and has been backed and mentioned in documents as well as Transport Secutary being a supporter of it. MainLine45 (talk) 08:18 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete Nothing substantial has changed since the previous AfD. It may be likely that the station is eventually built, but it's too soon to have an article on it. The Cambridge North railway station article was created in 2009 but I'd argue it should not have been created until 2012 when confirmed by the government. --09:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the standard of notability for a subway (Underground) or light rail station without press coverage? I saw a set of new articles with nothing but location, route, and timetable information. Rhadow (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither underground nor light rail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Transport in Cambridge under the "rail" section. See no harm in that if there are sources about the proposals. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per filelakeshoe. I see no reason to delete this completely if it is really been reported on as a proposed expansion. Another potential merge target would probably be East_West_Rail_Link#Other_proposals. Regards So Why 12:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayli Clifton[edit]

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

Article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. There is an email request for deletion on this basis at ticket:2017081010006545. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS or convining claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shan-e-Gujrat (Gujrat Pakistan Newspaper)[edit]

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

Not a nationwide newspaper. No independent source found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything at all about it on Google. The domain "shanegujrat.com" is registered to a person named Qaisar Rashid. — Za wl 14:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neither keep !voter actually refuted the argument that there is no coverage in reliable sources. Even WP:NEXIST requires some indication why sources are likely to exist. So Why 11:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan News Today[edit]

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

Not a notable online website. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect there to be secondary sources in Urdu. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly Retitle — I think this publication is actually called Pakistan News. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable online newspaper. Fails WP:GNG, WP:WEBCRIT and WP:ORG. It's listed among several hundred other "online newspapers" on some blogs but that's about it. "Pakistan News" makes the search even harder as most of them are about the country's news not newspaper. If there are any secondary sources in Urdu, they should be presented here or added to the article but providing there are none, the article should be deleted. The burden is on the author to add those sources to establish notability. — Za wl 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Arabic Translation Award[edit]

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

This appears to be a university award without sufficient scope to qualify as notable per WP:GNG; only reference given is to the center issuing the award; Google search turns up no meaningful discussion in published reliable secondary sources; other articles on Wikipedia are probably linking to this article as evidence of their subjects' notability, which is misleading if the award is not itself notable. KDS4444 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no widespread coverage showing this is a notable award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Barth[edit]

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

Searches for him in conjunction with him and Twilley or Phil Seymour turn up virtually nothing to support WP:GNG, with the exception of the mention in passing by Dwight Twilley in the source for which I added a citation to the article. His credits at IMDb don't give a clear indication that his occupation has been of encyclopedic significance. Largoplazo (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The previous AFD for a James Barth was for a different James Barth. Largoplazo (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medisearch[edit]

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

Just a blog. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boystyle[edit]

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

These guys don't seem to have been active since 2010. They released one album that I can find but it didn't chart. Neither did their singles. I can't find any more information about them and the only information out there is from blog posts from around 2009. Seems like they dropped off of the face of the earth. Fails NBAND Jip Orlando (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BAND – obviously written by their management or publicity department back in 2009 when they hoped the band would be the next big thing, but clearly they never took off and quickly faded into obscurity. It appears band members Mika Hodel and Flavio Martins Desa returned to their previous careers in gymnastics [1] and dancing [2], respectively. Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even try to ascribe to the GNG. I can't TNT it, because then nothing would left. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IAESTE Pakistan[edit]

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

Not a notable chapter. No coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hamd Educational Society[edit]

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

No coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Alex Shih ^Talk 11:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pak-France Alumni Network (PFAN)[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found for this organization. Just one or two namechecks. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dosti Welfare Organisation[edit]

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

No coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gurney[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sourcing. Fails WP:NHOCKEY with no notable individual achievements in the lower minor leagues and only played in NCAA Div. III, not Div I. Yosemiter (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. One of many NN hockey articles created by User talk:Jasonstru, this is especially giggleworthy given that the article's based around a consecutive goal scoring record made in the subject's single professional season in the mid-minors, which even were such marks notable (they wouldn't be at any level), was made in the league's second month of play. Ravenswing 01:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing in his bio suggests a reason for an article.18abruce (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Marcinkiewicz[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only some WP:ROUTINE sources and mentions. No notable individual achievements that would indicate he passes WP:NHOCKEY while playing in the lower level minor leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unremarkable career in the low minors, fails NHOCKEY going away, no evidence the subject can meet the GNG. Ravenswing 01:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear fail of NHOCKEY and GNG.18abruce (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women Media Center[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these is a lack of sources showing that this organization is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HighBeam turned up several sources which I added to the article. The one from The Quill is entirely about the organization and what it does. It's significant coverage. Turning up other sources on Google is problematic because you have to weed out the Women's Media Center sources and there is also an Arab Women Media Center which is apparently a separate organization. In addition to what I found, I am sure there is plenty of sourcing in Urdu, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Puri[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill. Looks to have been deleted before, http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Rishabh_Puri

businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established. There are some good sources given, but I think a good baseline would be, would anybody who doesn't have his books and doesn't do business with him remember who this guy is? I'm not yet convinced the answer is yes. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian West (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable, unelected politician. WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Politics. Madg2011 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might be notability here as an academic, but the article as written isn't showing or sourcing any — apart from one primary source verification of him winning a bronze medal at a high school math competition, which is not a notability criterion, the substance and sourcing here is stacked entirely onto his non-winning candidacies for provincial or federal office. But those aren't notability criteria either — to get a Wikipedia article, his notability would have to be piled and sourced onto the academic work. Which, again, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He clearly fails WP:NPOL. Although we have kept some past articles on the basis of International Mathematical Olympiad performances, it usually takes multiple golds to do it — one bronze is definitely not enough. (Note, for instance, that in the 2017 contest, out of 615 participants, 48 took the gold, 90 silver, and 153 bronze.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sitapur. Speedy delete as a WP:G12 copyright violation, and redirect to the main article at Sitapur -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitapur City[edit]

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

Does not meet CSD since it is not recent, but is a duplicate of another article Sitapur. Shaded0 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sitapur Spiderone 08:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sitapur, as this article has no sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Control-left[edit]

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

This seems like a neologism, but I found a few uses of the term [3] [4] in sources. menaechmi (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable neologism, used primarily in blogs. –barakokula31 (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the phrase has achieved either mainstream usage or attention from multiple independent reliable sources. Not A10 but definitely just a blog-esque term. DrStrauss talk 20:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The new neologism-of-the-moment, found in fringe blogs like Powerline, thedeepstate.com and Lew Rockwell. Not at all suitable or notable for the Wikipedia. TheValeyard (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook WP:NEOlogism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not urban dictionary. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any use of this term outside blogs or minor media sources; as such fails WP:GNG --Hazarasp (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage outside of fringe political blogs. Zero in-depth coverage to satisfy notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable and mostly invented. Volunteer Marek 23:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources. Cjhard (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Т-72 АМТ[edit]

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

PROD removed without improvement; Not stand-alone article; should be added to T-72; significant cleanup required Rhadow (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay, and a poor one at that. TNT. While it is possible for variants to have their own articles, this should be done if the variant is significant enough on the hand, and if the new article is actually an improvement when split out from the main parent.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Does not need a standalone article, can be merged into main article, which doesn't even mention the AMT. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not suitable for inclusion at this time; no sources offered nor available. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back To Square One (Band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, and a search of the band doesn't provide any hope of this being notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of failing to meet WP:BAND. Wikipedia is not for promoting new music groups or their recordings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found to suggest this group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 06:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find no in-depth coverage of this band from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher St. Lawrence[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PERPETRATOR, and WP:1EVENT. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I could not find anything to make the subject notable prior to the arrest and trial. reddogsix (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject was not arrested initially. Documents were seized by the FBI first. This man is(was) a significant political figure in a county just north of New York City and his crimes impact an incredible number of people. He is also very much involved in the deterioration of the East Ramapo school district, which has garnered national attention.

Not only is this subject significant, there are numerous non significant local politicians with wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnR1948 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Significance does not equal Wikipedia based notability - being called significant is a subjective analysis. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PERPETRATOR, and WP:1EVENT. Concerning your statement, " there are numerous non significant local politicians with wikipedia pages," those other pages have no bearing on this discussion. If those pages do not meet Wikipedia criteria, feel free to nominate them for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence being shown that he would pass WP:NPOL for the position he held — 16 years in office and all you can show for anything prior to the criminal charge is one primary source and one glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that's fundamentally about something else? And if you can't show that he was already notable enough for an article before the FBI came a-knockin', then the arrest itself just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a person we should be maintaining an article about. I'd be willing to reconsider this if the sourcing and substance could be beefed way up on his actual work in politics — but criminal charges are not in and of themselves a reason for us to maintain an article about a local politician whose preexisting notability hasn't been properly demonstrated otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AmirMohammad Dehghan[edit]

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

Apparently a teenager who won some ... apparently ... mid-ish level real life competitions, and some online competitions of uncertain importance. News searches return exactly one result, and it's a broken link about how they got a silver medal in one of these. Might be notable one day, but doesn't appear to be notable yet. TimothyJosephWood 19:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Timothyjosephwood:GNews search in english name does come up with one result but if you search امیرمحمد دهقان (persian name) alot of results turnup.

A lot of results? I get nothing in news and three results in an open search. Are you using quotes? Mohammad is the most popular name in the world after all. TimothyJosephWood 21:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Timothyjosephwood:GNews: Well we thought this article is suitable for Wikipedia because this person is kind of famous among competitive programming people, and his contribution to this field by his algorithm articles in Codeforces.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG or any topic specific notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Winning a silver medal at the International Olympiad in Informatics isn't enough. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GardenSite[edit]

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

I'm as inclusionist as anyone, but is this really notable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which came through the AfC process. Its references confirm a firm going about its business, with local coverage of their charitable donations, but neither that nor the exhibition "Best Online Garden Retail Buying Team" awards indicate encyclopaedic notability, nor does the founder's appearance on a Garden Industry Manufacturer’s Association judging panel. My searches are finding passing mention of products which can be purchased from them, but I am not seeing sources to provide notability for GardenSite as a website or Hall’s Garden Supplies as a company. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything notable, certainly not the "10 best barbecue awards" Absolutley everything below "Reviews and Awards" should be removed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't disagree with the fact that there aren't many notable sources regarding GardenSite or Hall's Garden Supplies as a company, but must point out that it does state that this is a family-run independent Partnership business, not a Public limited company - hence it's day to day business aspects and financial information is not publicly shared across news sites, unlike multi-million pound chain stores, and so notable sources are always limited for smaller companies. Although, they have gained industry-specific awards within their niche, been invovled in charitable causes and received thousands of public reviews all within their country of origin, which when comparing to others within the same niche, does make them stand out enough to be 'encyclopaedic notability' in my eyes. On top of that, Hall's Garden Supplies has been active for over 60 years and the GardenSite for 18 years, so have been around for some time and don't seem like some 'fly-by-night' setup. More notable sources would ofcourse be be ideal, especially based on business facts, but I believe there is enough sourced reputation currently to warrant it being kept alive. Rednawuk (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've removed a couple of inadequate sources/headings mentioned above, updated an exisitng source and added a new one. Rednawuk (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I reviewed the sources in the article and searched for sources but could not find significant coverage. The topic fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as multiple Horticulture Week references does not meet "multiple publications" mandate for Notability. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:51, 10 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. If and/or when he meets WP:NFOOTY, make a request at WP:REFUND. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Savvas Mourgos[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The player has international experience with the Greek Under-16/17/19 teams. He will play with Norwich and the work on his page is already completed. The people who want to deleted this need to go and get a hobby and leave the football pages to the experts on the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testudo1968 (talk • contribs)

WP:NFOOTY explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability and there is a long standing consensus per WP:CRYSTAL against applying WP:NFOOTY prematurely based on potential future appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Sandbox - This footballer has not currently played in a fully professional league (WP:FPL) and currently doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. I personally recommend sandboxing this article and recreating it if/ when Savvas Mourgos meets WP:GNG (which will probably be in the near future tbf), but we don't want to go violating WP:CrystalBall haha. IJA (talk) 23:52, 31 August 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) 12:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Sandbox - per IJA. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:06, 9 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 per WP:SNOW and (per author comments here that "the material is original") WP:CSD#A11. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Law of the Universe[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax/a buch of gibberish/something made-up by the article's creator. Originally CSD tagged G3 but, the speedy tag was removed by the article's creator, so I am listing if for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At the end of the diabete please advice me so I can answer before wrong decisions are taken. Prenote (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pretty clear patent nonsense. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Deacon Vorbis is a bad User for does not give explanations and gives sentences. Please explain the nonsense. Furthermore "patent nonsense" is registered here as an indirect menace. — Prenote • (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)

