Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 February	16 February >

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. Prev close script error. Keep lack policy basis and fail to address the fundamental delete argument that this lacks sources to demonstrate notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lafayette Club

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

No demonstration of notability. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Only founded in 2016 - fails WP:SUSTAINED. Edwardx (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references in the article are WP:RS. This comes pretty close to WP:A7 material. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did seriously consider a speedy, but the article looks to have been created in good faith, so thought I'd give people a chance to find better sources. Nonetheless, would be amazed if this does not get deleted. Edwardx (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page acts as both a student organisation page as well as a podcast page. Other podcasts, see The Greatest Generation (podcast) have not been faced scrutiny for WP:SUSTAINED, which debuted in roughly the same time remain so the criteria for should not be applied in my opinion.

And given that this a student organisation, it seems common for most of their Wikipedia pages to have little in-depth coverage from reliable sources (see Conférence Olivaint (which has none), Bummit and Film Unit at Sheffield University, Racing Green Endurance from Imperial, Institute of Making at UCL, Children's Holiday Venture at Edinburgh, etc.). It is similar to the other student pages developed from the LSE - see LSE German Society and LSE Alternative Investment Conference in terms of the depth of coverage from third party sources. Given the calibre of speakers giving speeches, I believe that the page will attract more news coverage/reliable sources soon. However, for now, perhaps tagging the page with a {*{primary sources|}*} template can alleviate some of your concerns? Kioj156 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Regarding Kioj156's comment on 'calibre of speakers', see WP:INHERITORG, nevertheless the number and quality of speakers is impressive. Based on the above findings on the wikipedia pages of student organisations, there seems to be a precedent on the standard of sources and notability. The article in question is written in a neutral tone and cites its sources properly so no improvement is needed on this part. I would recommend orienting this page towards it podcast status rather than its club/organisation status or alternatively focus on any demonstrable effects on society or education it may have. However if this page does end up getting removed for the reasons cited by Edwardx, I support the removal of several of the referenced student organisations pages as well. EmyRussell (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As EmyRussel said, speakers are relevant & notable, and the article has room for improvement. It is a student organization which might suggest non-notability. Could it be possibly merged with the University website at large? Lagrime (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 analysis of sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Griggstown cow

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

If you think some of the biographical articles fail WP:GNG, here's one on a cow. Finding a cow stuck in a ditch falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 23:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Captain Occam (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's non-notable. Centibyte ^(talk) 00:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a local New Jersey (US) legend according to the sources. Someone with newspaper search premium access may be able to find more and wider coverage outside the state. If not, delete and redirect to Weird NJ from whence it sprung. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Griggstown Cow was a fairly well-known cryptid in New Jersey, and it's received some significant coverage from New Jersey- or cryptozoology-related sources. Aside from what's already in the article, here are a few more sources that I was able to find with a few minutes of Googling: [1] [2] [3] [4] (The fourth source is mostly about hamburgers, but it also has a brief article on the Griggstown Cow.) All of these sources are from 2011 or later, so contrary to the WP:NOTNEWS argument, this cryptid still had enduring coverage 9+ years after its death. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are sources, yes, but not reliable sources. #1 is a blog, #2 is also a blog, #3 the local town newspaper, and #4 is called "The Burger Review" (I'm not even sure what type of publication that is). The only reliable source coverage is from the one event. There needs to be sustained reliable source coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cow Pie Slap Per Captain Occam, the Griggstown Cow has received coverage in newspapers, magazines and books for years, and it's this extensive coverage about the cow in reliable and verifiable sources that exceeds the notability standard. The nominator fails to understand WP:GNG and has utterly failed to comply with the obligations of WP:BEFORE. Alansohn (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above commentator fails to understand WP:SUSTAINED and utterly fails to comply with the obligations of WP:AFDEQ. Continuing coverage in only niche magazines and blogs fall far short of the notability standard.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Captain Occam and Alansohn.Djflem (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:GNG standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any WP:RS for this. There are certainly lots of places that talk about it, but none that meet the definition of WP:RS. The one source that looks promising is the Philadelphia Inquirer article. I found the text on newspapers.com. It's a little hard to make sense out of the OCR text, but the significant part is:
The steer roaming the Pinelands is not the first wandering cow to inspire a legend in New Jersey. For many years, a black-and-white bull would appear in the area of the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park in Griggstown, Franklin Township, in Somerset County. The story was that the Griggstown Cow, as it became known, had strayed from a herd for the wild life. According to the Milepost, the state park's newsletter, a New Jersey Water Authority employee found the bull lying helpless in a ravine on Nov. 23, 2002, about 30 years after it supposedly was first spotted. Rescued from the ravine, the bull, however, had lost all its strength. A veterinarian who examined the animal determined that the most humane thing to do was to euthanize the legend. The Milepost said the Griggstown Cow is buried near the canal's Griggstown lock.

It's not reporting the story as fact, it's just referring to The Milepost story, and The Milepost is definitely not a WP:RS. So that leaves us with nothing useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Shammi Akhtar

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

None of song in this list have their own article. does not satisfy WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia...). Main article Shammi Akhtar isn't big enough, almost stub without "songs" section, i don't see a good reason to split "songs" section and create another stub article. আফতাব (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I didn't split up any articles. Rather you split up my article and redirected them to Shammi Akhtar. Please check, Category:Lists of songs recorded by Indian artist, some of them being very short. Shammi Akhtar is a legendary singer, so list of her songs may exist, not so big deal. Nothing to do with the article, I suggest let the article with that songs' list and the article songs' list separate. How does that sound? Makhamakhi (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds bad. A separate song list serves no real purpose when its not linking to any song articles. And the singer's article is so short, there's no reason why the list can't just be there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there's no hard rule on when its okay for an artist to have a "List of songs" article, the general belief is that "if they've got a lot of song articles, its acceptable, and if they don't have very many song articles (or songs at all) its not acceptable. While there's no exactly line of acceptable/unacceptable, the general consensus is definitely that "zero song articles" is nowhere near enough. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the Shammi Akhtar article, I recommend that people familiar with the singer find a selection of most important songs that have been discussed in the media in their own right, and create a short list there with sources indicating why those individual songs are independently notable. The author of this here list article might also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies for guidelines on when to create a list of songs/albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with doomsdayer. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per Serge and DoomsDayer.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this list appearing on both the main article and the list article? You either spin it out or you don't. Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Songs recorded by Arrows AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFORK and creator is banned for abusing multiple accounts. Ajf773 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian hospitals in India

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

A list with no encyclopaedic value. Now hospitals have religions as well? Borderline WP:OR. I dont see why this list should be kept in the encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is such a list notable? This is pure Original research and as usernamekiran said hospital is a hospital and has no religion. Delete as it is WP:OR and fails WP:GNG. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 13:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - Christians are the most philanthrophic believers in the world and they does that charity in the name of their religion. When other religions are active in terrorism, christianity is leading the world to peace. Sometimes. their charity directly inspires or invites people to Christianity. So its important. Rename the article to List of Christian charitable/missionary/regulated hospitals instead of deleting. Makhamakhi (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry but from when hospital started to go church, Next hindu, Muslim hospitals. also without reference, does not satisfy WP:SAL. --আফতাব (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Now hospitals have religions as well?" Yes, actually, many do. That's why {{Infobox hospital}} added a religious affiliation parameter; see discussion at Template talk:Infobox hospital#Proposed religion parameter. What the status is of the entries of this list is another question (though many clearly identify as such in their name, or are unquestionably run by churches), but I'm surprised to see denial of the very concept of a hospital being faith-based in its mission and/or organization. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to begin with the list has no sources. Beyond this, "founded by Christians" is just plain not the way to describe this. This list should be at best limited to institutions which have some sort of formal institutional connection with a Christian organization, be it a church or a parachurch organization. Just having most or all of the founders being Christian is not enough. Add to this that hospitals are not default notable, and we have a list that at a minimum needs sources. Also, a hospital not founded by christians could become Christian after founding. We would need sources, which we lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Capitals00 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unquestionable original research and non notable categorisation of hospitals. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manohar Lal Tandon

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO. The article is mostly about Tandon Group of which he's the current acting chairman. That company might be notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I can only find passing mentions of him online in WP:RS, and in the references cited. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage, and a few passing mentions in reliable sources. fails WP:ANYBIO. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that the user who moved it to mainspace is a sock. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject has no WP:SIGCOV other than the syndicated S&P500 data on Bloomberg. Pilot333 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Joehnck

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

Two-sentence "he existed, the end" biography of a local radio and television news anchor — the article just says he worked for CTV News without acknowledging that he worked for CTV's local affiliate in Regina and not the national news division, and "MBC News" is not a notable news organization in its own right but simply the standard news division of a single community radio station that's a "network" only in the sense of having a bunch of rebroadcasters. As always, local broadcast journalists are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, but this isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- the references are a short blurb about his death on the website of his own former employer, and his routine death notice from the local newspaper classifieds. This is not enough "coverage" to make a journalist notable. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless better sources can be found. General Ization ^Talk 00:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he was apparently a local newscaster/reporter. No indication or evidence of notable achievements. PK T(alk) 13:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist. Wikipedia is not a memorial service.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca DeGroat

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

Delete: (again) as insufficiently notable. GNG search comes up with little of value. Prior AFD ended in redirect, but someone recreated the article without any significant improvement, hence COI tag added to article. Quis separabit? 20:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fanpage sourced by Twitter and other cruft. Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has zero reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided are primary. A WP:BEFORE does not find WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Levi (entrepreneur)