Delete I agree with the "nonsense" assessment. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as to whether it fits the speedy criterion for patent nonsense I'm unsure because the sentences are occasionally somewhat coherent but either way it's clearly made up and not for Wikipedia. DrStrauss talk 20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrStrauss, I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)

Delete. Incoherent gobbldegook. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, your user is marked for proposed deletion, by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users. — Prenote • (talk) 12:40, 03 September 2017 (UTC+1)

Delete as unremarkable nonsense. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, I found on that movie "The Connected Universe" hypnotic material on presentation. — Prenote • (talk) 13:20, 31 September 2017 (UTC+1)

I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)

@Prenote: I've noticed you've copied and pasted that exact message onto several of the user talk pages of the participants in this AfD, including mine. A piece of advice for the future, you can use {{ping|username}} in your messages here and that notifies the user in question. That way, you'll be able to ensure that the discussion doesn't get fragmented. Furthermore, just to answer some of your questions, Deacon Vorbis isn't a bad user, the phrase patent nonsense refers to an established editing guideline (link) and isn't a term he's using to attack you with (correct me if I'm wrong Deacon). Thanks, DrStrauss talk 18:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inappropriate synthesis. Famous _dog (c) 11:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR-Famousdog, The material is original. — Prenote • (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)

I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)

WP:SNOW. A speedy deletion tag was already removed by the article creator, and another would be quite appropriate. Per the responses so far, just put the article out of its misery. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW-Lithopsian, I was just familiarizing with your Encyclopedia. — Prenote • (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)

I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high or an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for common people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)

Delete Rambling essay. Also makes an inaccurate claim that Galileo Galilei was tortured. The relevant article mentions that Galilei was threatened with torture, but never actually tortured. Dimadick (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Now I remember, he was threatened with torture. I'm going to modify immediately the page. I'm trying to complete with more argumentations. In effect the exposition was initially too summed up, futhermore I found incomplete the information concerning the paradoxes of contemporary Physics and the difficulties in reaching grand laws or theories. I'm going to clarify the point. — Prenote • (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)

I take the significates that I need and I want. Coffe • 09:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC+1)

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) 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campanda[edit]

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

no real evidence of notability -- just notices about funding and directory entries. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is neither a web host nor a directory. This is a run of the mill website. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearian. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahman Madani[edit]

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

Per WP:Ent ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign that Madani passes the guidelines for entertainers or journalists. Which side of this at times fuzzy line he fallls on I am not sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage on reputable source that warrants enough notability. --nafSadh did say 16:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maraal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD as a potential hoax. Now there are sources that confirm such a project does exist, but they do not name it, and primarily focus on the work of the school. The verifiability of the technical specs here doesn't exist in the sourcing, and what we have is essentially a small project in development. It has been covered by the Hindustan times, but that is still only one source to cover it, and arguably it would be more about the educational institution, so I don't think it cuts past WP:N. Deletion as TOOSOON is ideal here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the refs mention UAV projects, but there is nothing to link the refs to the subject of this article as MARAAL does not appear in either ref. Could just as easily be about unrelated projects. This leaves the article essentially as unsourced. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per concerns already raised by users above Spiderone 08:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Shaw (wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Some articles from WP:PW are deleted because of the copy-pasting issues from fanmade wiki sites, and this is no exception. Nickag989^talk 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 17:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All those redlinks bring to mind one thing, namely the immortal words of Gordon Solie: "Wow!". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nominator meant to say speedy delete, see here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per obvious copyright violations.LM2000 (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for entertainers/acresses. That is what professional wrestlers are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programmes of the University of Groningen[edit]

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

Listing of degree subjects, not notable content.WP:NOTDIRECTORY Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Degrees offered at institutions of higher learning tend to change over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much detail. Difficult to verify. This info is best hosted on website of organization. gidonb (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert – Editør (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party or independent sourcing and no indication it passes any notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion had been commented out of the 24 July daily log due to a script bug triggered by a second relist on the same day. Fixed now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 17:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liston Colaco[edit]

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

Player not professional Debarghya89 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 15:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MD KD[edit]

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

The only claim of significance is that a track from their album topped in Northern India. But this is not supported by the only valid reference which briefly cites them as an example of aspiring groups that have not yet been lucky enough to achieve success. Another issue is that there may be a possible conflict of interest issue, as there is a clear indication that the author may be in charge of digital marketing for the group. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No @Crystallizedcarbon currently i am not connect to this group but i was connected so i have closely watched progress. they got Haryanvi Sanskriti Award 2017 ,Haryanvi of the year Award 2015,Best Haryanvi Rapper Award 2016 i can send you newspaper cutting of alls recently they performed in Battleground Asia in SVP Stadium Mumbai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJbddW-P9I . I am also from Haryana so i know all details about all haryanvi singers and politicians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashmahla (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC) They are also comes in news when a fake photo of their accident gone viral on whatsapp and facebook .http://www.univarta.com/news/regional/story/54709.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashmahla (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Subhashmahla: Please review our policy about conflict of interest as a person with your username in LinkedIn claims to be the digital marketing manager of the group since 2014 - present. Also please review WP:MUSICBIO and our general notability guidelines. To keep the article from being deleted you should show that there is in-depth coverage (more that trivial mentions) from multiple reliable sources independent from the subjects. I could not find any and also none to source the claim that "a track from their album topped in Northern India". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - performing at a few college music festivals is not enough Spiderone 08:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I could find just two English sources. This one has just four lines about them, and this one mentions that they performed at a college fest. In Hindi media, I could find five articles, which are of either Dainik Bhaskar or Dainik Jagran. This one mentions that they were given Haryana Gaurav award by the state government – the award is non-notable. This one reports their performance at some local cultural event, and this one reports that their album's shooting has completed. The remaining two are about the fake rumors of one of the singers' death – [5] & [6]. So, their isn't any in-depth coverage in the reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notable coverage satisfactory of guidelines has been demonstrated within the deletion discussion, references linked to in discussion not present within the article should be added to it in order to avoid future accidental AfDs. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Welcome Wagon[edit]

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

Non-notable band with no third-party sources. Google search turns up barely three pages of niche and music-download sites. Fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you saying there are no third party sources in the article (which is not a reason for deletion) or that no third party sources exist (which is wrong)? --Michig (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily enough coverage to satisfy notability guidelines: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. --Michig (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: absolutely passes WP:BAND, as demonstrated by Michig above – I believe Relevant is also a reliable source, in which case there are a series of articles there about the band as well, starting with this one: [22]. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's findings; subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. gongshow talk 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was a WP:BEFORE search performed? I am believing otherwise; how else could so many secondary sources be missed?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Michig has provided a profusion of reliable sources providing substantial coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those sources should definitely be added to the article Michig --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Marchand (academic)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PROF. I'm having trouble finding secondary sources about this guy. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Agree. Probable paid editor too. — fortunavelut luna 16:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be deleted because this acaedmic person exist and is considered. Here are some proofs:

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] --Wiwigald32 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)— Wiwigald32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Have a quick glance at WP:E=N, "only" an essay, but relevant nonetheless. And, compounding the issue, the sources provided are very much in the main either primary sources, self-published sources, or providing slender coverage of only passing mentions; thus the subject has not received the required depth or persistence of coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources required to pass the most basic WP:ANYBIO, let alone PROF. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If these 15 sources with news, articles, and photos are still not enough to prove the existence of André Marchand, here are even more sources for the most important categories for academics:

Lots of primary sources listed in article form- this is not the place! But editors can click 'show' and see them all the same

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Books

Book in German from André Marchand on Amazon.de [38]
Book chapter in English from André Marchand from Routledge (see chapter 7) [39] and on Amazon.com [40]

Articles in scientific journals

Article by André Marchand in International Journal of Research in Marketing [41] and a press release for this article with a picture of André Marchand [42]
Article by André Marchand in Journal of Service Research [43] and a press release for this article with another picture of André Marchand [44]
Article by André Marchand in Journal of Marketing (which is by the way the globally highest ranked journal in the Marketing discipline) [45]
Article by André Marchand in Journal of Consumer Marketing (single author article) [46]
Google scholar entry with much more articles by André Marchand [47]
And see the editorial board of the Journal of Interactive Marketing, there is even another picture [48]

News (in German, sorry)

and much more...--Wiwigald32 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More off-topic discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Wiwigald32: Just FYI, I have compressed the big article-style notes you provided above- they're still there and can be looked at- but per this, they should probably be added to the article itself. That, after all, is where they belong! :) — fortunavelut luna 18:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks Fortuna. Have you read these selections of publications about André Marchand? What else do you need to accept the English version of this german researcher?--Wiwigald32 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: This professor really exist! I know him personally. How can you still have doubts despite the many sources about him? Do you want to offend him? You could even call him or his office tomorrow (it is evening in Germany now), see: https://www.wiso.uni-koeln.de/forschung/find-an-expert/experts/prof-dr-andre-marchand/

No one doubts you that he exists, has published, or can answer the phone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ @Shawn in Montreal: Hi Shawn, what do you still need to know about him to make a decision? He has published in the globally highest ranked journal of his discipline (the Journal of Marketing, see http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jm.10.0537?code=amma-site). Most scholars in this field do not reach Andre’s current level of achievement in this regard in their entire careers. His remaining publications are in journals that are also highly regarded. And here is another source from Springer about his research: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-45596-9_58 and another one (see page 22) https://www.epi.media/download.f59095f4c61f67c63a42a700ecf9332e_1/ --Wiwigald32 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the respective URLs for the selected publications to the article itself. --Wiwigald32 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A final note from me for today: The University of Cologne is the largest university in Germany and clearly one of the most prestigous German universities. In addition, the Journal of Marketing (in which Professor Marchand has published) is the international number one scientific journal in the marketing discipline. See for example: https://www.ama.org/academics/Pages/AMA-Journal-Impact-Factor-Rise.aspx and http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1406&year=2015. --Wiwigald32 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)— Wiwigald32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wiwigald32, I have struck out your "keep" because you already indicated the same opinion earlier. You should only provide a recommended outcome a single time in any AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record [54] is inadequate to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Citation counts too low to pass WP:PROF#C1, no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to [55] "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." With the publication in Journal of Marketing, which is the highest ranked journal in the Marketing discipline, Prof. Marchand has developed and evaluated a ground-breaking new concept of a automated recommendation system for groups. Websites such as amazon.com will use this system probably in the future and the numbers of citation will strongly increase. One should also keep in mind that the citation count alone is not an appropriate measure for the impact a scientific breakthrough has. Usually, less innovative articles such as literature reviews get much more citations than a significant new concept. Moreover, he is a professor at the University of Cologne, which is ranked number 41 by a recent report: http://www.scmlist.com/home/university-rankings/analytical-report/ — unsigned, but from User:Wiwigald32