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

fails WP:ANYBIO. Pretty obviously an WP:UPE creation. Tons of sources, the vast majority of which are not reliable and the few that are are either off point or not detailed discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: -- as RESUME. This is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 20:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Subject passes as notable, cited TED talk, INC Magazine feature, and numerous published works being the strongest examples. The latter of which clearly meets WP:ANYBIO, given that the person HAS indeed created or a significant or well-known work or collective body of work with his superlearner series. I'd agree that the article clearly needs considerable pruning, though, as a few sources used to make biographical points are indeed unreliable, to John from Idegon's point. 08:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.180.116 (talk) — 109.64.180.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Delete Pure advert. Most of the sources seem to be by the subject not about him. Just {{db-g11}} as unambiguous advertising and likely paid editing. Fails WP:GNG and everything else including the claim of WP:ANYBIO as self-help 'stuff' is not the type of "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" envisaged by that criteria. Jbh ^Talk 01:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of indepth coverage for GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks any WP:SIGCOV. All of the references are podcasts where you can apply to be on to self promote. A notable entrepreneur would have articles in Forbes, or similar. Pilot333 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks SIGCOV per my BEFORE. I don't see him passing AUTHOR. And giving a TEDx talk is not particularly notable (as opposed to TED).Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most notable thing about him seems to be the book, yet I can't find coverage that suggests it deserves its own article either. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nutri Advanced

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

Non notable company, failing WP:CORP. References either contain no mention of the company at all, or are passing mentions of its products. No in-depth coverage of the company except one local newspaper, which is to be expected of any local business. Following a WP:PROD the WP:SPA re-emerged to insert an unpublished clinical trial report of one of the company's products. No references about the company itself by in-depth, independent, reliable sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. I've already removed the awards section and the section with the photo of the birthday cake. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by User:Bishonen per WP:G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Singh ( Entrepreneur)

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

No evidence of any real notability, all sources are to his own work. Also blatant puffery and like a publicity hand out. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article creator has been very busy creating AFDs for notable Nepalis, including Members of Parliament, so editor's posting of puff pieces like this is very puzzling behaviour indeed. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a puffed-up garbage pile of livejournal type sources culminating in a small pyre of Huffpost articles placed at its apex. Fails all known notability tests and checks within this realm.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet any of the relevant notability criteria. Could be a candidate for speedy deletion as pure promotion. --bonadea contributions talk 06:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Bonadea's comment, and what was there, CSD seems reasonable and I have tagged for G11. Let's see if an admin agrees. !dave 10:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Pure advertising. I speedied it. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC). And I have also speedied another article about a non-notable entrepreneur created by the same user, Tomas Samalionis, and posted a COI template on the user's page, asking them to state whether they have been recompensed for these creations. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterhill

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

relatively trivial company, with inadequate sources for notability -- basically noticesa nd press releases. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterhill is the new name for Wi-LAN, although the Wi-LAN name continues to be used for the main Quarterhill subsidiary. Wi-LAN was certainly a notable company. The real question is how the pages for Quarterhill+Wi-LAN should be structured. I think there should be a single page for Quarterhill, which is primarily about its history as Wi-LAN - effectively, the Wi-LAN page should be merged into this one. I originally implemented this, but Ocrivski objected, so I decided to instead to create a page for Quarterhill, independent of the Wi-LAN page.

Most present coverage of Quarterhill/Wi-LAN is about Quarterhill, since Quarterhill is the publicly traded company. Having a page for Wi-LAN but not its publicly traded parent will thus be very confusing going forward. The best solution is to merge the Wi-LAN page into this one, as I originally did. -Mparrault (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 00:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I've re-written the article to be about the company's entire history (including its history as WiLAN). There are 15 refs, none of which are primary sources. Most are medium-length pieces in national sources. -Mparrault (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the inclusion of WiLAN's history on Quarterhill's page is fine. The point remains that both WiLAN and Quarterhill have their own independent notability and are deserving of their own separate pages. Ocrivski (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to separate pages for Quarterhill+Wi-LAN, and I agree they are both independently notable. However, if the consensus is that only one page can survive, I think it should be the Quarterhill page. -Mparrault (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing and substance improvement. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Banda

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

WP:BLP of a restaurateur, which just single-sentences the fact that she exists without saying anything about her that could actually be measured against a notability criterion. This isn't adequately referenced, either: one of the two sources here is a mere listicle in which she's one of eight businesspeople to be quoted giving soundbite about "the secret of success", thus not representing coverage that's about her for the purposes of passing WP:GNG (she has to be the subject of a piece of media reporting, not just a person who happens to be quoted in a piece of media reporting, before that piece of media reporting counts as a notability-establishing source), and while the other one is more substantive, it still takes more than just one substantive source to pass GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write something much more detailed than "she exists" and reference it to quite a bit more substantive coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several more references. She is an Ashoka fellow, which is notable. Feel free to add more - I think she's worthy of staying in. Feel free to add more to the article. There's plenty to say in the refs I've added. Chris.let (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've added more primary sources that cannot assist notability — a person does not get over our inclusion criteria just because the claim to passing our inclusion criteria is technically referenceable to her own self-written PR "staff" profile on the website of an organization she's directly affiliated with. She gets over our inclusion criteria for being the subject of media coverage about her, not for self-authoring her own web presence. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found plenty of news sources in Zambia covering her in addition to her BBC profiles. Added them to the article and expanded it. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's more like it. Nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Techpoint.ng

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

Three year old website that does not meet the notability guidelines for a technology portal. HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support delete - equally strongly, would recommend that the author's other articles are reviewed. I've now looked at 3/4, on the back of an odd situation at Afc, and they are all of poor quality, weakly sourced, contain promotional language and have all the hallmarks of being the creations of an undeclared paid editor. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lalan Choubey

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

WP:BLP, formatted like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and not adequately referenced, about a person notable primarily as a trade unionist and political organizer. While the trade union work might be a valid notability claim if it could be sourced properly, it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees him a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- but the sourcing here consists of two "references" to his own self-published social networking profiles, and two glancing namechecks of his existence in newspaper articles about other things. This is not the kind of sourcing needed to make someone notable enough for an encyclopedia article — he needs to be referenced to media coverage about him, not just to namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or to his own social networking profiles — and even if it were properly sourced it would still have to be rewritten in an encyclopedic format rather than a résumé format. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete - Posting facebook & twitter refs as sources is an insult to wikipedia. The user should be punished I think. And, one trivial mention in a newspaper doesn't prove notability. Makhamakhi (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced provided but does not mean to deserve a page in Wikipedia in term of notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn by the nominating editor and no input from any other editor. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12056 virus

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

No such virus. 12056 is the identifier for Tobacco necrosis virus D in the NCBI database (see here) Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. A 12056 virus does exist ([5]), but it appears to be a provisional name. The NCBI citation and related information does not belong in the article. It is not clear what the current name for 12056 virus is. The ICTV (the official source for virus nomenclature) has no record of it. Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I was getting confused by the mix-up with Tobacco necrosis virus, and overlooked that 12056 is a virus strain, not a species. Wikipedia doesn't usually have articles on virus strains (or plant/animal taxa belong the rank of species), but Wikipedia does frequently have redirects for ranks below species. I've created an article for the species, Paraná mammarenavirus, and 12056 virus can be redirected there rather than deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. So does this refer to Tobacco necrosis virus or not? How do you gather that the designation in the Encyclopedia of Virology is a provisional one? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not Tobacco necrosis virus. By coincidence, 12056 an identifier for this viral strain, as well as the NCBI database ID for Tobacco necrosis virus (given ~3500 virus species and a couple million plant/animal species in the NCBI database, it's pretty remarkable that NCBI ID 12056 happened to be a virus). I overlooked at first that this was a virus strain and not a species; 12056 isn't informative enough to comply with the ICTV rules for species names (so I assumed it was a provisional name), but strain names don't need to be informative. Plantdrew (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NO$GBA

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

Article on this emulator fails WP:GNG with a dearth of sources. There are a couple of mentions in gaming news sites, but they are relatively minor and don't fill the sustained, significant coverage criteria. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationales in the second AFD discussion in the past, which was valid and ended in delete. The first one is from 2007, when the standards were much more lax. The sourcing provided in that discussion would definitely not meet our current WP:RS or WP:GNG standards. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources mentioned in previous AFDs pass WP:RS, as Sergecross73 mentioned above. When trying to find reliable sources of my own, I came up completely empty-handed. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iftekhar Ahmed

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. No significant roles, following, or contributions. No sources other than a single interview. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources are a primary source interview with the subject in a blog, and a second interview that doesn't mention the subject. Even the cited sources for Porichoi, in which he supposedly played a "lead role", don't mention him. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, NewsBank, and ProQuest found information on other Iftekhar Ahmeds, but nothing more on this guy. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IMDb page appears to be self authored, I can't find mention of him in the films in which he is supposed to have starred, the article itself reads like a regular person bio and the refs in the article don't suggest notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Obama

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

Not notable through WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Does playing in Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's African Qualifiers constitute towards NFooty or not? Govvy (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: If the player played in Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's African Qualifiers, he passes WP:NFOOTY. Although the article writes that Obama played for Equatorial Guinea in September 2006, in a match against Sudan for the 2008 CAF Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament (0–2 away loss). and ( 5-0) home win, I do not see any source prove it. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice if I could find a match report for those (Sudan vs Equatorial Guinea) games, but can't, that would be the only way to see if he might pass WP:NFOOTY, but as of right name is seems to fail. Govvy (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither FIFA nor NFT have him playing any international games... Giant Snowman 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think that game would provide a pass for WP:NFOOTY in this case; NFOOTY wants Tier 1 International Matches or the Olympics. Olympic qualification matches, being contested by under-23 sides, would be regarded as Tier 2 Matches at best; and I don't believe the qualification tournament would be counted as the Olympics themselves. OZOO (t) (c) 17:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low level footballer, as the article itself notes. OZOO (t) (c) 17:13, 15 February 2018 (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) 15:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article itself pretty much states he doesn't pace WP:NFOOTY as never playing above the 4th tier of the Spanish leagues. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like neither award nor sources are adequate to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riri Kōda