For the specific criterion you just described, "in this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." If you can indeed do that, please modify the article such that it fulfills this requirement. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 09:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated on your talk page, Wikipedia's purpose is to collate reliable information from existing secondary sources. The aim is to be as objective as possible. That is why these policies exist. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 09:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably most scholars agree that it is a lifetime achievement to publish in the globally highest ranked journal of a discipline (with rejection rates higher than 90%) and clearly much more important than many citations from lower ranked journals. Quality matters more than quantity in academia today. Of course it may slightly vary over disciplines, but it is definitely the case in the marketing research discipline. Are there any actual marketing scholars in this discussion who are able to judge this? Please help. --Wiwigald32 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's judge the spammers by what other spammers have to say about them. What could go wrong with such an idea? Or instead we could, you know, actually apply the standards we have developed here that you seem to be unfamiliar with (a hint: you are required to declare your conflicts of interest.) —David Eppstein (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If WP:PROF#C1 is applied, this site should be kept because the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. This university professor has published in the highest possible academic journal of this field and has won a best paper award — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaDeNCH (talk • contribs) — JaDeNCH (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. A paper in a (supposedly) well-regarded journal does not notability make. Publication is only the first step on the path to having an impact. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added further information and references to the article. That's all I add here. I hope that better qualified scholars from the Marketing research discipline and not even more laity will add more information and comment on this article. I also kindly ask you to stop accusing me for personally knowing this person, using other accounts, or other things because it is untrue. By the way, this is my first self-created article in Wikipedia, before that I just have worked on existing articles, so please excuse my inexperience with the whole process. I have ideas for several more articles about other related topics to the Marketing research discipline, but first will wait for the final judgment of this case.--Wiwigald32 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No PROF, no GNG, some CRYSTAL here on this page. E Eng 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing indicates his work has reached the point of having a significant impact, so he does not pass notability for academics. 1 paper is almost never enough to establish notability. There are exceptions, but unless people want to argue Marchand published a paper that to digital marketing (is that a fancy way to say spamming?) is the same as Watson and associates contribution in one publication was to biology, I do not see 1 article as enough to put Marchand into being notable. If you look at how someone fulfills academic notability requirement 1, we have indications such as "has had a book of articles by other schoolars written as a furtherance of the subjects work" as one level of probably passing notability. You will not see 1 article in a top rated journal. It is general multiple articles that are widely cited by others in multiple journals. An article in the top journal does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I agree, we should refrain from disparaging the field of digital marketing; it is not a scientific subject per se, but it does include peer-reviewed journals and is probably therefore worth Wikipedia's attention in general. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The academic study of digital marketing could in principle be non-spammy and completely respectable, despite the unsavory nature of its subject. After all, we don't think of researchers on cancer as being necessarily cancerous themselves. But I don't think it's a coincidence that, in practice, many of these articles are quite promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, indeed. It may also explain the accused tactic of using SPAs, etc. but in this case it does not appear to be done very smoothly. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 12:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete There's nothing obvious to show he meets the notability guidelines for academics and there definitely isn't enough coverage to show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor Marchand has published in the Journal of Service Research, which is widely considered the world’s leading service research (A, top-tier) journal. This publication is from the recent May issue in 2017 and a lead article. Give it some time and it will be heavily cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6:31d4:155:59a6:e270:bd57:235d (talk • contribs) — 2003:6:31d4:155:59a6:e270:bd57:235d (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Give it some time and it will be heavily cited. We can wait until then. WP:Crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G12. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 04:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Gallery of the Cyclades[edit]

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

I cannot find two reliable secondary sources to justify the article. So far I have found the following Greek articles about an exhibition within the gallery:

These however are trivial mentions, giving no detail. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio of https://greece.terrabook.com/syros/page/cyclades-art-gallery Mduvekot (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator made incorrect rationale of WP:ASSERTN. Many sources shown to exist for potential article expansion. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberdimension Neptunia: 4 Goddesses Online[edit]

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

Does not credibly state notability/no citations. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game has received a ton of reliable source coverage. Not even a close call. Complete failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera has five dedicated sources.
Over twenty dedicated sources by Gematsu. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was the third best-selling video game in the nation during its release week in Japan. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: provisionally. This is a good-faith nomination but I think a quick Google search reveals that the game is clearly notable. Sources exist, but they need adding. If somebody adds them then I'm for keeping but if it stays in its current state then it's better off deleted. Yeah, deletion isn't cleanup but if cleanup never happens then deletion is the only alternative. DrStrauss talk 16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think it was bad-faith, just a lack of BEFORE/NOTCLEANUP going on. Its in rough shape now, but there's realistic reason to believe it'll be cleaned up - its part of a series, and other entries are reasonably developed. It's not out in English yet - so when it is, it'll probably get a new wave of interest. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No citations is not the same as citations/sources not existing. Large amount of easily located coverage. Nom's rationale sounds like it's meant to suggest a CSD A7-esque reasoning, but there is no A7 for video games. AFD needs to argue based on policy. It appears to pass WP:GNG easily. I've done a quick application of general article guidelines for video games and will see about expanding some later today. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article title and the article content did not match. There are two games, and both appear notable, but the article content as it started was under the wrong name. Serge has replaced the current content with the correct details. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough third-party sources exist, but Lord, the article needs work. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Bonfiglio[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Has been tagged since March 2016 -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a quick Google search reveals nothing but self-published sources or directory entries. Independent, reliable sources are what confer biographical notability, or indeed notability for anything. This article lacks such sources and should be deleted. DrStrauss talk 15:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, google search does indeed not turn up anything but self-published sources/directory entries. Lacks sufficient independent sources for inclusion at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Tarar[edit]

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

Reads more like a CV and notability is not established. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely promotional and no assertion of notability whatsoever Spiderone 08:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - It's a general page describing a University Professor

But why is this professor notable? Spiderone 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, full of OR, no convincing claim of notability. Creation log indicates this is a fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverleaf (company)[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. The sourcing that is extant about this subject is either a failure of WP:CORPDEPTH, from your standard trade publications that lack reliability for establishing notability, or are press release/promotional based and thus excluded as counting towards notability per WP:SPIP. Unlike most of these type of AfD nominations, I actually think the subject is an interesting concept, but it still fails our standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 100% promo article with trivial content such as:

"Cloverleaf has filed multiple patent applications and was granted its first patent (9,576,174) in February 2017!"

Etc. Such articles are explicitly excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. In any case, it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article here. Sources are regular suspects: self-promotion, interviews, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pets Keeping in Tanzania[edit]

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

Topic cannot provide enough coverage to justify a separate article. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while pet-keeping is obviously notable, as is Tanzania, put them together and you don't have a topic notable enough for its own page. A sub-section in Pet is, at the very most, all this article deserves. The article is also written like an essay and appears to contain original research. DrStrauss talk 15:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantially changed. Article duplicates general advice on pet ownership and does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the specific topic. There may be Tanzania-specific material on pet-keeping, covering national laws, local organisations, etc, so it may be possible to write a valid Wikipedia article. But there's currently nothing in this article specific to Tanzania. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Animal welfare in the United Kingdom, the national subsections of Dog licence, or Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, for valid articles about animal ownership in one country. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information is generic and the subject is not sufficiently notable to have a separate article for Tanzania. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Abshire[edit]

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

BLP created by blocked sock and sourced strictly with web pages, many of which seem to be run by the subject and others of which are dead links. Mild claim to notability with winning state-level body-building competitions, but these claims are not readily verifiable. Article filled with OR. May be vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I couldn't find any notability standards for bodybuilders, but she hasn't won anything major. The sources given do not meet the general notability guidelines.Sandals1 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maziar Sarmeh[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to support general notability guideline and no indication of passing WP:MUSICBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article fails the musician notability guideline with no independent, reliable coverage and no major awards. Many of the sources provided are self-published which confers no notability whatsoever. A Google search reveals little to suggest that Sarmeh passes the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of how this individual passes musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i found some useful references related to artists collaborations with tv show and popular artists , also i mentioned the artists official page on a popular music radio "radiojavan"s website .and added a new reference about the artist biography , the reference site wrote the article about him in 2014 . cheers

Note: Radiojavan , is one of the most popular tv and radio channels in iran . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiyaramini (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - sarmeh is more like electronic music producer and has made some hit songs for other persian and turkey singers. there are many results in google search that shows that the artist is one of active sound engineers in iran . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.133.169.186 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — 91.133.169.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Unless decent referencing appears PDQ. But I think that same-day nomination for deletion is premature. Bluehotel (talk)
Delete A news search brings up nothing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i mentioned the tv shows wikipedia page, also the websites ! i mentioned that sarmeh had many works with other artists in and out of iran and i mentioned the artists wiki or official sites . i allready wrote the references and you are still googling ? please help me to prove this article . belive me there are many articles that should be deleted if we look true !

note : please google " maziar sarmeh " or "مازيار سارمه" in all results not only the news . most of persian news websites do not show in news section of google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiyaramini (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment guys i added a reference "aparat.com" related to the very popular tv program "khandevane" . the video is recorded last year from iranian tv channel " nasim tv" . in this video maziar sarmeh's song is playing on an item with majid mozaffari . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiyaramini (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahdiyaramini: You can't vote twice let alone three times so I've changed your two Keep votes to Comment, You must be aware that an AfD discussion is not a vote. The final decision is made based on the points made by those participating in the discussion and their congruence to Wikipedia's existing policies. Please read WP:VOTE and WP:AFD. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 12:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - sarmeh has made an albume named " casino" featurin "MDX" an iranian/canadian rap star in 2006 with the "Bermooda" lable . the song "age beri" was hit that year and people made several videos for that song . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.131.248.79 (talk)
Note to closing admin: I have struck out two keep votes above added by Mahdiyaramini using different IP address. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - i didnt vote using other ip s. but my friends and site developers did vote on this article . thera are abvious evidences for this article, there are many good references about the article, wanna delet ? go ahead . but it doesnt make it any less true! there are many many pages like this page " behzad leito" , "ali abdolmaleki" & ... we are helping the artist or we are trying to find waya to delet them from the internet ? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiyaramini (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep the article . enough references and many online results found . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.24.94.84 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edited all songs added. corporation with los angeles based label 'Mystery4 Avang' referenced. — 91.133.225.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:36, 6 September 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Alex Shih ^Talk 11:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin NGO[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Mainardi[edit]

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

Successful writer, but doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. as been tagged for notability for 9 years. I could see nothing compelling in the Portuguese article either. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Boleyn: did you check Portuguese news sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, yes, as best I could. Did you find convincing sources? Boleyn (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article built around works by the subject. We need sources about the subject. I might be persuaded if someone could demonstrate that there are such works in Portuguese, but just saying that they might exist without in any way indicating what they are, or in fact indicating that they even exist, just suggesting that they might exist, is not enough to avoid deletion. Wikipedia is built around the principal of verifiability, which means that sources must be identified to keep an article. An encyclopedia can only work on the principal of building on sources we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per John's argument. My WP:BEFORE did not reveal sufficient coverage in secondary sources -- in English or Portuguese.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Due to low participation in this discussion, the article may be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Stiles[edit]

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

No indication of notability Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - a multiple award winner at U.S. Masters swimming competition. I'm unable to determine if the association can be considered top-level - it's obviously not the Olympics but it is an organization specifically for senior athletes with international competition. I have notified WikiProject Swimming of this discussion. Local teaching awards and finishing the Boston Marathon are not indicators of notability. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NGC 4993. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GW170817[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We are not in the business of publishing rumours. Whatever this is/was, it may still just go away and turn out to be nothing. For the moment, all potential reliable sources on the matter are under embargo. Consequently, reliable sources on the subject simply cannot exist. If something was seen, we can be sure there will be official announcements and this page can be recreated. However, if nothing was seen no reliable sources may ever appear. WP:RUMOUR and WP:NOTNEWS apply here, T R 11:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Famous _dog (c) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for the notice re the possible deletion of the "GW170817" article and related - as OA of the article, please understand that I have no objection whatsoever to the final decision (ie, "WP:CONSENSUS"?) - to maintain - or remove the article - for my part, however, this article (and the closely related "GRB 170817A" article) seemed sufficiently worthy (based on cited references^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]) to include and update with the latest relevant news from "WP:RSs" - in any regards - Thanks again for the notice - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Also worth considering? - other unconfirmed (but perhaps still worthy nonetheless?) astronomy-related articles => seems "the majority of "KOIs" are as yet not confirmed transiting planet systems" (as noted in the KOI article, see => "Kepler object of interest") - apparently, however, there are several example articles (albeit some tagged) of unconfirmed (rumored?) KOIs, including (after a casual search) => "KOI-2124.01", "KOI-7296.01", "KOI-7599.01", "KOI-7617.01", more? - as before - maybe also worth considering? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
^ McKinnon, Mika (23 August 2017). "Exclusive: We may have detected a new kind of gravitational wave". New Scientist. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
^ Staff (25 August 2017). "A very exciting LIGO-Virgo Observing run is drawing to a close August 25 [2017]". LIGO. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
^ Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
^ Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

Merge: Multiple RS picked up on the story. That there is a gravitational wave generated by a binary neutron star collision is indeed a rumor. That numerous telescopes suddenly targeted, under a priority interrupt protocol, galaxy NGC 4993, including at least one for the sake of a gravitational wave alert, is not a rumor. It's also very interesting that such a multi-telescope observation took place. The information can moved to the galaxy article, or to GRB 170817A. 129.68.81.173 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete: as per WP:TOOSOON (Mandot) 15:15, 31 August 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandot (talk • contribs)

Delete for now - really, anything that is at the "rumour" stage has no business having an article of its own. Once confirmed, might be incorporated into Gravitational_wave#LIGO_observations, and could then always be spun off into separate article if it turns out to be of importance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. At this point it merits mention only on the NGC 4993 article; the GRB 170817A article is also tagged for the same reason (if the rumor turns out to be false, there isn't anything particularly notable about that GRB). Cthomas3 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this has to be a real event or not in order to be notable is incorrect. Most scientific false alarms that have spilled over into the popular press, while disappointing in the end, will still be of interest as to what went wrong. The excitement here is comparable to BICEP2 B-modes and the 750 Gev anomaly.