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, passing mentions, industry PR materials, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't won any awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article cites multiple sources and the subject has won Pink Grand Prix.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Grand Prix does not appear to be an award that would generate the sort of WP:SIGCOV as required for BLPs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of otherwise non-notable actors. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually all the substantive sourcing is primary or promotional; the many database entries for nonnotable videos the subject performed in do nothing to support notability. The claimed award is given by a low-circulation fan magazine and no basis hasbeen provided to demonstrate its alleged significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete award cited is no where near our requirements and sourcing shown to fail GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power Pro Kun Pocket

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

Contested WP:PROD. No explanation was providing for removing the prod, so I'll just copy-and-paste my original reasoning: Fails to meet WP:NGAMES. No indication of notability, and the only cited source is primary. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A grand total of 14 games in the series, which seems like a big enough deal for me. I don't think any of the indiviual games meet GNG; (see other deletion discussion), but they do have some media coverage such as: IGN, IGN Review, Japanese text reviews, GameSpot, Short mention in GameSpot.... This series really struggles due to it's mutliple official English names. Some are called "Pawapuro-Kun", some "Power Pro Kun Pocket", and some "Powerful Pro Kun Pocket". However, the series as a whole should be notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these games do have some reliable sources coverage as detailed in the above post, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Pro Kun Pocket. MBisanz ^talk 19:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsumare! Power Pro Kun no DS Kōshien

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

Contested WP:PROD. No explanation was providing for removing the prod, so I'll just copy-and-paste my original reasoning: Fails to meet WP:NGAMES. No cited sources. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with series article. Not independently notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. But, merge where? At first glance, Power Pro Kun Pocket makes sense, but that article says, It is noted that the Atsumare! Power Pro Kun no DS Koushien is not included in the series. Of course, like most things in Power Pro Kun Pocket that's unsourced WP:OR. But, maybe just merge there anyway. It certainly doesn't need its own article. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Rally

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

Contested WP:PROD. No explanation was providing for removing the prod, so I'll just copy-and-paste my original reasoning: Fails to meet WP:NGAMES. Has been tagged for notability for over four years, and none of the three cited sources provide significant coverage. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find much on it. Giant Bomb have a topic on the game, but no link or anything. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kiteretsu Daihyakka#Games. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiteretsu Daihyakka: Chōjikū Sugoroku

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

Contested WP:PROD. No explanation was providing for removing the prod, so I'll just copy-and-paste my original reasoning: Fails to meet WP:NGAMES. No indication of notability, and the only cited source is a wiki. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kiteretsu_Daihyakka#Games - Seemingly not notable by itself, but is a branch from a notable series which can be mentioned in the original manga's article. A search for references turned up empty. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find anything notable after a google search. Just that WP:ITEXISTS Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of homeschooled people

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

Includes historical figures from a time when home education was the norm and so conflates many practices that might be called home-schooling with the modern concept of home schooling. US-centric. These issues could be fixed. The fundamental problem is that home schooling is not a major aspect of the people, nor is the list of people important information about the topic of home schooling. It's a list of trivia. Cyrej (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRIVIA for sure and but a footnote in each subject's life. Nate • (chatter) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to find a non-arbitrary cutoff that would target the modern concept and where it isn't the norm? Because in those historic and cultural contexts (such as present-day America) it is unusual and arguably more significant to a biography on average that someone was homeschoooled than that someone else went to one particular high school rather than another. postdlf (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and if the ultimate conclusion is that the list is irrevocably arbitrary or indiscriminate, then Category:Homeschooled people in the United States should also be deleted. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew there was probably a crufty category to go with this. Whoever puts that up, let me know and I'll support a deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:postdlf's argument. Category:Homeschooled people in the United States should also stay. Centibyte^(talk) 00:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I made an argument, as I don't know if there's an answer to my question. postdlf (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. home schooling is not a major aspect of the people - I think that it is a quite major aspect: it decides what becomes of their education, and after that, their job. I agree with User:Postdlf. L293D (✉) 23:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what some say, this is not a very unified topic, and from a historical perspective is way too common to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. List article has a vague inclusion criteria and sourcing and verification is an issue. Ajf773 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument that homeschooling was once the norm seems persuasive to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mawar Melati

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

Non-notable Indonesian TV series. A quick search turns up no reliable sources and thus does not make WP:TVSERIES. For a similar AfD, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tasbih_Cinta. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swarm per G5: Created by blocked user. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 16:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bee 2.5

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

Non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM and more specifically WP:NFO, as the film is not considered historically significant, preserved in a national archive, been deemed significant by notable critics, had a major impact on the film industry, etc. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFILM criteria 1 as has had a theatrical release and has national reviews such as The Times of India here and Mathrubhumi (a major Malayalam newspaper) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in one form or another. A merge to parent articles can be discussed elsewhere but it's pretty clear there is no consensus to completely remove the information found in these articles. Considering the amount of articles, an RFC on whether to have such articles at all might be the best way to go forward. Regards So Why 20:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles

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

Group nomination for all Challenger level tennis tournaments in January-April 2014 - doubles competetions only. Challenger tournaments are low-level tournaments (total prize money for the tournament $50,000, of which only a smaller part goes to the doubles) which usually get little attention anyway, and everything that needs to be said is already included in the main article about the tournament. This nomination is only for the doubles, the singles may need deletion as well but in general singles competition get more attention than doubles competition.

This AfD is based on the first one I did, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles. If successful, similar ones for other years will be started as well.

If for some doubles tournament on this list there are specific reasons why it received more than routine coverage (say, Federer or Nadal participating :-) ) then of course these can be removed from this nomination. Fram (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

2014 BNP Paribas de Nouvelle-Calédonie – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Intersport Heilbronn Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Royal Lahaina Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Bucaramanga Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Visit Panamá Cup de Chitré – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Challenger of Dallas – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Shriram Capital P.L. Reddy Memorial Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Charles Sturt Adelaide International – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Trofeo Faip–Perrel – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Open BNP Paribas Banque de Bretagne – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 State Bank of India ATP Challenger Tour – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open – Men's Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Morelos Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Astana Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Challenger La Manche – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 ATP Challenger Guangzhou – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 All Japan Indoor Tennis Championships – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Irving Tennis Classic – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Kazan Kremlin Cup – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Challenger Banque Nationale de Rimouski – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Visit Panamá Cup – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Jalisco Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Seguros Bolívar Open Barranquilla – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Open de Guadeloupe – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Open Harmonie mutuelle – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Challenger Ficrea – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Mersin Cup – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Taroii Open de Tênis – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Sarasota Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 San Luis Potosí Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Challenger ATP Cachantún Cup – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 São Paulo Challenger de Tênis – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Savannah Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Gemdale ATP Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Campeonato Internacional de Tenis de Santos – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Città di Vercelli – Trofeo Multimed – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Tunis Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Prosperita Open – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Santaizi ATP Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 China International Challenger – Men's Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Tallahassee Tennis Challenger – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Seguros Bolívar Open Cali – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all challenger tournaments from January until April 2014. Yes, there is a rather impressive number of such tournaments and articles, so this will do for one AfD. Fram (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I don't think Federer or Nadal would have played for the equivalent of the bus fare home ;) WP is not for standalone articles on sports statistics without any context to explain why these run-of-the-mill tournaments are notable. (I suspect the equivalent singles tournaments have the same issue.) Mattg82 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've fixed one of the articles that was nominated from the main article for the tournament to the doubles draw, as I presume was intended given that the other nominated pages are all doubles draw pages. Will probably !vote later after further consideration. Iffy★Chat -- 18:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leave

You are going to delete dozens of articles, because Nadal nor Federer did not play it??! TheLightBlue (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I would say these tournaments are all notable similar to how second-level football is notable, as a stepping stone to getting to the highest level of competition. And there are plenty of sources to be found about Challenger-level tournaments. It's just that no one is adding any. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While I'm strongly in favour of these articles existing, this is predominantly because of how personally useful I find them, not due to specific Wikipedia guidelines. Since that's not really a valid reason I'm not going to explicitly "vote" Keep, but I just want to stress that most people in this AfD (and all others for Challenger doubles articles) that support deletion tend to do so under the rationale of it being a "split", and that this information would otherwise be in the year's main article. Only the doubles articles have been nominated here, with the suggestion that singles articles generally warrant existence. This means that a consensus to delete will result in one of two scenarios: either the information currently available on the doubles article will never again be available on Wikipedia, or the doubles article will be listed on the tournament's main page, while the singles articles will remain split off, creating a fairly inconsistent and reader-unfriendly hierarchy. As you can probably work out from my terminology I'm not a huge fan of the latter, but that's by far the lesser problem in this AfD chain.

I'd just like to stress that of those two options, the first one keeps happening. The AfD you cite as precedent happened over 8 months ago. Here are some direct quotes from it:

“

Everything should be on the 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park page since it's so small as is.

”

— Fyunck(click)

“

Anything that needs to be told can be told on the main page of the tournament.

”

— Tvx1

“

There is no need (or basis) for the article split. Base article is not too large.

”

— Bejnar

Again, note that only three people commented on this nomination, so despite unanimous consensus that the article should be merged and deleted, this never actually happened, and the article was just deleted.

@Fram: since you seem to be taking it as a personal project to establish a consensus and then enforce that consistently, I implore you to also prioritise any consensus of merging, rather than risk the further deletion of valuable content. I understand that you can view these deleted pages and may not have even noticed this issue, but as far as I'm aware no active members of WP:TENNIS have those same permissions, and this doesn't seem to be taken into consideration before deletion occurs. This results in the worst case scenario of content getting deleted against consensus, with no-one who actually cares having any ability to rectify this. Sellyme^Talk 07:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Now let me remind you that this is the second tier of tennis competition and you are saying that it should be deleted because "it's not a major tournament", that is crap as this is development that really shouldn't be discuss on here. So I am sorry but Fram you are being that kind of person who doesn't even care about the doubles and want them all gone. This is one of those times where its an easy keep here. Now the article from the Tianjin Health Industry Park doubles, that should of been kept but no on that discussion. Animation is developing 00:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is never inherited, but if the individual year for a tennis tournament is notable, the results of the notable tournament should also be notable, even if they're broken out onto a separate page. You can't delete the doubles without also deleting the singles or the entire event, in my view. All three of these pages - the year, the singles, and the doubles - are part of the same event. It's possible some of these events are not notable, but for a group delete, I have to vote keep, or at the very least merge. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replies. The important information in each case is already present in the parent article on the tournament (compare e.g. 2014 Morelos Open – Doubles to 2014 Morelos Open). We now have three articles on each of these tournaments, where no one is actually writing them, no one is reading them either, but still they need to be created and kept because it is claimed that they should be kept because, well, that part is unclear. Arguments that we should keep the doubles tournament article because we otherwise need to delete the main tournament articles as well are spurious. While the "keep"s are in the majority, none of them have shown how these are notable enough to keep as separate articles.
As an example, take Spir, who won the 2014 Visit Panamá Cup de Chitré – Doubles. Where are the independent sources about this doubles tournament? And if they don't exist, why should this be kept? [6] The WP:BURDEN of showing the required notability is on those wanting to keep this. Fram (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The independent sources about that doubles tournament are mostly found under "Visit Panama Cup", not Cup de Chitré. It's fairly common for news coverage to be found under slightly different names to the "official" one when in a different language to the tournament host. Here's some articles about Juan-Carlos Spir's participation in the tournament 1 2. No doubt someone who actually speaks a language other than English would be much better than me at finding sources for a tournament in which less than 25% of the field comes from an English-speaking country. Sellyme^Talk 09:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first source is a Georgia Tech website reporting about a Georgia Tech tennis player, not an independent source. The second one is fine (but very short), but even so it would be much better placed in the main tournament article, which lists the doubles winners as well and doesn't have any independent sources either (which applies to most or all of these tournament articles, not just this one). Fram (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all in to their parent articles as an acceptable WP:ATD, I don't see enough evidence of notability for these tournaments to have a separate page for the doubles draw, and the information isn't so large as to keep them split (these tournaments with 16 pairs are roughly 8-12kb each, even in the case of Men's and Women's tournaments, that would be about 24kb at the largest). The same could be done for singles too (taking the size up to about 48kb for a tournament with Men's and Women's competitions) but that's a debate for another time as there's a stronger case for notability for those tournaments. Iffy★Chat -- 13:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per longstanding Tennis Project consensus, ALL Challenger events, singles and doubles are notable. You can find sources for all the events. However, that doesn't mean we must create a separate singles and doubles draw for the minor league events. Case in point is the tournament listed...2014 BNP Paribas de Nouvelle-Calédonie. The article is woefully small and both the singles and doubles draws for the 2014 event should be merged into one article. We don't split an article just because we can. We split it because it has gotten too unwieldy. This is a perfect example. So the info is vital, but not vital enough for a separate article. Merge this. One thing though... Per Tennis Project Guidelines and consensus, all singles and doubles events are treated equally. What we do to one of them we tend to do to both. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Articles do not merit a stand alone page in Wikipedia. WP is not for standalone articles on sports statistics. Merge will only be stored as collection info/directory/depository which is not Wikipedia policy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the tournament articles. As the tournaments are notable the information on the games results is relevant to those articles which are all quite short and would benefit from the expansion Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally, I would go with the redirect per WP:ATD, but Basement12's concern about the template auto parameter magic convinces me to go the conservative route and just delete them. As far as I can see, Template:Nations at the 2016 Summer Paralympics is the only one that needs to get fixed. I'll do that, but if people see others, please go ahead and fix them. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Template:Nations at the 2016 Summer Paralympics seems to have fixed itself. I'm really not up on template magic, so maybe I'll just leave that to people who know that stuff better than I do. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei at the 2016 Summer Paralympics

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

Apparently Brunei did not participate at these Games (not listed among the participating countries), making the article rather meaningless. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Summer Paralympics#Participating nations as a {{R from misnomer}}; there's slight value in having these not be redlinks, though no reason to have a (misleading) stand-alone page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not entirely sure but deleting the pages may be a better method of preventing redlinks, Template:Infobox country at games uses an auto parameter to generate a list of links to nations other appearances, I don't know how it would handle such redirects. Either way various other templates listing participating nations will need updating - Basement12 (T.C) 10:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But with no prejudice against re-nominating individual articles, one at a time, if an analysis of sources demonstrates that there might not be sources for an individual team. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore women's junior national softball team

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

Total lack of notability.

I also nominated all the following articles for the same reason (I excluded all teams which won a medal at least once): Fram (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Puerto Rico's team did win the last two bronze medals (even if the team's article doesn't reflect this yet). See Junior Women's Softball World Championship. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. What is going on this week with women's articles at AfD (even a Nancy Drew book). Is this to fight back because women are celebrating the centennial of getting the vote in the UK (USA not till 1920). These look no different than the articles in Category:Men's junior national softball teams. It is useful to have entries on all the teams in a international competition. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article(s) could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that the articles could be about notable teams, but the big problem I see is these articles appeared to have been created for spam purposes. The links to "International Softball Federation" in each article is a spam link. Unless someone has a particular article they would like to save, I feel like it may be better to let someone start over with these. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The linked website definitely used to be the ISF's homepage, so it doesn't seem like this was intentional spam - more likely just an unsuspecting editor copy+pasting an old article without much care for making sure the link was still active. Sellyme^Talk 08:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with above that they could certainly use expansion, but I don't see reason for deletion. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah these articles do need some expansion but that does not mean for deletion so I'm sorry I am voting keep there. Animation is developing 00:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's statement is insufficient and provides no reason whatsoever for deletion other than WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replies. First off, this has nothing to do with women or men, considering that I also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Virgin Islands men's junior national softball team at the same time. The other "keeps" are all very nice, but if there are no reliable, independent, indepth sources, things beyonf routine coverage, then there is no reason to keep them. Basically, the WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to keep these articles that there are sufficient good sources for e.g. the United States Virgin Islands women's junior national softball team (to take one from an English speaking country, which should help in finding sources). I couldn't find such sources online, and no one else has provided such sources here either, making the keeps, while numerous, basically invalid (at the moment). Fram (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Wikt:runner-up. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Runner-up

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

Unsourced WP:DICDEF, PROD contested (by redirecting to Hare coursing) without improvement. The PRODder reportedly found no sources that do not simply use or define the term. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The concept originates in the sport of hare coursing and so properly belongs there rather than being directed outside of the encyclopedia. You see, in that sport, dogs competed in pairs and were matched in a knock-out fashion so that the runner-up would be the losing finalist. We should explain this properly per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – with hare coursing, the concept would belong there. Leo1pard (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Yes, it's a DICDEF. The putative hare-coursing origin isn't really relevant as this is an extremely commonly used term that most people would associate with mainstream sports rather than an archaic form of animal abuse. --Michig (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Redirecting to hare coursing violates WP:SURPRISE. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary per above comments. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Press mentions" are not by default an indicator of notability - they need to be substantial and independent as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlexiLoans

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR driven, passing mentions, and other WP:SPIP sources not suitable for notability. Created by Special:Contributions/Pooja_bhatiya currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts; please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rohanpednekar38. Being on an "List of 100 Startups" strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page has credible non promotional mentions across various publishing houses & news websites in India. This is definitely worthy of being in Wikipedia. I may be using the same IP as mentioned in the note, however I am unrelated to the company or the IP. I strongly object to deletion. Please mention further reasons for users to take corrective measures. --Deepmehta0507 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The business is credible and has noteworthy press mentions from major news publications. The article is trimmed to a severe extent to remove any unnecessary or irrelevant information. Please acknowledge and suggest further improvements.--Deepmehta0507 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC) — Deepmehta0507 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

(Struck duplicate delsort entry.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The purpose of the article seems to be to promote the subject by giving it a page on the world's most popular encyclopedia. Most of the sources do not meet our reliability or independence standards, and most are simply repeating press release material about funding and acquisitions, and other incidental coverage.- Mr X 🖋 12:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- the sole "Keep" vote comes from Special:Contributions/Deepmehta0507 who has few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. both on the triple basis of lack of notability -- the refs are not truly substantial or independent -- and on clear promotional intent and the creation by a paid editor. Any of the three would be enough reason. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SKCRIT#2 - Nom blocked as sock, no delete votes after a week. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media

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

Not enough references . SeytX (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media is running Kathmandu Tribune. And Kathmandu Tribune has been cited by several international organizations. I don't know why few mods are attacking this independent media's Wiki page. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azkord (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or possibly merge. We generally keep articles on major new organizations tho documentation in that field is usually a little difficult. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The remedy for not enough references is to add more references. A remedy is needed, and not deletion.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SKCRIT#2 - Nom blocked as sock, no delete votes after a week. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu Tribune