A known real event is that numerous big-time telescopes allowed a priority interrupt of their normally very tightly limited observing schedules. Non-involved experts were cited in top-level scientific RSs about this known real event regarding conclusions that could be drawn from such an unusual occurence. We have reproduced what these experts have said about this known real event. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that it deserves mention for exactly the reasons you describe, but everything we currently know about the event is already on the GRB and galaxy page. If the rumors turn out to be false, a year from now no one will care about the now-stricken GW (or the associated GRB), but it would still be an interesting and notable fact about the galaxy. All I am saying is let's wait to create the article until we know more. Cthomas3 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples that you give are interesting: I agree with your assessment that there are some similarities here. For BICEP2, there is no standalone article on the B-mode detection event, but the BICEP and CMB article both make mention of it, as they should. There is a standalone article on the 750 GeV diphoton excess, but that one dragged on for many months and received continued press coverage over that time (and even some after). If this rumor persists for a similar amount of time and continues to receive press coverage as a result, I would agree that it deserves its own article as well. But right now we are still too early in the game to make that determination. Cthomas3 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I supported Merge above, but I believe in giving precise arguments with regards to policy. Here are some more precise data points: Harry Collins has written entire books about LIGO blind injections. We have an article about the 750 GeV diphoton excess anomaly. We have an article about the disputed exoplanet Gliese 581g. The most interesting false alarms do have WP articles.

My point is that per WP policy, the discussion should be whether this event has passed an appropriate threshhold, and not about waiting to find out whether this event turns out to be exciting or boring in the long-run.

Irrelevant aside: I quickly skimmed through the just-released LIGO Magazine 11. Apparently no easter eggs, unlike LIGO Magazine 8. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CRYSTAL/RUMOUR says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." so an article is nor precluded a priori It seems to be there are sources appropriate for passing the general notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the coverage has been significant enough to raise the profile of the event, but the issue here is going to be WP:SUSTAINED. The reason this event is receiving any coverage at all is because of the possibility that it is notable, not because of any known facts about it. If the rumors aren't true, the will be one last round of "oops, false alarm" in the press and that will be that. There is certainly a chance that this is truly notable, but right now we just don't know. News organizations have to pick this up even if it's speculation, because for them speculation is enough to generate views. For an encyclopedia, significant news coverage on a disproved rumor generally doesn't belong in its own article unless the hoax itself gains significant coverage after the fact. Cthomas3 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likewise for GRB 170817A. The possible GW candidate rumour got more than enough notice in the press to be notable. I've got no objections to a merge to NGC 4993 however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours about new flagship phones tend to get lots of press coverage. Yet, for very good reasons we do not go making articles about them before they are announced. Those same reasons apply here. The fact that even the name of this article is completely made up by the creator (based on an educated guess but nothing more than that), is a clear indication that this article should probably not exist (yet). T R 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technology device rumors are part and parcel of marketing campaigns. There is no comparison, and the same reasons do not apply. The name is not made up: GW names follow a precisely known pattern. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although we know the pattern of previous names, this does not guarantee the same will be used here. The name therefore is a case of WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, we do not know enough about the event (if it even exists) to establish the name properly. For example, if the events ends up with a low significance, it could be classed an "LVT" OR in the event that more than one GW event was detected on the same day it could end up as GW170817B OR LIGO may go with something else entirely. The point is we don't know (cant know). In fact, currently the only google hits for "GW170817" are on Wikipedia. We should not be making shit up.T R 15:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions are very conservative. I'm not concerned about different names: SS433 has perhaps two dozen names, any of which can be a redirect. I agree the name is problematic, and if the article is to be kept, a hokier name would be appropriate or, as I recommended above, merging with a non-problematic name. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Cthomas3 and T R. LIGO has well-known verification protocols, and publication of this rumor by RS does not justify including it in Wikipedia. LIGO has not published it, and we don't publish rumors. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Move to Draft space, as I am persuaded by Mark viking's reasoning below. It just makes more sense to park the article in Draft space since it is WP:TOOSOON to verify whether the rumors are true. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Rumors" reported in multiple reliable sources are not subject to deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space. While there are indeed reliable sources, they are reporting rumours or breaking news, making them in effect primary sources. That there is an active investigation into something is a fact, but the core event of this article has no independent reliable sources. Hence WP:TOOSOON applies. If this does turn out to be real, then the early sources will be part of the story and it would be a shame to have to recreate content. Hence I suggest this is really a developing article that should be in Draft space. If confirmed reports and publications of the core event do appear, then the article can be amended and put back in mainspace. --Mark viking (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lacks WP:RS and/or WP:TOOSOON. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtenay Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Somehow this bio article was resurrected despite being deleted in 2014. Since then she hasn't had any lead roles in any video games or shows outside of being a player character in Fallout 4. No RS provided that focus on her career or her life. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might be WP:G4able if there's a previous deletion discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would, but Fallout 4 was released in 2015 as her sole significant role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G4's test is "significantly the same", not "the same". --Izno (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG. While being in FO4 gives her a bigger chance, this is kind of TooSoon. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appeared in a handful of comic conventions. [56] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page needs working on but while not being Tara Strong tier fame wise she still has major roles like the main character in OK K.O,many video games and plenty of Regular Show episodes. Kuzrock (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has several interviews, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources. WP:TOOSOON for it to be an article, she has an IMDB page if you want to look at her filmography._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's get this one off the books; per Angus. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think she meets the notability criteria. Q ^{T C} 18:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does she meet it? No secondary source news articles about her career to satisfy WP:GNG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only significant coverage is the interview at finder.com, but I don't know if that's a reliable and independent source. Even if it is, that's the only one and that's not enough to satisfy the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Joyo[edit]

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

Namechecked only as being secretary. Fails WP:GNG. Being a schoolteacher is not notable. Greenbörg (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Joyo appears to be held in high regard, there are plenty of reports where he is giving tribute/talking/writing about others ie. some of The Express Tribune "Renowned writers, Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo, Taj Joyo and others also cut a birthday cake for Ayaz at the mausoleum.", "The famous Sindhi intellectual, Taj Joyo, said that GM Syed was ...", "So influential was his work that people even named their children after the characters in his novels. “I named my son Sanghaar after a character in Parado so ee Saddu (Those echoes which call),” said Taj Joyo, Sindhi Language Authority’s secretary.", Pakistan Academy of Letters - "Renowned writer Taj Joyo, who came from Hyderabad to participate in the function, said Ibrahim Joyo ...", and in Dawn "Taj Joyo, in the second session on ‘post-Ayaz Sindhi poetry’, said his poetry ...", also, he has written plenty of articles for the Daily Kawish they are found here, Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering Joyo is a former secretary of Sindhi Language Authority and per Coolabahapple. Pakistan Academy of Letters refers to him as a 'renowned writer'. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Alex Shih ^Talk 11:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Sesha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage in reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Magee[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local radio personality, with no properly sourced indication of passing WP:CREATIVE for anything. The only references present here at all are a blurb on a non-notable radio hobbyist's own website, his own website about himself, and a biographical blurb on a directory of every broadcast personality who ever worked in one particular city -- so none of these represent substantive coverage about him in reliable sources, and nothing claimed in the article entitles him to a free presumption of notability in the absence of substantive coverage about him in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local radio host.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Dog and Billie[edit]

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

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

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

Poorly sourced article about a defunct single-market local radio show, along with poorly sourced standalone WP:BLPs of its former hosts. There's no evidence that the show passes WP:NMEDIA, or that either of the hosts pass WP:CREATIVE -- both of those notability standards depend on the depth of sourceability, not just the basic fact of existence. But Michaels' sole reference is a trademarks database verifying the "Mad Dog" nickname, not reliable source coverage in media; Holiday's sole reference is an article which is about her but is barely more than a blurb in length, so it doesn't represent enough coverage about her by itself; and the show is referenced 40 per cent to its own press releases about itself on Canadian media press release platforms (and furthermore, one of those is a deadlink and the other is behind a paywall), 40 per cent to glancing namechecks of its existence in articles that are not substantively about it, and 20 per cent to a non-notable blog. Which means that none of these three articles is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, and none of them claims anything that would confer a presumption of notability just for existing in the absence of enough sourcing to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this refers to a former pairing of DJs who worked together for a while in Toronto, but didn't leave much of a mark on their market. I don't see how they meet WP:GNG. PK T(alk) 18:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Daynard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a retired single-market local radio personality, with no notability claim strong enough to hand him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. As so often happens, this is written very much like somebody just copied his staff biography from the station he was working for at the time, rewrote it just enough to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues, and called that an article. Note that while this was kept at AFD in 2005, Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards have been considerably tightened up over the intervening 12 years, and this no longer meets the requirements that apply today. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No substantive coverage about the subject in reliable sources, just a few mentions. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interestingly enough the nominator here worte a long and reasoned keep vote back in the 2005 discussion. This is actually an even better argument for deletion. In the intervening 12 years we have learned several things. 1-we need to set standards of inclusion that reflect that Wikipedia is a global project. The standards in 2005 almost seem to have been built on the notion it was a UK/Canada/US project. 2-our vision in 2005 was of an unsustainable number of contributors, combined with a hope of contributors focusing more time and energy on the project than they generally have. We cannot keep an article with its only source being IMDb, since IMDb is not a reliable source. While we once had a vision of being a very broad directory, we have realized this makes quality control too hard, and undermines creating articles on actually notable subjects. So we need to delete articles such as this one so we can focus on articles on notable peopel such as Ebenezer Joshua, the first chief minister in post-indepdence St. Vincent and the Grenadines. When national leaders in the Caribbean get less coverage than many less important people by any measure in the US, we have a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baa Baa Black Sheep (TV series). Clear consensus not to keep this as a stand-alone article. Somewhat scattered opinion about the various non-keep options. Redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Micklin[edit]

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

Subject is a fictional character from a 1970's era TV program that fails WP:GNG. I have been unable to find anything approaching the in depth coverage from multiple RS sources required to ring the WP:N bell. A Prod was removed when three sources were added none of which do more than establish that the character existed. The article appears to be a substantially unsourced WP:OR fan page failing WP:V. I suggest it be deleted or alternatively turned into a redirect to Red West. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge non-OR parts to Black Sheep Squadron. South Nashua (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell pretty much everything after the first couple of sentences is OR. I'm not sure there is anything to merge that is adequately sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. I think the first paragraph would be fine to add. South Nashua (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, per nom. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baa Baa Black Sheep (TV series), which is a redirect from Black Sheep Squadron, or delete. This character is not independently notable of the series, and a stand alone article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good target for a redirect. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 Minutes de guerre[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a film, for which the few reliable sources I can find about it on a Google search reveal that it's only just now going into production -- meaning that it's too soon for us to have an article about it yet. As always, we do not start an article about a film the moment it's been announced as being in development, because any number of things can happen during the production to cause it to be delayed or never actually finish production at all -- with exceedingly rare hypernotable and hypersourceable exceptions on the order of the Star Wars franchise, we don't start an article about a film until its public premiere in a theatre has been formally announced. So no prejudice against recreation if and when there's an announcement that it's getting screened somewhere, but nothing qualifies it to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: this article is a classic too soon case. I can find few sources that give it in-depth coverage which confers notability.

Speedy delete: translated copyright violation of this. DrStrauss talk 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Perhaps WP:G12 will do the trick. I've tagged it. Let's see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a rather obvious hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixar Movie[edit]

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

At first I thought this might be a short film, but it appears to be a hoax. The IMDB listing was also written by a 'Carl', which seems similar to the author of this article. — CleverPhrase ^InsertHere 11:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 applied As much as the animation hoaxers wish the 'drop an entire work by surprise' business model from the music industry was a thing in Hollywood, it is impossible for the film industry, and especially Pixar. As "duh" a hoax as can be mustered. Also, the IMDb link now 404's, so they got it as a hoax themselves. Nate • (chatter) 13:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vij Publishing Group[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Amount of in-depth, persistent, independent, third-party coverage in reliable sources amounts to none. Fails WP:AUD, WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH. — fortunavelut luna 11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find proof of existence, but nothing that amounts to notability. In fact, there are very few sources at all, let alone anything that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost no independent sources Spiderone 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lacks depth of coverage and reliable independent sources _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bikash Barai[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promotional article on a subject with no indications or significance. Insufficient sources to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Al Zain[edit]

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

no evidence of notability; citations are not actually citations, just links to music, nothing evidently biographical — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that number of Twitter followers and the like are not evidence of notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam D Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. I've declined G11 and this is way over the A7 bar, but IMO still fails GNG. GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non notable? He has 10 times the name recognition of most pages with locally elected officials or candidates. Thank you for not deleting the page. I am not a member of Adam's publicity team nor do I represent him. I only created the username because I actually thought it would lend more credibility. I obviously wasn't aware of the policy. So I will refrain from using it. I will also provide more sources on the page to help show that Mr. Brown is worthy of being categorized as a someone who meets criteria on notability. I will also refrain from using sources that lend any bias, it's hard because he's a political figure, but there are dozens of articles about him. Also links to television interviews.

Thanks for giving me a chance to get his page going. Any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Aduanebrown (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Aduanebrown (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia, which you raised on the article's talk page, but that is not a good argument in a deletion discussion - we are discussing his notability. How does he meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL? Which sources do you feel prove this? Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page. Just needs some edits. His Twitter says he has like 30 thousands followers, while that doesn't necessarily tell you how popular a person is, it sure is a lot of people who know of him. Joshaaron18 (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC) — Joshaaron18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Twitter followers is definitely not something which contributes to WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, and many, many people have more followers than that, and are still not notable. How do you think he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG? Are you conected to the subject? It seems strange that your first edits to Wikipedia are on a deletion discussion. Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the above from where they were wrongly posted (this discussion's talk page). Both are similarly formatted and by WP:SPAs. Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted Aduanebrown and Joshaaron18's comments so they don't have headings and their votes are clear. I hope that's OK with them, I haven't changed any content. Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is nowhere near sufficient for WP:GNG and he doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP GNG "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" Even the NYT called him a republican commentator. That's listed and linked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduanebrown (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person has to be substantively the subject of media coverage to get over WP:GNG. He does not get past GNG just because the New York Times has mentioned that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also No one said social media followers were the main reason. That obviously wouldn't qualify him. I along with others believed that he had far more press coverage than did others with wiki pages in the political arena. It's really a losing argument. He's notable. More so than majority of wiki pages dedicated to local office holders or political figures. Should we delete them...? No, because they are important too...but they don't have half of the coverage he does. His policy paper on economics is literally on the President's old campaign site, pulled from The Hill. Not sure why we're pulling teeth here. Aduanebrown (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response My comment about Twitter followers was directed to Joshaaron18, and it was the only argument he put forward. Are you the same user? You've again and again commented on other articles, despite being redirected to comment on this one. But should they be deleted? As I've said before, probably some of them should, and some of them will meet the criteria in different ways - but how does Brown meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG is what we are discussing here. You haven't established that there is coverage which meets the criteria you will see if you click on WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable as a politician, and lacks significant coverage generally. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

What type of coverage are you looking for. We've provided links to: Breitbart, NYT, NJ.com, Forbes, The Hill.... That's a lot of publicly for a "local political figure"

You can't just keep saying it doesn't fit the criteria, it does. He's a mjor local political figure who has received significant press coverage. That's what your standard is here. Your trying to shut down a page of someone who meets criteria. Not to mention his page is not biased or self promoting. I'm prepared to add even more links. Including Fox Interview.

Aduanebrown (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned a couple of times now, 'we think', 'we've provided links', I'll ask again, who are 'we'? (you ignored this last time) and you also ignored: what is your connection to the other WP:SPA on this, Joshaaron18? Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response We are conservative voters who know who Mr. Brown is and want him to have his place on Wikipedia. He meets criteria and doesn't have a self promoting page. It doesn't make a difference who I am, I've only meet him once at a Christe for NJ rally. But I read his op-eds and such. Nevertheless, this is about keeping his page, not who we are. Who are you that you can just sit on the internet and comment about people you know nothing about..? Don't answer that, I don't care. My point is, I know some people don't deserve a page because they don't meet criteria, he does. It's not about you or me, it's about this page.

Aduanebrown (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aduanebrown, please stop adding keep to your comments, this has been revoked several times. By writing keep in bold, you are making a vote. One person, one vote. Anything after that is comment or response in bold, or a colon. If you do this after it has been pointed out in the edit summary several times that you should not, it will be assumed to be disruptive editing, just as your edit warring over the speedy deletion tag was disruptive editing. Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: sorry, wasn't aware how the voting process works. I thought it was based on just the facts, like the ones I have been pointing out. But hey, democracy!

Aduanebrown (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously; when the subject is not describe in a single in-depth secondary source, they fail WP:GNG. From the little useful information we have available, it appears he has not won a major election and falls short of WP:NPOL. I also thought the article was promoting his agenda which is why I tagged it for speedy deletion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brown fails the notability guideline for politicians and the general notability guideline. While conflict of interest isn't a reason in itself to delete, it's pretty clear from this AfD that there is some undeclared conflict here. And some quacking from the second keep !vote. DrStrauss talk 15:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Beyond that, the username suggest the person behind the account is the subject himself (i.e. self-vanity article). Worse, the constant use of "we" suggest there is a team of people behind the scene using the same account. Finally, I suspect sockpuppetry based on User:Joshaaron18's vote stacking.--Cahk (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, not entirely sure I believe there isn't some shady COI stuff going on here as well. --PureRED | talk to me | 19:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting NPOL and no non-political claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that constitutes a claim of notability and there is none of the required in-depth coverage either in this article or found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is completely useless and offers nothing notable. Fails WP:NPOL. Plus, it looks like he made the page himself. Sorry guy, you need to do more to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. MountMichigan (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here passes a notability criterion, and the sourcing isn't cutting it in the least — he has to be the subject of the coverage, not just glancingly namechecked in coverage of other things, to pass GNG. Wikipedia also does not owe anybody an article, as the creator seems to think. Also, I share the view expressed above that there's a fairly obvious conflict of interest here. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not very convinced this article makes any coherent claims to notability. Lets see, he wrote an editorial for The Hill in favor of candidate Donald J. Trump, in 2016. While I would suspect most editorials on the presidential election published in 2016 in The Hill especially if we take the year as a whole, were not in favor of Trump, I am sure that Brown's was not the only one, nor is The Hill a paper of the level that one editorial there makes you notable. Even the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times are not prominent enough to make regular reporters for them default notable, let alone one time editorial contributors. Let us see what else. Brown criticized H. R. Clinton's nomination acceptance speech, but our main source on that issue speaks of such criticisms in the plural, and mainly focuses on Brown's and a few associated as a form of political action to try to discredit the oposition to their views. Clearly not enough for notability. Brown ran for a schoolboard and got just over 30 votes as a write-in candidate. Even if he had won that would not make him notable. Even the race-rhetoric to oppose schools of choice spewing member of the school board of my local district of 16,000 students does not rate an article. Technically he did not mention race, but in metro-Detroit when people attack "out of district students" it is code for speaking ill against African-Americans. Never mind lots of African-Americans live in our district boundaries, it is still much lower than in parts of South Warren, and way below the level of Detroit. Although to be truthful, some of these students live in Detroit and use the address of an auntie, cousin or some other relative to go to Warren Consolidated Schools. And some are honor role students who then get killed by a drive-by shooter while visiting their grandma's in Detroit. Although the last example I believe did actually live in my fair city of Sterling Heights. So she probably could stay if we unwisely ended schools of choice, but that does not mean the school board member wants her to feel welcome. I am still outraged that my neighbors are so uncaring as to vote in the school board someone who is not only racist but clearly does not get how Michigan's school funding operates. It is a major drawback to free-for-all voting, where a person can influenced the results by plunking, that controversial figures can get elected more easily. Back to Brown, being elected to the school board not only would not gaurantee his notability, there are very, very few people notable for being on a school board. If Brown had been a nomination holder in a race for US congress, he would not even be default notable. The menion of what he says on his twitter account is even less of a show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the twitter issue, there are twitter accounts that tweet maybe once a month and have 188,000 followers. So the notion that having about 30,000 followers makes someone notable is hard to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Forbes article mentioning his tweet, shows tweets from I believe 4 other individuals as well, some of the others showing multiple tweets. Having a tweet by you mentioned in a publication, even in a notable publication, is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes of Howrah[edit]

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

Own research. Wikipedia is not a travel guide The Banner talk 09:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could it be moved over to wikitravel? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss about it there, and see if users on that wikipedia are interested. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote support, I meant support the proposal to actually delete the article. I've changed the tag to make it clear. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTTRAVEL Spiderone 14:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR and not travel. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firas Alsarray[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, no article at either arWP or faWP to support notability — billinghurst sDrewth 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film director. Does not meet notability requirements for filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 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 no consensus. There's a consensus in favor of keeping some type of list of traffic signs beyond the per-country ones, though no consensus that "English-speaking" is the best way to group countries together. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of traffic signs in English-speaking countries[edit]