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

This page is related to the article Kathmandu Tribune Nepali & Nepal Tribune Media with same references and the article doesnot contains enough reliable sources.So this page should be deleted. SeytX (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's paying you to delete this page? What nonsense are you saying? Kathmandu Tribune Nepali is a page for Nepali-language website of Kathmandu Tribune and not of English-language of Kathmandu Tribune. If you do not understand other language than Nepali I can't help it. Lame reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azkord (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The middle one is up for speedy deletion currently. It seems this Ozar77 (who hasn't edited since October 28th) fellow created duplicate articles over 2017: KT in April, NTM in June, and KTN in October. If someone can determine the proper title, the pages should be merged and redirects created. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I checked Ozar77 wiki user page and found that the user have created other three aricles of same media with same references which are repespectively listed here Anna Note, Annapurna Post & Annapurna Media Network. So , i've nominated to delete them and i request admin to checl sockpuppet of Ozar77 & Azkord. SeytX (talk)
Keep. or posibly merge. It mightbe better to merge,considering the basic similarity of content. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SKCRIT#2 - Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Note

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

This aticle should be deleted cause it's same as Annapurna Post and the ref seems same. Accodring to CSD A10 it should be deleted. SeytX (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SKCRIT#2 - Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal News Network International

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

Lack of reliable source and same as other two articles Anna Note & Annapurna Post Please kindly review all of these pages. SeytX (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This publisher provides the world with news about Nepal. Wikipedia editors can find information and news in English.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BLPREQUESTDELETE. There isn't a rough consensus to either keep or delete here, she isn't well known, and it appears she has requested deletion. In these cases, policy allows us to be more cautious and honour the wishes of the BLP. That tips this to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson

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

WP:BLP1E of a self-published author, originally started by COI editors. Subject is butting heads with religious people, with obvious results. Resoundingly deleted in 2008. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given most of the citations date from after 2008, the result of a discussion of notability at that time may not reflect the current situation. The content has also changed appreciably since it was started by COI editor(s), enough so that the subject and her proxies have tried repeatedly to white-wash and/or blank the article (of which this [7] is typical in its insistence that she should be allowed to 'lock in' her own text, or else the page should be deleted), so I am not sure that the fact that it was started by COI editors means anything anymore. Anyhow, there have been two more recent AfDs (and two MfDs) on this subject's BLPs that reflect a broader diversity of opinion: Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson 2006, keep

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination) 2008, resounding delete

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox 2008, resounding keep

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson 2013, keep

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne M. Olsson 2013, delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson 2014, resounding keep

Let me add to this comment that "Subject is butting heads with religious people, with obvious results", which I take to be derived from the claims in the latest BLP Noticeboard demand for the page to be deleted, is at best an over-simplification. Many of the editors with whom she and her proxies have butted heads are anti-fringe skeptics, not (or at least not only) 'religious people'. Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editing error in the list above was later corrected. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am tending, slightly, towards keep. The coverage in the Indian press is significant but I can see how BLP1E could be argued if that is all there is. I am tending away from 1E because of ongoing coverage of her theories as well as a few citations in other works. Whether that coverage is sufficient to overcome the tendency to presume lack of notability for self-published authors is where the balance lies for me. As the article stands and after the many deletion discussions, I do not think that 'started by a COI editor' has bearing on this AfD. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: It has been suggested that this is a BLP1E, a biography of a living person known only for one event. What is the event? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "her self-published book, Jesus in Kashmir, The Lost Tomb, documented her research into the belief that the Roza Bal shrine in Srinagar, Kashmir, contains the remains of Jesus" --Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it is stating the obvious, but a book is not an event. It also appears that she has written three books, according to the article. It doesn't really matter whether her books are self-published or not. What matters is whether they, and she, are notable or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak keep. The accusation of WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply, since there is no particular event involved. There is no WP:BLP1T policy saying we don't care about people known for only one theory, and many of the most notable people in the world are only known for promoting one theory. It doesn't matter whether her works are self-published or not and doesn't matter whether her theory is a fringe theory or not; what matters is whether she and her works are notable or not. There are even some people who are clearly considered notable for only self-publishing work that is generally regarded as random nonsense, and that doesn't stop an article about such a person from becoming a "Featured article". There is coverage supporting notability, cited in the article by The Times of India, India Today, UCA News, Global Press Journal, New Straits Times, and Dawn. None of those seem to be fringe or self-published sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - A merge may be a good approach. The theory she is notable for promoting is not unique to her – indeed, it is the primary source of notability for the Roza Bal shrine and has been promoted by people far more notable than her (e.g., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad more than a century ago). Perhaps she should be identified in the Roza Bal article as one of the people who have promoted that theory. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I forget how I stumbled across this topic; perhaps it was via WP:SPI. Anyway, I found that a page had been deleted under WP:G5, about a topic which I found to be of encyclopedic value, and for which there was sufficient independent coverage in multiple reliable sources (Times of India, Dawn, New Straits Times etc) to establish notability. I therefore re-created a version of the article, which was promptly welcomed on the talk page as an improvement. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
- DELETE with Comment Fayenatic, when did you become the article creator? I seem to have missed something. Although your contributions are among the best, they never remained long, more edit wars ensued. Olsson mentioned several times that her grandchildren created the very first page years ago on Wikipedia. Then, as mentioned above, she butted heads or offended several religions including Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. The page has been ruthlessly edited through the years and bears no resemblance to the original contents. If the page is kept, the edit wars will continue. Nothing will improve, the biography will continue to lack neutrality (such as referring to it as a 'fringe' topic and only publishing quotes in support of those views) deleting any mention of her Red Cross/Red Crescent service in the region in the midst of the Taliban War, and more. These deletion decisions will be raised again. And again. Therefore I strongly support 'delete' the page. Groshnik Sockpuppet blocked.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Fayenatic became the creator of the page in its current iteration on 11 August 2014, as is evident from the page's history. There is a long history here. The original page that Olsson claims was created by her grandchildren was deleted in 2008. User:SuzanneOlsson then created the page Suzanne M. Olsson in 2013, only to have it deleted shortly thereafter. Then Suzanne Marie Olsson was created by User:Granada2000, subsequently found to be a sock puppet of an account that was later found to be a sock puppet of SuzanneOlsson. The 2014 AfD for Suzanne Marie Olsson resulted in Keep, but then the page got deleted anyhow because it had been created by a sock puppet (Speedy deletion criteria G5). Fayenatic then resurrected the page and thus, at least nominally, is the 'creator' of its current incarnation, though with the deleted version inaccessible it is unclear how Fayenatic's version differed from the prior deleted version. Much of this arcane history is of little relevance to the current discussion, whether Suzanne Olsson is notable, and particularly, whether she is broadly notable or only noteworthy for a single event, as suggested in the nom. One thing does arise out of the history: Suzanne Olsson at least once and apparently twice created a page for herself. She obviously thinks she is notable, she just doesn't like the content that arises from others editing the page. Agricolae (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have WP:RS to improve the article, bring them. The article has been peaceful since the latest socking, and history suggest that if deleted Olsson will recreate it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Groshnik has come from nowhere to request a blanking? Given the amount of sock-history with this article and previous AfD, we need to do a sock-check on this AfD also In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument made on BLPN is strikingly similar to those previously made by socks and COI, proxies of Olsson, with its demand that she should be able to provide the text and then the article should be frozen to prevent anything negative from being added, or failing that, deleted. We have seen that exact either/or several times before. Agricolae (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources support an article on the tomb claim, not the person. TheValeyard (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheValeyard and per WP:INHERITED. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unfortunately passes WP:NAUTHOR in Gbooks, the fact that this is a beyond the fringe author doesn't affect the general pop notability, although really the article should have a reception paragraph to make it clear that this entire set of theories is gullible westerners buying into Ahmaddiya muslim misreading of earlier muslim adaptations of the life of Buddha to the grave of a muslim saint as the grave of Jesus. She's not the only fringe western author pushing the Ahmaddiya story, and the others like Holger Kersten have articles, since they also, regrettably, also pass WP:NAUTHOR. That's just life unfortunately fringe authors can collect notability too, if not collect more notability than qualified academics. The commented about WP:INHERITED is incorrect by the way, of the various western fans of this she's probably acquired more "fame" than the others. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 first books in your gbooks link are selfpublished, how does it support NAUTHOR? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if every one of those several 100 Gbooks isn't self-published, it's very rare for serious publishers to wade into the open cistern of populist fringe on this kind of subject, same as Mary Magdalene-Da Vinci-Lost Grail fringe. Bu that doesn't prevent those books having disproportionate popular reach. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several 100? I see 3 pages, maybe it´s a EU-data-law thing. And the first page already has a swedish librarian by the same name. This [8] gbook-search may be more on point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While the person is not specifically notable as an author, the fact is that the shrine has become notable in itself. The fact is that her name appears in articles about the shrine, and is a bone of contention between Muslims in the area,, and Christians. That is, the contention is notable and is not otherwise covered directly in Wikipedia even though it has been the subject of a BBC documentary etc. Collect (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per BarrelProof. Groshnik said "The page has been ruthlessly edited through the years and bears no resemblance to the original contents." Yes, on WP this lands somewhere between standard and quite desirable. Not being directly under the subjects control is one of the things that gives WP some value, and gives it some interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very, VERY weak keep~~--though the BLP1E argument isn't bad, if one argues that it's not about the book but about the shenanigans in Sranigar. The book's notability is also just really tenuous; it's fringe, of course, and In ictu oculi, I think you overestimate what Google Books does: many of your search results don't actually contain your search term (they're just somehow "associated"). This shows up but doesn't mention Olsson. And what a hit like this one does is not clear: it lists Olsson in the bibliography, but doesn't cite or discuss it. In other words, I see nothing that is actually reliable which discusses that book. And if FRINGE requires us to find serious sources that discuss weird stuff, well, this one fails too: note how the "Critical reception" section is completely unsourced, and so "Scholarly opinion unanimously rejects the arguments in Suzanne Olson's books", which would be the nicest thing one can say in terms of notability, isn't even verified. The more I look at this, the more I am convinced that we might as well delete this, so here we go: delete. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that section is a very recent addition, as I remember things were reasonably well-sourced after the war of ca april 2017. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I just dropped that in in a hurry related to the comments above that if it stays it should have some critical content on the basic thesis. Which is difficult because she is the latest rehash of things that were rejected by scholars in relation to the earlier fringe writers like Kersten. In the event of a delete I would rather a blank and redirect to the Roza Bal article (where she will still warrant a mention because of the Straits Times and Times of India references) in order to keep track on the sock issue. Should the socks come back trying to plant a promotional article. Unless they take the view that Wikipedia is hopelessly against fringe (hence their wish for it to be deleted this time). In ictu oculi (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, I agree. She's a "See also" there now, but that be changed to a sentence or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So to be absolutely clear the option here if deleted is redirect to preserve page history rather than just atomize. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: GBooks drives me nuts at times. As you suggest, many of it's hits are simply useless as they contain nothing substantial (or trivial) about what you think you're looking for. GScholar pulls up all sorts of non-scholarly nonsense, someone should gets the trades description act people after them. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, better? [9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um. No, not really better, unless the first one actually mentions Olsson by name as "fiction", he doesn't just mean all the Ahmaddiya/Kersten material is "fiction". It is easy enough to source the big name scholars who have already rejected the thesis since Olsson is just recycling Holger Kersten and others. Rather than deleting the scholars who reject the thesis simply copy across sources from the Holger Kersten article. Sourcing isn't a problem here. The lack of anything new with Olsson rather than her self-promotion and run in with the local muslim gravekeepers is the only issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this at Talk:Suzanne_Olsson#Critical_reception. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringe, but not notable and promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Blank and redirect as suggested above. What I see at Google books is mainly trivial mentions, a link to her website, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. To all of you Wiki editors who are voting to delete my Biography page, I am requesting speedy deletion. For years I have endured subtle yet significant negative edits. Beginning with emphasis that I claimed to be a descendant of Jesus (ommiting iinclusion about the laws of Islam regarding DNA recovery), or that I wrote on a fringe topic which is widely discredited by scholars, or that I personally disrupted the Roza Bal shrine, threatened the caretakers, and had my visa cancelled for upsetting local religious feelings…or that the shrine is a local "Muslim" shrine and all locals discredit the claims that it is associated with Jesus. Now take a look at other authors and other pages on this topic. Take a look at the biographies for [Kashmiri], [Kersten], [Hassnain], and all Ahmaddi commentaries. At no time, and in no way are these people accused of being unotable for discussing fringe theories, upsetting local Muslim beliefs, ‘Self-promoting” fringe theories, et cetera. A few editors (who I seem to have upset personally) have repeatedly slanted my biography to discredit and diminish me in every subtle way possible. This is unfair, inaccurate, And this hurts. Several comments and so-called ‘public sourced references’ are removed from context, giving a false impression-for example the claim that I "upset local Muslim beliefs resulting in shrine being closed and my visa being canceled". Then why is there no record of this also happening when Aziz Kashmiri or Holger Kersten or Fida Hassnain or [Bakar Salahuddin] (and here) were investigating the shrine and the relics? Why is there no mention of them being signaled out or discredited for publishing “fringe theories” you disparage me with? This is never mentioned on their Wiki Biography pages. When the Gvt. Of India film crews (led by Yashendra Prasad) arrived at the Roza Bal shrine, like me )I was there in the midst of the Taliban War- terrorism was everywhere!) they were also in the midst of terrorism and violence, threatened, forbidden in the tomb, and driven away with threats of violence. Why signal me out as though I was the only one to arrive and “offend local Muslim beliefs”? The entire world seems to offend Muslim beliefs. The Roza Bal is documented to be almost 2,000 years old. How can it be a “Muslim” shrine, when Islam itself was only founded 1500 years ago? You editors are the ones not making any sense here. I could go on, but the point is this: I do not believe the current wiki editors are being fair or balanced. I do not believe they ever will be. I am requesting a speedy deletion and beg that jno one start another wiki page about me or my book of no consequence. You made your points. Wiki has done me more harm than all the terrorists I ever encountered in India or Pakistan. It has never been the Wiki policy to allow contentious, slanted, derogatory or biased material inserted in to Biographies. Further, you each have entirely overlooked the fact that expanding retrieval of ancient DNA from Roza Bal and other ancient tombs, whether by me or others, is a vital step to arriving at the truth. Yet you all conveniently overlook this Project and rant on about what a “disruption” I am, and have “nothing new” to offer this field of investigation. I am sorry you feel that way. I assure you much is happening behind the scenes that is not yet known publicly. I have worked tirelessly for the protection and research at these ancient tombs. One day all the years of continued research will be clear. For now, I feel helpless against the current lot of Wiki editors here-some of us have been at loggerheads for years...that is why I beg for a speedy deletion. I assure you that neither myself nor anyone in my family has any desire to see another Wiki page about me ever inserted here again. If you cant be fair and balanced, then at least leave me alone and do no harm. That is the wiki policy you have forgotten to apply. Thank you. 205.173.37.113 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson[reply]