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

Not enough variation for the topic to be helpful or notable. Also, inclusion of countries like Malaysia and the Philippines is dubious, at the very least. ‡ ᕮl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Also, at least one of those signs for the UK don't exist here. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found this page very useful in the past, and although there may be arguments to be had about countries which should be included, I do not believe it is unencyclopedic. The nomination states that there is not enough variation, but that is precisely the point - to show readers the subtle differences between each country on each sign. I'm sure notability can be easily verified by taking a quick look around the Internet; road signage is hardly a minor topic. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) 11:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~leaning~~ delete I don't see what English-speaking has to do with this, given that (after all) these are for the most part graphic images where language is irrelevant— that's the point behind them. We do have a European comparison which makes more sense due to the geographic commonality, but I don't see why comparing the US to the UK is any more apropos than comparing the US to Germany. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the more I look at this the more I think that the commonality of English is irrelevant. One can immediately see that most of the differences arise from (a) the US tending to retain signs in words as opposed to pictures, and (b) the Europeans and East Asians having different standards bodies. Eliminate (a), and English becomes almost entirely irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like WP:OR for me, unless somebody can dig up a study or two on the topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seriously avoiding looking at this article anymore because it is completely uncited and so I don't trust it. The notability argument as stated is profoundly weak (although it could be improved), since roads are topics of enormous interest in Western civilization, this topic attracts the attention of drivers, and notability is understood as those topics for which evidence exists that they have attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at a minimum merge to Traffic sign main article. The graphical comparison is interesting, and probably provides good illustration to some statements which probably have been made in sources (e.g. it has probably been said somewhere that for the most part, traffic signs are similar in English-speaking countries). Seriously there must exist U.N. treaties or deliberations of international bodies, and there must be academic/engineering studies about this kind of stuff, though I personally am not interested enough to seek it out at university libraries or wherever. This is stuff which could totally be within the main Traffic sign article, but has in effect been split out. It is valid material, therefore, and it is an editorial matter at the main article about whether this is split out or not. If the main article is long, it is okay to split out. It certainly would be nice/preferred for it to include some sourced discussion of the issue(s) and references about the accuracy of the signs themselves. At a minimum the material should be preserved by alternatives to deletion such as redirecting. --do ncr am 21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i must say that as a UK resident, i have never seen 4 of the signs listed here (they do exist, they are just really rare). The relevance of English speaking countries is peculiar to say the least. all British signage is standarised with a set of pictographs and the same font (new transport). it might be more productive to compare the design methods of national signage systems rather than this. see: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58170307ed915d61c5000000/the-highway-code-traffic-signs.pdf and note this article needs to be much longer. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while interesting, in a factual junkie way like most of us here are, this is not very useful. I can't think of a use case that someone would say for example "I need to see the difference in yield signs between the US and Jamaica", and that's regardless of the fact that most of the items are identical. An article of road signs of a single country would be more useful. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR. Yeah, I know, that's not a very good argument, but sometimes you just gotta go with your gut. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may not be useful for road travelers crossing from one region to the next, but surely it is of aesthetic interest to people who want to see how countries that ostensibly share a language use that language on their traffic signage. (I am disappointed, however, that the Canadian stop sign doesn't say, "Sorry to bother you, but please come to a STOP, eh?"). bd2412 T 02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RoySmith. Even a stickler to the rules like me thinks such articles should be kept because they are extremely interesting and useful and Wikipedia would be worse off by deleting it. I'm certain someone has already discussed the (subtle) differences between such roadsigns before Wikipedia was invented and that it is thus not OR because it contains no new ideas. I also think comparing English-speaking countries is a good idea because they are likely all being influenced due to the shared language. Regards So Why 07:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since a division of traffic signs by national language is a rather random denominator, as opposed to geographical lines. Just think if we had to choose between Comparison of traffic signs in Spanish-speaking countries and Comparison of traffic signs in Latin-American countries. The first one would be with Spain, but without Brazil, which is less logical than the second one. And the same goes in the case of the nominated article. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had to choose? We don't - we have many instances where different articles present different organizations of information in the same field. We absolutely could have both Comparison of traffic signs in Spanish-speaking countries and Comparison of traffic signs in Latin-American countries, with one being useful to travelers who may be wending through Latin America, and another useful to linguists studying the difference in wording across the language, and with each pointing to the other in the "See also" section. bd2412 T 12:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable topic. Are there any sources comparing traffic signs in English-speaking countries in detail? Additionally regarding the table, if completed there would be 100+ road signs for each of 54+ countries. With many entries lacking equivalents in certain jurisdictions the final table size would be so large as to be practically unuseful and therefore unencyclopedic.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while unconventional, I don't see any policies or guidelines this article violates. It offers no advice on these symbols, so it doesn't fail WP:NOTMANUAL. At the end of the day Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are meant to provide interesting information. This information is both useful and interesting and therefore encyclopedic. It doesn't fail WP:GNG and it seems to pass WP:NOPAGE which are the classic policies/guidelines applied in AfDs like this one. DrStrauss talk 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While appreciating the effort and good faith, I believe these articles should probably remain based on continental connections, like Comparison of European road signs. Considering the Schengen Agreement and open borders, that article actually serves a educational purpose for cross-continental drivers. We can make similar tables to compare signs in the Americas, Asia, and Africa as well. More distant and subjective connections such as a bunch of countries sharing a language, I see as stretching pretty thin. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't appear to violate any policy and is a useful take on the subject. might need a little cleanup but not enough to warrant deletion. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violating core content policies is a reason for deletion. For WP:V, see WP:DEL7. As stated at WP:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion, "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:V issue here, the signs are correct according to governmental sources. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree that zero sources "severely fails the WP:Verifiability policy", then you don't need any sources at all in an article to consider it verifiable. As per WP:V, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." So 100% of the material in this article is lacking inline citations and is subject to removal. There is no point to saving an article that requires a 100% rewrite. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:DEL7 only allows deletion if sources can't be found, not if they clearly exist but are not yet added (see also WP:PRESERVE). A lack of inline citations is not a reason for deletion if the addition of inline citations is clearly possible. Regards So Why 09:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point in DEL7, which has always been a bit of a puzzle to me, but you are dismissing both the quote I provided from WP:Deletion policy and the quote I provided from WP:BURDEN. And I would specifically disagree that those sources have been found, because in point of fact they have not been found. We knew all along in this AfD that most of those signs would be sourceable. The problem is that if there are errors they will mislead readers. The means to make this material verifiable is in-line citations, and this requires a 100% rewrite of the article. Without verifiability, the article is worthless. Unlike notability issues, which require no changes to the article content, content issues require immediate attention at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if you agree that sources can be found, how does WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM not apply? Also, how is it a 100% rewrite to just add sources without removing anything? Regards So Why 16:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way to remove any signs that are not sourceable is to add citations to 100% of the sourceable signs. Since AfD is not cleanup, perhaps you are implying that we save this article for the table structure, leave it to other editors to perhaps apply WP:BURDEN to remove all of the pictures, and hope that someone will research it someday? Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Dr. Strauss states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the visual representation should be useful for readers, albeit uninteresting. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there a reason not to have a single comparison of traffic signs that covers every country. It would be cumbersome, but if too much so it may be easier to split (once combined) into, say, types of signs rather than basing it on countries, continents, or languages. It would make for an impossible table format, but since sortability isn't really an issue, there's not really a big reason for the table aside from snappy presentation. Also, this seems like a pretty good use for a Commons gallery (though don't construe this comment as a !vote to transwiki). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look in any encyclopedia or perhaps even your state driver's manual, and there will probably be a comparison of traffic signs. The article is a list, and is relevant to the project as a list. If it were some lame essay I would !vote delete but it isn't. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:10, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fa11on[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced vanity article of non notable person. Stellaseeker (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kinda new to wikipedia and not really sure how to stop this article from deletion. The page is about an musician, composer and television personality from the UK. She has recently changed her stage name but, still has notable work under her other names. - TV Work under the name Vicky Fallon ^[1] as a composer under the name O’neill and as singer ( in the band smoke2seven) for a song that charted in the UK ^[2] Also preformed under Fallon as a featured artist and as composer for the song by Alan Braxe called nightwatcher ^[3] What would be the steps to correct the sources as I feel the article provides many examples of her notable work?Ashlee444 (talk)

References

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a redirect to Abz Love. I'm not convinced of her notability, much of which derives from Abz Love and Smoke 2 Seven (who may be notable, having had a UK #26 single). People aren't notable on the basis of either people they're in a relationship with or bands they are in, so a redirect to Abz Love might be more appropriate (well-cited material might be merged there, or an article on Smoke 2 Seven might be created). Sources cited are generally tabloid gossip-style coverage, which isn't a good source per WP:RS. She doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN in her own right, and hasn't done much as a songwriter (a Sugababes b-side and the occasional other release but no big hits, as far as I can tell). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:COMPOSER item 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition, does she not meet the criteria? I feel as a co-writer on 2 songs with Smoke 2 seven that have charted would qualify. Same with the writing credits for the song with Alan Braxe which was released as a single, she was also a featured artist on that track.Ashlee444 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 06:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passses WP:COMPOSER but the tabloid sourced personal info should be removed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I had to search using her real name to find news articles. Agree article can use trimming. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Izno (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Rally Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable racing video game. The article is only supported by user-generated sources, thus fails WP:USERG and WP:RS. Hakken (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Link to mobygames.com (reviews section) shows summaries of several reviews in published magazines. I will add some more references, if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ASSERTN. There are a very large number of reviews, the author just didn't bother adding them to the article. Stubs are not very beneficial to Wikipedia but the article is unarguably notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 06:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prague Papers on the History of International Relations[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason given, after adding that journal has notable persons on editorial board (WP:NOTINHERITED) and is included on the "list of reviewed non-impacted journals published in the Czech Republic" (not selective in the sense of NJournals). PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As historian, I know the journal quite well. It is a well known history journal of an institute of one of the most important world university. You can find it, among the others, in the Infona portal (administered by the Interdisciplinary Centre of Computational and Mathematical Modelling of the University of Warsaw): [57] and the European Reference Index for the Humanities (Norwegian Centre for Research Data) [58]... Mts-Lisboa (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither of those indices is selective in the sense of NJournals. But if the journal is this important, it should be possible to find independent reliable sources for that. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R: "A journal can be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to have significant coverage in the media, or demonstrated to have a significant impact in its field. This is usually verified through the journal's inclusion in selective bibliographic databases and selective indexing and abstracting services, or by being the subject of significant commentary in independent scholarly publications, news media, books, theses, and other sources."Notability (academic journals). The journal is indexed in the ERIH PLUS, a selective index of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (agency owned by the Ministry of Education and Research of Norway). In addition to this index, I think that the Czech index can be considered at the same level because of this (although I don't know Czech, you could read it through google translator). Maybe some Czech friends and colleagues could help us. Greetings, Mts-Lisboa (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just added: Since January 7, 2015 the journal has been indexed in the Academic Search Complete (EBSCO Information Services)(although I don't know exactly how this particular index works... I know the previous one...). P.S. sometimes the journal is found as "Prague Papers on History of International Relations" and not as "Prague Papers on the History of International Relations" (the latter is the correct one, but very often you can find it indicated in bibliographies with the other form). Mts-Lisboa (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of those indexes is very selective, they all try to cover everything within their remit. ERIH really just has a minimal list of requirements designed to keep out predatory journals. When checking databases for inclusion, it generally is best to use just a distinctive word from the title (e.g., "Prague" in this case) and go through the list of results and/or to use the ISSN. --Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 06:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- peer-reviewed and published by a university press. As an RS, the article is justified. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Could you perhaps point me to the guideline that says that being peer-reviewed, or published by a minor university press, or being an RS makes a publication notable (in the complete absence of any independent reliable sources)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The main issue I have with making a strong call here (being an RS / published by a University press counts for diddly squat) is that prior for 1997–2010 it was published as a series of books. It also appears 8000 times in google, 3000 times in Googlebooks, which makes me think this is a pass of WP:NJOURNALS#C2 at least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see supra. Mts-Lisboa (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: "published by a minor university press"? Nothing of the sort. Charles University is the leading university in the country, albeit small. --CityCat (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CityCat, nobody ever said (least of all me) that Charles University is minor, as it is indeed one of the major universities in Europe. But CU Press is something else and definitely "minor". --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Why is it smth else? I mean CU Press is notable if only because this university itself is notable (just as Oxford University Press in Great Britain or Harvard University Press in the USA). Of course, CU Press is a small publishing house just because the Czech Republic is a very small country. But this doesn't undermine its WP:Notability. I see you're an expert in the field of academic journals. And yet I can't agree that CU Press is "minor" in the sense that it isn't notable. --CityCat (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the press is not notable because the university is. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Not every professor or lecturer at CU is notable because the university is, either. CU Press may very well meet WP:GNG (and hence be notable), but that doesn't take away that in the field of academic publishing it is a very minor player. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: The point raised by CityCat is related, I think, to the adjective "minor". A publishing house can be "small", but not necessarily "minor". If a publishing house of one of the most important universities in the world is "minor", how do we call a local publishing house that publishes few books by local writers? As pointed by CityCat small doesn't mean minor. The (small) publishing house of a glorious university has the full dignity of any other "big" publishing houses of another glorious university. Mts-Lisboa (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources that back up that this is an important publishing house, fine. If not, I respectfully disagree. Notability is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep -- It is useful to have articles on peer-reviewed academic journals. The problem is usually with providing sources on it that are independent of it. However peer-review ensures that it should qualify as a WP RS and citation indices should demonstrated that other academics this this is its status. Nevertheless, this is an area where WP guidelines as to independent sources do not work well. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, every predatory journal claims to be peer-reviewed. We check that by looking, for example, at inclusion in selective databases that actually investigate the quality of this peer-review. We do not take a journal's own words for this, not even if they're published by a university press. And using the recommendations in NJournals, we often succeed in finding sources (see this for example, and that journal did so badly that it folded after 10 years...). --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty: "every predatory journal claims to be peer-reviewed": but this is not a predatory journal, so in our discussion we should consider it as a real peer-reviewed journal. Best, Mts-Lisboa (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say this is a predatory journal. I'm just saying that it is not up to us to decide which journal is notable and which isn't based on our personal preferences (or the journal's own website). Instead, we need to decide on notability based on sources. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CityCat, agree with you. CityCat and Peterkingiron, then, we should consider the field. History of International Relations is an important field of studies in Continental Europe, Latin America and Far East. It is not the sub-branch of "history" or of "international relations" (this view is not so "popular" in the Anglo-Saxon world, where scholars are considered as "historians" or "political scientists", focusing on theories of international relations). And in history of international relations this journal is a prominent one. Mts-Lisboa (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cold compression therapy. Merge might be a better reading of the consensus, but I don't really see anything worth merging, so I'll just redirect. The history is still there, so if somebody wants to salvage something to add to the target, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilotherapy[edit]

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

Self promotion/ not neutral HaraldW1954 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is probably a good candidate to delete, but lots of work is required to check the references, and to document them properly. There are many references that appear reliable, but those are mostly behind paywalls and cannot be verified. The few non-self published ones I could check did not mention the subject, and just confirmed general statements that are only tangential such as that frostbite can result when cryogenic treatment temperatures are too low.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comments notes section could use some cleanup--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect Found some sources that are okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect as verifiable in reliable sources. — soupvector (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Cold compression therapy - this should have really been deleted per A10. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as promotional proprietary neologism. No evidence seen that the Hilotherm GmbH products are significantly different from other devices for controlling skin-surface temperature. Their UK licensee's product page clearly shows they are not aiming for application to one specific body part, rather they're using "cuffs". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I originally listed this page for deletion as I felt it was all about self promotion. When I went onto Google I saw the majority of initial choices as the promoters of the therapy around thge world. I have not delved deep to see if they coined the term but it's a good guess. As they promote hot and cold therapy it doesn't just fit one but my feeling is that it should be mentioned in therapies for both hot and cold but does not warrant it own page. To do that just validates the therapy providers, and frankly the evidence does not say it's worth the money people would spend. I do accept that it does appear to have some benefit. I still say it should go. HaraldW1954 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (changed to merge) passes GNG per the WP:MEDRS-compliant source (systematic review indexed in PubMed) in the article (PMID 27516162) plus a second one, PMID 26362489. FourViolas (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:FourViolas You haven't addressed why this specific form of Cold compression therapy should have its own article. Articles like this are generally created by company reps; we generally redirect and merge them to the generic article. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough detail in the two reviews for a specialist article too large to fit in cold compression therapy per WP:DUE: in a separate page, we could discuss the facial device's design, its higher cost relative to standard treatment, its higher patient tolerability, hypotheses about its mechanism of action (neutrophil inhibition, vasodilation), and so on. GNG permits this regardless of what we "generally" do in similar cases.

However, the article's history doesn't make me optimistic that anyone is likely to step up and write such an article soon, so I'm okay with a merge for now, without prejudice against thoughtful recreation in accordance with WP:PROMO. FourViolas (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 06:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two editors arguing to keep both assert that sources exist, but don't give any specific examples. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Universitario Eugenio Alvizo Porras[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to me to meet notability guidelines; couldn't find much in the way of reliable sources Pariah24 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a sports venue, mentioned in many news articles. Whether or not we have sources providing in-depth coverage about this place, the stub article provides a focus and allows for growth, serves readers looking it up. --do ncr am 17:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stadiums of this size (and usually smaller) tend to find enough press coverage to meet WP:GNG and I see no reason to cut this one. Probably be a stub, but so be it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Only 634 results on Google, and no substantial coverage of the stadium itself found in Google News searches. Both "keep" votes provide no arguments for keeping. One claims the stadium is mentioned in the news often. That's probably true, but isn't relevant to WP:GNG; trivial mentions in connection with specific sports teams/events do not support notability. The other claims some type of presumptive notability with no backing from any sources, and that's just not supported by any guideline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do have to actually read why it's an argument to avoid. It's bad to look at Google hits or even Google News results on subjects that are highly specialized and unlikely to be found in a search engine. That is not the case here. If this stadium were notable, there would be news articles about it online. There are not. There's no evidence of substantive cover in the sense of WP:GNG anywhere on Google, Google News, in the article, or provided in the deletion discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's still not a reason to delete, simply not necessarily a reason to keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "There's no substantive coverage on this topic" is quite clearly a reason to delete. See WP:GNG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BU Rob13. Without real evidence of significant coverage, the subject fails WP:GNG. Permastubs are unsatisfactory articles. Without reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage on a subject, there simply isn't enough information to write about that would be verifiable. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are hardly any good sources for the stadium. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is not ready now, but maybe in the future when this gets more coverage, we can reconsider. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:48, 9 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 no consensus. If the people arguing to keep had given more concrete examples of how WP:MUSIC is satisfied, I would have closed this as a straight keep, but as it is, NC seems more accurate. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Anderson[edit]

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

Minor artist and guitarist. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Generic. scope_creep (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although I generally agree with the reasoning here, it feels pretty borderline to me. Given:
- Billboard article
- Huff Po article Granted interview, granted blog
- The Music article
- Also, if someone could track down reference to being on "regular rotation" on national radio, I'd be convinced.

All that being said, still seems lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewmutt (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT instead of Delete After reviewing, it is still unclear as to why this was included for deletion.
- Instead, I proposed that it could be edited, since so many sources were properly included (and known ones like Billboard, Rolling Stone, Yahoo! Music). Also, see previous (user above) notations (regarding Billboard,Variety, Rolling Stone and HuffPO articles which mention or review him -- not to mention the Yahoo Music "Top 10 Best New Artist of 2016" article. [59]
- The Radio points that were included were at AAA Non Commercial which doesn't have a public facing reporting. This information could be edited out of the wikipedia page as it is not able to be sourced in a public facing way.
- He is from Australia (you can see that all media either starts or includes a reference to him being "Australian born/Melbourne born/raised; From Melbourne" etc.
- Net Net, page can be edited to exclude radio highlights as they are not able to be sourced. Connected contributor. Juelconcepts (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO #1, 4, 9 & 11. The article does need to be edited for clarity, concision and neutral tone.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there is just sufficient evidence provided to satisfy WP:NMUSIC.Dan arndt (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In my view there is sufficient non-trivial coverage here, and in some fairly significant publications, to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:52, 9 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 University of Southern California School of Social Work after two relists per consensus. (non-admin closure) --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement[edit]

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

Unfortunately, the PROD was removed so I need to come here. The PROD is gone but the article has not improved; in fact, it has become more promotional. My rationale for the tag still stands: notability is not inherited and the subject is only mentioned in primary sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can dig up sources to support notability. I was surprised not to find any when I googled, because what I did find were a great many RSs citing the center and/or its director as experts. But the only writeups of the center per se seem to be from USC itself, unfortunately. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there appears to be a lot of info out there in googleland about the NCSCB, a (very!) quick search brings up these - National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement Receives $1.4M from the New York Life Foundation, CBS Denver - Aurora Schools Help Community Cope In Shooting Aftermath, American School Counsellor Association lists it here (Helping Kids During Crisis), Comment: Work with traumatized Marysville students continues from The Daily Herald - "Following the Oct. 24, 2014, tragedy, we have been fortunate to remain in close consultation with Dr. David Schonfeld, director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, as well as ... Through these organizations, we have provided all school counselors with intensive training ...", Fox 11: How to talk to kids about terror attacks - "David Schonfeld from the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at USC came by Good Day LA to discuss how to talk to children about terrorist attacks, especially as the Manchester bombing is in the news.", but whether these are substantial enough i will leave it to others. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a suitable location where this can be redirected? Coolabahapple brought up some sources that, while failing to talk about the subject at length, may be useful for another article to mention.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Southern California School of Social Work; the Center is attached to the school and does not come across as independently notable. The sources above do not establish sufficient notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Southern California School of Social Work does not currently mention National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, so it would be a weird redirect. I suspect (but don't have any data) that the center is just one of many projects at the school, so it would be hard to do a merge without WP:UNDUE issues. I'm not arguing strongly against the redirect, but it doesn't give me much in the way of warm and fuzzy feelings. 17:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not undue weight if it is the most notable sub-unit. Also, that article may well need reworking if there are lots of other sub-units.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to the article on the school of social work that runs this organization and incorporate any well sourced information in a sub-heading there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there are some sources pointed out, the counter that these are trivial human interest pieces is strong and participants after these sources were presented do not seem to consider these as contributing to notability —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarosh Khan[edit]

(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. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwardx, I've been able to find a few sources from reliable news agencies like Times of India, Hindustan Times (discussing his gimmick of adopting a cow), Amar Ujala (discussing a proposed ban on him), Patrika (discussing notable people from the Kota region in India; the news also says he won the Rajasthan Film Award for best debutant director), a listing of the Rajasthan film award showing him as the winner. This seems a borderline Keep for me with the potential of being expanded. What do you think? Thanks. Lourdes 07:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those look to be reliable sources, although rather trivial "human interest" news items, but the award is dubious on notability. India looks to be awash with award schemes - have a look at Oriental University to get an idea. Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from me. As well as the links above, there are other mentions such as: http://jiamumbai.com/2017/06/10/sarosh-khans-iftaar-hiv-positive-children-jaipur/ http://bharatgaurav.org/about/mr-sarosh-khan/bharat-gaurav-2012-lifetime-achievement-awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs)

Comment Those are all non-notable, and possibly vanity awards, and/or not reliable sources. India looks to be awash with award schemes - have a look at Oriental University to get an idea. Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "mentions" don't indicate notability. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE and significant RS coverage not found. Produced one notable movies, but producers are rarely notable and this subject misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm conflicted how to close this. There is a claim that this fails WP:V, which is a requirement that needs to be interpreted strictly. On the other hand, nobody is claiming that "South Bengal" doesn't exist. Just that the name hasn't reached a level of acceptance as an official place name. From the arguments here, I can't convince myself that either camp is completely correct.

So, going to call this No Consensus. It seems clear that this needs editing, and better sourcing, but for now I don't see a strong enough argument here to delete it. My recommendation is for people to work on the article and perhaps re-evaluate it in a few months if there's no improvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Bengal[edit]

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

Not verifiable. Has cited no sources since created in 2011. Not a legally recognized place. Anyone can stick "south" on the name of a region, but that doesn't create a notable topic. The ngram hardly registers in Google Books (42 uses since 1995). As often as not it's not capitalized, indicating that it is at most an informal term that has not attained proper-name status. In no case is it used to mean what the article defines it as - a cross-border region including parts of Bangladesh and parts of the state of West Bengal in India. Worldbruce (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep sourcing is an issue but searching reveals lots of usage. We do need someone to spell out roughly what people think of as the south, even if they don't capitalize it. Note that this issue crops up in the main Bengal article, which spells out regions without any sourcing, in the same manner. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be great if someone could supply a definition from a gazetteer, atlas, or other reliable source; I couldn't find one. Raw Google hits alone are an unconvincing argument for inclusion. There are plenty of Ghits for "east Carolina" and "west Carolina", for example, but Wikipedia wisely doesn't have articles on those terms. Thanks for pointing out the repetition in the Bengal article, I've tagged it there. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep --- The river Ganges (Padma) forms the boundary between North and South Bengal and this concept is way older than modern Indian republic and Bangladesh.#

"Anyone can stick "south" on the name of a region"--- OH YA! almost every Bangladeshi and indian, especially indian bengali news agencies have editing section for "South Bengal". More:

South Bengal State Transport Corporation
South Bengal Frontier
South Bengal College Keshabpur, Bangladesh

−Gaurh (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a conjectural name. While sometimes used informally in the media, there is no specific definition or academic usage. The usage is also not widespread enough that it has attracted attention. An article created about this would be original research--DreamLinker (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or Delete - The article is mostly original research; however the term South Bengal is not neologism either. This puts us in a dilemma. If you ask about North Bengal, my position would be strong keep, since 'North Bengal' has well defined meaning and has wide official, academic and casual use. In contrast, 'South Bengal' is seldom used in official or academic literature and is sometimes casually used to refer to southern divisions (Khulna Division and Barisal Division) in Bangladesh and most of the southern parts of West Bengal. (Note: In Bangladesh, southern parts of West Bengal is never referred to as South Bengal but almost always as West Bengal.) The geographic area which this term refers to is vague and wildly varies. If the article exists, it should be totally rewritten just covering the use of this term and not a geographic region itself. --nafSadh did say 19:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was BOLDly moved to Draft:John Bourgeois. Since nominator User:JimKrause is an SPA, and delete voter User:Sandals1 had only five edits to his name before !voting here, their participation must be given less weight than that of more experienced editors. However, this is an unsourced borderline article. If the article can be improved with sources, it can be proposed for restoration to mainspace. If it is not, it will automatically be deleted after a certain period of inattention. bd2412 T 04:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bourgeois[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. Despite lengthy list of credits, notability not established. JimKrause (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes criteria 3 of WP:NACTOR as has made prolific contributions to film, tv and theatre productions Atlantic306 (talk)
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to pass the SNG for Actors. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the nom's statement. He's apparently been in a quite a few things, but no notable roles to speak of and not a single reference (even an unreliable one) to back it up. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he has had some prominent roles in films such as XMen and in a number of theatre productions and tv shows Atlantic306 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His role in X-Men: Apocalypse was a small one (#56 on the order of credits for the movie on IMDB). As mentioned, there are no sources to back up notability even for his work in theatre. The prominence of his roles in theatre productions as well as the relevancy of the plays themselves and the theatres is dubious. It should also be noted that a google search reveals bleak results (aside from actor sites such as IMDB, his agency and the school he works for) and an image search yields only a few results. Not that google results should be a determining factor, but even with his plethora of work, it gives you an indication as to the level of prominence and amount of recognition he has gained as an actor. --2607:FEA8:1160:4FD:4D58:B6CE:670A:BFDC (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the nominator of the AFD editing logged out ? as you did the prod and then JimKrause did the AFD with his first edits.