It has never been Wikipedia's policy to allow notable subjects to whitewash their articles, to remove well-documented material or an entire well-documented page just because they don't like it. When (hypothetically) someone has managed primarily to get themselves reported repeatedly in a negative light, that can produce an article that, though negative in tone, is fully in line with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia aims at giving a 'fair and balanced' representation of the individual from the perspective of the coverage they have received (WP:UNDUE), not based on their own self-image. Articles on the clearly non-notable should be deleted and those of marginally-notable people can be, but in saying "in no way are these people accused of being unotable for discussing fringe theories" you seem to indicate you consider yourself notable, that you have received sufficient coverage to have an article. However, if that is the case, the article must reflect that coverage, giving particular weight to the coverage that provides the notability, even if that coverage is negative. Without commenting on your entire WP:SOAPBOX, Wikipedia cares not one iota about what you happen to think "is a vital step to arriving at the truth" nor your predictions about what you personally think "will be clear" at some point in the future, all completely irrelevant. What is happening "behind the scenes that is not yet known publicly" is by definition not fodder for Wikipedia.(WP:V) This discussion is not about Speedy deletion, which is distinct from the AfD process, and previous requests for a speedy deletion of this page have been declined based on a failure to meet any of the established criteria - this AfD must take its course. (And since User:Groshnik appeared out of nowhere to make the same demand for a speedy deletion, I have to wonder. . . .) On the other hand, if on conclusion of this discussion it is determined that the subject is not notable at this time, any attempt to create a new page will be subject to speedy deletion (WP:G4) unless notability will have since been acquired by additional coverage. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae:: you completely misrepresent this discussion -- this is not about "me" or if I 'think' I am famous or notable, or if I rehashed an old story - a fringe topic---or if I dont like the way I am represented in the article. This is about bad Wiki editors who denegrade and misrepresent a topic and person..."in a negative light..." knowing that supporting facts are ignored-(for example, overlooking the entire Taliban War as a major contributing factor to the problems at the tomb)- done with intention and - deliberate malice- Your defense-- "this is fully in line with Wikipedia policy" is totally false. No it is is not. This has never been wikipedia policy. You have not applied the same standards of reporting to other authors and researchers connected with Roza Bal and 'Jesus in India' theories. My goodness, you all didn't even have the decency and normalcy to insert a proper link to my "dreadful self-published book." I can find no other author, self-published or not- anywhere on Wikipedia- where such an appropriate link would be missing....no matter how bad the book or the author is regarded! I have many years of records of wikipedia editing that reflects malice and bias. Enough is enough. Delete the page. Go edit some of those more 'notable' people you are always comparing me with....I'm sure they'll just love you for it. Thank you. 205.173.37.113 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Suzanne Olsson[reply]