Also do you know Bourgeois in real life or have some connection to him ? as you and the nominator have done little else but seek his deletion along with a different Canadian actor. As your ip is from Toronto are you part of the theatre set there? Regarding the sources they are hard to find but I am seeing prominent theatre roles in reviews but still searching for significant coverageAtlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An actor does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article — he gets over NACTOR when a satisfactory degree of reliable source coverage about him can be added to support the claim that any given role was noteworthy enough to count as an NACTOR pass. This is completely unsourced, however — but no actor ever gets to keep an unsourced article for any reason, and neither Google or ProQuest is turning up the depth or volume of reliable source coverage required to salvage it. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is a long list of credits, but a lack of major roles. I don't see how he meets WP:NACTOR and he certainly isn't notable as an educator. My google search found a lot of people with the same name and when I added "actor" to the search the list was short and I don't think the general notability guidelines are met.Sandals1 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khong Chee Mool F.C.[edit]

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

An amateur club which has not been covered in-depth by reliable sources. Current references are to routine coverage of the tournament, and a single-line item mentioning making a school visit & donation. Fails WP:Notability and WP:ORGDEPTH. Paul_012 (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, has not participated in a national competition. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above. Govvy (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 5th tier isn't particularly deep for club notability, and we seem to have a few articles like this. Does anyone know how the cup system works in Thailand? Nfitz (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, it appears that teams in this tier are eligible to play in the Thai FA Cup, with 8 teams playing in the 2017 Thai FA Cup.Our somewhat vague WP:FOOTYN club criteria is:

All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.

Which seems contradictory. Hasn't played so doesn't meet. But isn't not eligible, so broader criteria not necessary. Nfitz (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 21:14, 9 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) 19:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangsai F.C.[edit]

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

An amateur club which has not been covered in-depth by any reliable source. Current references are to routine coverage of the tournament. Fails WP:Notability and WP:ORGDEPTH. Paul_012 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, has not participated in a national competition. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above. Govvy (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with only facebook as a citation and no other available reliable sources article fails WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No action. I'm closing this AfD without prejudice as the filer is topic banned from LGBT-articles, broadly construed ([60]) and thus the AfD itself was improperly started. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LISTN and violates WP:DIRECTORY. The main Southern Poverty Law Center already discusses the list in detail. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote the views of a single organization. And the list simply changes too much to maintain it properly on an encyclopedia. I am also nominating the following related pages because it makes even less sense to have a separate article for a sub-list:

Instaurare (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the numerous arguments about sourcing and notability made less than 10 months ago when this article was previously nominated for deletion by the same user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion led to no consensus, and I believe it's ripe for discussion again per CNN's example: "Editor's Note: The headline on this story has been changed to more closely align with the content of the piece, which clearly indicates that the data on hate groups is from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This story has also been updated to provide direct links to the full list from the SPLC as opposed to publishing the entire list here, and context has been added regarding some groups who oppose their inclusion on the SPLC list." Instaurare (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Less than ten months ago, you nominated this article, and there was not even remotely consensus to delete it. Nothing has substantively changed. The list also does not "promote the views" of the SPLC. (That's like saying having the List of organisations banned by the Government of India endorses the Indian government's views. It's nonsense. It also ignores the fact that groups' objections to being designated as hate groups appears prominently in the list). Neutrality^talk 02:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this clearly meets WP:LISTN because "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." See, e.g.:

Niraj Chokshi, "The year of 'enormous rage': Number of hate groups rose by 14 percent in 2015" (Washington Post, 2016) - article extensively discussing list
Kim Severson, "Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says" (New York Times, 2012) - article extensively discussing list
Mike McPhate, "Law Center Finds Surge in Extremist Groups in U.S. Last Year" (New York Times, 2016) - article extensively discussing list
Phillip Lucas, Critics: SPLC targets, demonizes conservative groups (Associated Press, 2016): ("Many consider The Southern Poverty Law Center's annual list of U.S. extremist groups an authoritative glimpse into racist and anti-government activity")
Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 75-78 (extensively discussing SPLC's list).
Chen 2006 (SPLC and ADL are authoritative sources for identifying domestic extremists and hate groups")
Perry 2001 (SPLC provides "invaluable service for the public")
Neiwert 2013 ("the Southern Poverty Law Center ... remains the most assidous, detailed, and dependently factual of all the organizations that gather and publish information on the radical right in America")
Spitzer 2001 (SPLC is "a nationally respected organization devoted to tracking domestic terrorist and racist groups").

The bottom line is that some people don't like the SPLC. That's not a reason for deletion. Neutrality^talk 02:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG as demonstrated by the sources listed by Neutrality, and just about every major news organization in the United States. The article has been viewed by more than 375 people per day over the past year which suggests that it's a subject of interest to readers. The SPLC is a highly-cited, well-respected source that tracks hate groups, and has worked to expose them for decades. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is inapplicable because this list article is unlike any of the seven examples listed. This article has context, is organized into categories, is well-sourced, and contains numerous links to articles about other notable subjects. Complaints about the quality of the article or the need to keep it updated do not hold sway in a deletion discussion. All that matters is notability, and suitability for inclusion in this encyclopedia, both of which are strongly evident.- Mr X 02:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Instaurare: You have violated your topic ban (again) by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion. See you at ANI.- Mr X 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trout for the AfD proposer, as this widely discussed list topic resoundingly meets the very low notability requirement at WP:LISTN. This list article is helpful as it conveys the prominent (and manifold) reactions to the list, and the list article can document its changes over time, encyclopedic facts which would not be found at the SPLC list itself. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Applicability:section 3. This Does not fail WP:LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - This list is frequently cited and mentioned in reliable sources. It is both sufficiently notable to transfer notability to those who it lists, as well as having notability transferred to it via news and academic sources. Regarding WP:DIRECTORY --> WP:TROUT Edaham (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does the list need to be republished on Wikipedia? Instaurare (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why does anything? Edaham (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The editors above made the case clear; however I wonder about nominator's topic ban and POV on this subject since he was also the one who nominated it last time. — nihlus kryik (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG as outlined by others already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just adding my voice, I think others above me have made a sufficiently clear case. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Sunder Nayak[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Possible biography, or COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: only passing references, lacks WP:SIGCOV. —usernamekiran(talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking around, I found coverage in various sources. E.g. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/031016/the-promo-says-it-all.html Ross-c (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while he's received some coverage, such as the link in the keep !vote above, it's been as a passing reference resembling no significant coverage. I'm afraid he's just fails WP:FILMMAKER. I also second the assertion that there's a whiff of COI or autobiographical content here. DrStrauss talk 15:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom and the doc. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ostravar Brewery[edit]

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

Unremarkable brewery. KDS4444 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. A brewery operating since 1897 or 1898 is going to be notable. Has notice been posted anywhere someone with Czech language skills will see this? We need help evaluating Czech topics. --do ncr am 05:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "Google scholar" search link yields a document on Ostravian Breweries After 1945: "[PDF] Pivovarská historie Moravské Ostravy 4. část: Ostravské pivovary po roce 1945 History of Brewing in Moravská Ostrava Part 4: Ostravian Breweries After 1945 / M STAREC - kvasnyprumysl.cz... Part 4: Ostravian breweries after 1945. Kvasny Prum. 57, 2011, No. 6, p. 149–154. The final part of the four-part series describes the post-war history of the Ostravar brewery, which was formed in 1946 by the nation- alization of the original joint-stock brewery. ..." Sounds like a substantial source. --do ncr am 05:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as it was was unremarkable, but the one on cs.wiki isn't, and there are a few sources. A few local news sources focusing on the brewery's recent initiatives and the beer got some passing mentions in some books about beer (some in English). I have expanded the article accordingly and might take some more content from the cs.wiki article later. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  16:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved since the nomination. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A General, A Scholar and A Eunuch[edit]

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

Unremarkable television program. Does not appear to meet WP:TVSERIES. Can't even tell what channel it aired on. KDS4444 (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite: A proper translation of https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B6%85%E6%99%82%E7%A9%BA%E7%94%B7%E8%87%A3 will help improve this article. Title is also wrong. The English translated title is the grammatically incorrect "An Eunuch" actually.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "A Eunuch" is correct because there's a /j/ (y in phonetic English respelling) sound at the beginning of "Eunuch". Deryck C. 16:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a page on the subject is now located at A General, a Scholar and a Eunuch; it shows as created on the 20th so I'm not sure what happened to the old one. ansh 666 03:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article got a lot better since this AfD began. The cited sources establish sufficient notability. Deryck C. 16:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion as a recently created article which duplicates an existing article. ParuchuriGopalakrishna did not contain anything which was not also included in either present or past versions of Paruchuri Gopala Krishna, so there was nothing to merge. As for the suggestion of merging Paruchuri Gopala Krishna with Paruchuri Brothers, that is a separate issue, and can be discussed on the relevant talk pages: it does not need a deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ParuchuriGopalakrishna[edit]

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

There are 3 different articles on this same person, ParuchuriGopalakrishna, Paruchuri Gopala Krishna and Paruchuri Brothers. First two are the same person, third includes same person + brother. Suggest merge into one & delete two, all lack citations to RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ParuchuriGopalakrishna, as it is a 100% recreation of Paruchuri Gopala Krishna after the move. Paruchuri Brothers contains the same list under filmography as Paruchuri Gopala Krishna. Given the sheer number of works they have and that many of them don't seem distinctly not notable, I lean towards a selective merge of Paruchuri Gopala Krishna to the Paruchuri Brothers -(similar to The Wachowskis). menaechmi (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ludometrics[edit]

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

I couldn't find independent coverage on the subject. Fails NCORP. Reads a bit like an advertisement. Tagged for potentially failing NCORP since May 2012. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical non notable company article that conflates game reviews with notability for the company itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even what's in the article wouldn't indicate notability for the video games! --Izno (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nom. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despina Pavlou[edit]

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

An adequately-sourced and seemingly accurate article, although clearly and inevitably negative. Per WP:BLP1E, should it be here? Does it pass WP:BLPN? Is this what we're here to do?

Also see recent removals at Lord Grey School. Merge to that article would be a possibility.

Neutral for myself, but I think this warrants a wider audience. Mostly I want to avoid any more quiet deletions by passing one-edit IP editors and the inevitable edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete What I'm seeing is all news coverage, connected to a few events a decade to seven years ago. After that, the GHits cease, so I see no lasting notoriety. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is the case of a head teacher getting in legal trouble for alleged criminal actions. Nothing of note here. This is just a passing news event, not at all encyclopedic in nature. One way to judge this is to ask "if this event had occured in 1917, would we have any chance of finding any source mentioning it?" The answer is no, so it is a non-notable event, so it does not make the person notable, so we delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ying's Best One-Dish Meals: Quick & Healthy Recipes for the Entire Family[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Created by an editor with a probable WP:COI. Edwardx (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete GHits are sales-related including the Pub. Weekly review. It's just another cookbook. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Cook books are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Part of a promotional walled garden around the author; most of it should probably be razed to the ground. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let's see what else this COI editor created. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by User:SouthernNights as WP:A7, G5. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eccleshall[edit]

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

Ran a department at a minor university, which is probably not sufficient grounds to consider this academic notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5 as one of the slew of poor articles created by socks of banned editor Novonium. But apart from that ... QUB as a Russell Group university is not "minor" so the nomination is misleading. PamD 02:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His books look solid, lots of holdings in Worldcat, though the original article creator never bothers with little details like publisher, date, isbn. I could probably improve this article but don't want to spend my time to give a sockpuppet the satisfaction of seeing "their" article survive in the encyclopedia. Delete for now, without prejudice to future recreation by an editor with better article-creation habits. PamD 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalu Rahim[edit]

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

Non-notable musician – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep more notable as an actor, has leading role in an upcoming film, coverage in Hindu and Decclan Chronicle Atlantic306 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a musician or an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies and significant RS coverage not found. WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSIC fail; promo tone and apparent intent. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[61] and [62] might not make significant coverage, but it certainly isn't a complete lack of coverage (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[FERMI-20170817-1] Kienlin, Andreas von (17 August 2017). "GCN Circular; Number: 21520; GRB 170817A: Fermi GBM detection; 2017/08/17 20:00:07 GMT". Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[NAT-20170825-2] Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[NG-20170825-3] Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[WIRED-20170825-4] Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[NAT-20170825-5] Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[NS-20170823-6] McKinnon, Mika (23 August 2017). "Exclusive: We may have detected a new kind of gravitational wave". New Scientist. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[LIGO-20170825-7] Staff (25 August 2017). "A very exciting LIGO-Virgo Observing run is drawing to a close August 25 [2017]". LIGO. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[NG-20170825-8] Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[WIRED-20170825-9] Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired. Retrieved 31 August 2017.

[10] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tkr21

[11] ttps://www.discogs.com/Smoke-2-Seven-Been-There-Done-That/release/1313025

[12] ttps://www.discogs.com/Alan-Braxe-Featuring-Killa-Kella-Fallon-Nightwatcher-Show-Me/release/8303018

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]