Except I don't think I do misrepresent it. The only non-stale objection raised in the nom is lack of notability. You say 'delete', but leave the distinct impression that you think you are notable, which would mean you think that sole rationale for deletion is untrue. There is a dissonance there. What you dispute is not that you are notable enough for there to be a page, but what the content of that page should be, an entirely different complaint and one usually addressed on Talk pages and through conflict resolution, not by deleting the page (not what AfDs or speedy deletion are for). You call for the negative press to be tempered based on an external context you think is relevant, but were one to distort the plain reading of a source text based on anything else, that runs the risk of violating WP:NOR and/or WP:SYNTH - appropriate representation of sourced material requires that the text be changed to match the sources, not that the sources be reinterpreted to match the desired text. It is indeed within Wikipedia policy to have a page with a negative tone if that is what is found in the majority of reliable, independent sources about the individual. The problem comes when someone creates too much bad press to be balanced by what little (if any) non-negative coverage they receive. And are you really complaining that Wikipedia isn't helping you advertise your book? Finally, you don't get to decide what pages I edit (and I have never compared you to anyone else, except your various sock and meat puppets). Agricolae (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This rather suggests whatever the result here, delete or merge/mention, a sockwatch will be ongoing. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge-mention, or keep. I don't see any outcome that will bring an end to the problem. The Groshnik sock already said as much if it gets kept, and after the 2008 deletion the subject waited 5 years and then tried to sneak in a recreation under two different namespaces, once using a sock account. Any way it comes out, it seems, there will likely be need for sockwatch. Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep but protect the page. There is a good deal of RS coverage of Olsson - most of it debunking her kooky "theories." One understands why she prefers that the page be deleted. It should be kept in part because there is SIGCOV of her fringe assertions and misbehavior in what is, after all, a shrine, and in part because Wikipedia plays a useful role enabling the curious to rapidly discover reliable sources debunking fringe/crackpot theories like Olssen's.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage with multiple articles in national newspapers to pass GNG. If that were all it would be possible to legitimately delete on BLP1E if all of the coverage she had received was based on her activities at the shrine. BLP1E can not be applied because she has also received coverage related to her theories and writings. This coverage, without the national coverage previously mentioned, would not merit an article based on GNG, AUTHOR or PROF. Combined, however, she is notable by Wikipedia standards.
As to her request that we delete the article; while her notability is borderline her profile is not. People looking into various 'Jesus archeology' will very likely run across her name. She also seeks out publicity/recognition for herself and her theories so she is not the 'essentially private individual' that we typically grant 'courtesy deletion' to. (If the accusations, above, about the subject (re)creating an article about herself then a 'courtesy deletion' is out of the question - she sought out coverage. Evidently repeatedly.) Jbh ^Talk 02:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under special surveillance. I've never participated, but I've watched this popcorn-worthy drama unfold for the past decade or so. There is barely notability now as of 2018. Notability is obviously a minimum standard and not a guarantee of inclusion in the encyclopedia, which is why I'm sort of wavering here, but I think that even those who support deletion could agree that the subject's notability now is different from her notability in 2008. If the article is kept, then perhaps a sort of community sanction could be enacted to restrict editing of the article beyond normal standards. I really don't think I've seen anything like this fiasco on Wikipedia in a decade of editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment this passed an AfD as a keep in 2014. See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look just under the first comment on this page, there´s 6 afd/mfd's in total. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 18:07, 17 February 2018 User:RHaworth deleted page (non-admin closure) Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

151202

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

Unremarkable, too generic of a topic to warrant an article. lovkal (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Geographical areas such as cities and towns are notable, postal codes are just a part of their identification. MT Train^Discuss 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete an article on a single postal code? No. Just No. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unless anyone else here wants to start the international postal code project? No? Okay. Speedy delete it is. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no speedy criterion applicable, but this is so egregiously not an encyclopedia topic that a snow delete may happen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is just a postal code and why should it have an article in Wikipedia. Could be speedied under A7 and I am tagging it as such. Let us see if an admin agrees. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 15:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Coach

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

WP:ARTSPAM. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. This is the stubbed version. The longer version was more spammy. ProD removed anonymously. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The page fails Wikipedia's criteria. EmyRussell (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments that the sources are inadequate to establish notability (either because they are non-independent interviews or not actually about him) carry the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debayan Ghosh

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

Seems not to satisfy WP:BIO. Maybe his company might be notable (no article for that; no idea), but the man himself appears to have received very limited coverage. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed most of the references and they are not about him, they are all either about the company or interview about the company. He doesn't have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG himself. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - well referenced. Makhamakhi (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably not. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I think the creator have missed few good citations about the subject, i have mentioned those in references. DJRSD (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, both of these sources are worthless for establishing the subject's notability. The first is an incidental mention in a listing, the second is a quote soundbite as you can get from any company owner. - Might I add that adding these two refs and commenting here are the editor's only contributions, so I call COI. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. neither he nor the company are notable. There is no reliable reference, except to the publication of his very small number of scientific papers. Interviews with the subject of the sort listed here are not considered reliable secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Šestak-Grotte

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

Original research, hearsay. The sources prove nothing more than that this little chapel actually exists. Not even the name can be verified. King Rk (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info: This user had with this theme troubles as well in the de.wp as in the bar.wp too. It's a fake with a self- invented name without reality. Sorry for my bad english, yours, --Reimmichl-212 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as made-up name for a geocaching spot. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coşkun Ekim

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

Fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 15 February 2018 (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) 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is enough on the web about the guy but it's all WP:ROUTINE, he clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bashant Prakash Upadhyay

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

Needed extra verification. Not notable journalist. SeytX (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Subedi

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

lack of references and reliable sources. BLP is not notable. SeytX (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basanta Kumar Nemwang

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

Not notable politican. Lack of references. SeytX (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is described as a "former UML lawmaker" in this 2016 source and as a "former parliamentarian from Panchthar" in this March 2017 source. And this source lists the subject as winning a House of Representatives seat in December 2017. Meets WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD and this CPN-UML’s Nembang wins parliament seat in Panchthar .Passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL Atlantic306 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but if a person is properly verified as having served in a national legislature then we keep them to allow for improvement — the only way a politician at this level can be deleted is if they turn out to be an outright hoax. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (π, ν) 18:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qamar House

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

No indication of notability and I cannot find significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify for now as it does seem notable [10]. It should be upgraded to main-space after all things are sorted. M A A Z T A L K 14:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved somewhat. Reliable references mentioned. Proposal withdrawn as well, so changing to keep. However, I still think that the article does need additional citations and improvement. M A A Z T A L K 19:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it used to be one of the largest building in Karachi 1 or userify per Ma'az for now. samee ^talk 14:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Today I added 3 references and 2 external links to the article Qamar House. I used their reference (The News International newspaper) suggested by User:Samee and User:Ma'az above, as well as a reference from Heritage of Sindh website and Dawn (newspaper). Made it a stub so we can all improve it later. It was an unreferenced article to begin with. I also happen to agree with them that it is a notable and significant building of Karachi. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing proposed deletion - given the improvements to the article, I withdraw the AfD. I'm sorry I didn't find these sources when I looked. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please state discussion for merit of deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqbalqamar (talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dipak Prakash Baskota

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

References links are dead and blp is not notable. SeytX (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject's time as an elected parliamentarian preceded online media but I have added a Himalayan Times source which supports it, plus another which supports the subject's later career. Meets WP:POLITICIAN #1.AllyD (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but if a person is properly verified as having served in a national legislature then we keep them to allow for improvement — the only way a politician at this level can be deleted is if they turn out to be an outright hoax. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN was a member of the House of Representatives (Nepal).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadows (Nepalese band)

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

Not notable band. and references are not enough. SeytX (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samyukta Samabeshi Morcha

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

Article should be deleted. Seems like promotional article and all the ref links are dead. SeytX (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, seriously, in what sense is this promotional? --Soman (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bahadur Gurung

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

Not notable politician. Lack if reliable sources. SeytX (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Elected politician, also described as "Member of Parliament Prakash Bahadur Gurung" in this article and as "Parliamentarian Prakash Bahadur Gurung" here. Meets WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but if a person is properly verified as having served in a national legislature then we keep them to allow for improvement — the only way a politician at this level can be deleted is if they turn out to be an outright hoax. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom blocked as sock. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Angdembe

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

Not notable film director and writer.3 References links are dead. Not any reliable sources found. SeytX (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Om Prakash Yadav Gulzari

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

Not notable politician. All the ref links are dead. SeytX (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)—Listing both India and Nepal at delsort for conflicting information[reply]

Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but if a person is properly verified as having served in a national legislature then we keep them to allow for improvement — the only way a politician at this level can be deleted is if they turn out to be an outright hoax. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Prakash Saud

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

all the references links are dead and ref no. 2 doesnt include the person name and the person is not noable. SeytX (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject has verifiably served as a government minister: [11]. The article needs further updating to reflect the subject's ministerial term, recent electoral defeat, etc. but this article meets WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SeytX, it could be worth slowing down with the nominations? If an article text indicates that its subject has at any time been elected to a House of Representatives or to have served as a government minister, and any supporting sources can be found through searches, then WP:POLITICIAN applies. AllyD (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a no-brainer as per WP:POLITICIAN. Can we get a snowball keep on the mass deletion drive on Nepalese topics initiated by SeytX (talk · contribs)? --Soman (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but if a person is properly verified as having served in a national legislature then we keep them to allow for improvement — the only way a politician at this level can be deleted is if they turn out to be an outright hoax. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Bregenz

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Psychic TV released a lot of live albums, many of which received print reviews. The nominator gives no indication of where they searched for coverage, but redirecting (which frankly they could have done themselves rather than creating such a massive workload for other people) looks the best outcome for now. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. As Michig says, some of these live albums were given full releases and may have been reviewed by the music press, but others are limited release albums and almost certainly won't have been – it's best to redirect them until better coverage can be found. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the conversation here, I'm not going to create the redirect, but if somebody else wants to, that's fine with me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thee City ov Tokyo/Thee City ov New York

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 somebody wants to create the redirect, that's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City ov London/City ov Glasgow

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mein-Goett-In-Gen

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narayani Datt Chataut

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

BLP is not enough. Lack of reliable sources and there's no references of the article. so, It should be deleted. SeytX (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike most of the nominator's other current glut of misguided nominations, this article does not claim that its subject has served in the national parliament of Nepal — nor do any of the other articles about Nepal's parliaments link to him. Rather, this claims only that the subject was a local representative to the organizing committee of a political party, which is not a political office that passes WP:NPOL — and the only source for the claim is a book whose author has the same surname as the subject (thus probably a direct relative) and even the name of the publishing company also includes that same surname as well (thus raising the possibility that the book was self-published.) I'm willing to revisit this if somebody who can actually read Nepali can find a source to verify that he actually held a more notable political office than this article says he did, but nothing stated in this article right now guarantees him an article just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not enough to pass GNG and the position does not grant an automatic pass based on politician notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were You Ever Bullied at School...Do You Want Revenge?

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Sayami

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

All the references links are dead and the person is not notable. SeytX (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City ov Paris

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Sharma Poudel

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

All references links are dead. And the person is not notable. SeytX (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:News media link-rot is not in itself a reason for deletion. The subject does not feature heavily in accessible media but enough can be found to confirm election, passing mention as speaking in parliament [12], and recently quoted briefly as "Baglung’s former lawmaker" [13]. Enough I think for WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dead links does not mean, it did not exist when it was retrieved. Notable as he is a member of 2nd Nepalese Constituent Assembly. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 14:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but if a person is properly verified as having served in a national legislature then we keep them to allow for improvement — the only way a politician at this level can be deleted is if they turn out to be an outright hoax. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Thee Circus

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gorkhali Extreme

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

Lack of reliable sources.Album is Not notable. SeytX (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Pyramid N.Y.C. 11-3-88

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the date in the title there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the 930 Club Washington, D.C.

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, this title might actually be used by something else at some point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Temple

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Toronto (Psychic TV album)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viber BI

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

Not notable person. Needed Extra References. and the ref links are same as next page GXSOUL SeytX (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Gottingen

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, this could well be the name of something else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Reddy

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

The page references 2 is not notable neither it belongs to Yamini Reddy. There's not reliable source of the person. SeytX (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Reddy (artist)

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

Not Notable artist and lack of references. SeytX (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did the nominator try doing a WP:BEFORE on this article? That's rhetorical because if they had, they would have found this profile article on the Metropolitan Museum of Art's (the MET, NY) site, this article from The Hindu, his book published by SUNY press, this Blog post in The Times of India, this review in The Indian Express or this catalogue for his retrospective at the Bronx Museum of the Arts. It is pretty clear that notability is established here, as he is repeatedly mentioned in these sources as an important artist who has earned a spot in the history of Indian printmaking.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the additional reliable sources identified above show that the artist has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient evidence exists to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good job by the voter above to find the very obvious evidence of notability. For the nominator of this AfD and some other people who claim that articles should be deleted, I think we really need to emphasize WP:NEXIST. If an article currently has no sources, that is NOT a reason to delete it. Instead, encourage the community to search for sources, because their absence in an article is NOT proof that they do not exist at all. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jfd brokers

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

NO evidence of any notability. Refs confirm they exist and are listed in the expected directories and been awarded business specific awards. Northing here speaks of any notability. Another set of brokers doing what brokers do. COI editing is also a concern. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB The page has been blanked by the author, but there is a duplicate page at Jfd brokers.

Delete I can find no reliable sources beyond web-gazetteers and advertising pages stating that the company is anything more than a shell company set up to save taxes. There is nothing noteworthy beyond news on lesser-known news-website that the company acquired a German bank names ACON, which also has no page of Wikipedia (neither en nor de), and on which also only very little can be found on the internet. Travelbird (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the author of the originally nominated page, JFD Brokers, requested deletion under G7 (which I've done). They didn't request that Jfd brokers be deleted so I'm leaving this AfD open to discuss that page. Hut 8.5 19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thee Majesty. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time's Up (Thee Majesty album)

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thee Majesty. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thee Majesty. Richard3120 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Original creator and only significant contributor blanked it, speedy delete, WP:G7. ~ GB fan 11:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arafa muslim mahavidyalaya

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

No coverage for this school appears to exist in reliable sources. Most of what can be found are directory listings and the like. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no indication of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: This is about a school; as such, the subject is A7-ineligible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe (Psychic TV album)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trip/Reset. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Blue Torch

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trip Reset. It's an album of remixes of tracks from that album. More than likely received enough coverage at the time of its release to satisfy notability criteria. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trip/Reset for now, although this album could also do with better referencing. Richard3120 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral Engine

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Hollow Cost

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrahouse The L.A. Connection

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Stockholm

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth of the Night

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Possibly enough coverage in GBooks to satisfy notability criteria. If not it should be redirected to the band's discography. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EUROPT

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

Fails WP:ORG. No coverage in independent reliable sources found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No RS - most of the references stated are not substantively talking about the subject. References are not independent Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that indicate notability. Natureium (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are primary sources that are directly involved with the group. No indication of notability. Ajpolino (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There do not seem to be any strong sources that suggest notability and the references are barely connected to the subject. If page can be edited may be worthy Lagrime (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SixEleven

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

Non-notable, couldn't find any secondary sources about the topic. Also non-verifiable as all the sources I could find about it were either automated market listings or claims by the developer. ^–User_Dude 05:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable crypto currency Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the calls for merging, no one actually demonstrated that there enough verifiable content to actually merge anything and the merge target does not even exist or is shown to be notable itself. So Why 20:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary's Catholic Church (Cascade, Iowa)

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

This building does not appear to meet the requirements for inclusion under WP:NCHURCH. Dolotta (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Martin's Catholic Church (Cascade, Iowa), which should be considered and closed together. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would need to substantiate this building as being historic or otherwise of note... is it? According to this link, it was built in 1889, so it is historic.

http://www.migenweb.org/kent/churches/catholic/StMarysCathCascade.htm Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per one source above and this. Excelse (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link User:Excelse gave appears to refer to a church in Cascade Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one looks at List of the oldest churches in the United States, it doesn't take long to realize that the mere fact that a church has been around a while doesn't necessarily mean that it is notable. I'd wager that three quarters of British churches have been around for at least that long. It also appears, to me at any rate, that the reference immediately above is a passing reference to a couple's marriage. -- Dolotta (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per my similar comment at related ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Martin's Catholic Church (Cascade, Iowa), I think the St. Mary and St. Martin church articles should be merged to one about the successor, the real-life merger target named St. Matthias church or similar. The photo in the Saint Mary's article shows a very substantial church which goes to demonstrating significance, and covering both predecessors makes sense in a St. Matthias church/parish article (which gets some of its supporting significance from the predecessors). Unfortunately my finding the correct target article is delayed as there seems to be no proper disambiguation yet for many St. Matthias Church places, St. Matthias Church is currently a redlink but will become a disambiguation page soon. So wait a little bit and there will be a Saint Matthias Church (Cascade, Iowa) or similar which can serve as the proper merger target. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG, just because a building is old doesn't mean it is notable. A merge is not appropriate either since neither church passes GNG alone, so why would they pass GNG together?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed by Doncram, the notability should be easier for 3 churches Atlantic306 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge as per Doncram.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Deleete. I cannot source either church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if kept) as the Catholic Parishes have merged. The merged article should be St Matthias, since that is the present name. However, is either church more than a NN local church? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Could not find any sources establishing notability, and the source that was added since the last AfD is not a reliable source for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have changed vote to keep based on Paul_012 logic - no doubt sources in Thai, if he has been finance minister four times. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand that language barrier might prevent the nominator from being able to identify relevant reliable sources in Thai, but has it not occurred to them that an individual who served four terms as Minister of Finance/Economics would surely be covered in reliable sources, most of which are offline, because the peak of his career was three quarters of a century ago? Dismissing a historical individual as non-notable by a lazy Google search and without going into the relevant archives cannot be considered adequate due diligence, especially since it had been pointed out in the previous AfD that they clearly satisfy WP:NPOL. Anyway, here's an article from the Daily News newspaper,[14] and Thammasat University Library's entry for the commemorative volume published by the Ministry of Finance/Economics for his royally sponsored cremation.[15] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this requires referencing improvement, but he very clearly and verifiably held a notable government role and it was long enough ago that the best sources for it could hardly be expected to turn up on Google. We do not deprecate offline sourcing to print-only books or newspapers, so the need to dig into those kinds of sources to improve the referencing is not grounds for deletion in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the nominator not even bother to read the reasons why the article was kept in the last AfD he started? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Entertainment Group

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

I can find no sources sufficient for this company to meet WP:GNG. bd2412 T 04:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable company.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Silverman (producer)

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

Page's current references are borderline reliable and subject lacks in-depth coverage in RS. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,- No RS here for this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Page's creator attempted to blank this AfD discussion. There may be some COI going on. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is no doubt accomplished but there doesn't seem to be significant third party coverage to elevate his career beyond routine, run-of-the-mill attention. The sources are a variety of press releases, small time industry related websites, blogs, and trivial and tangential mentions in articles about other subjects. Also fails per WP:INHERITED. In fairness, a google search finds many people named Jeff Silverman so it is difficult finding additional coverage if it exists. However given the promotional tint of this article, I would be surprised if the creating editor missed anything. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the article needs a huge rewrite, but I've found this guy on Allmusic and Discogr (https://www.discogs.com/artist/365663-Jeff-Silverman and https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jeff-silverman-mn0000231969). I think there should be more sources Mackey Mice (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discogr is a user submitted site and while AllMusic can be indicative of third party recognition for some entries, his is a simple listing of credits. Neither of these sources convey significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I've changed reflist and added some new sources, maybe it'll help. Mackey Mice (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salsa (dance). Killiondude (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa suelta

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

This is particularly difficult to search, but I'm not finding sources for this prior to the date the article was written, and later sources often describe it differently. I need some confidence from the sources that the article is actually true, and I'm not getting it. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Salsa (dance) -- not enough here for a standalone article. Rhadow (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Salsa (dance), as above. Agree there's not enough for a standalone article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Salsa (dance) - doesn't substantiate a stand alone article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Forever (group)#2008–10: Formation and School Gyrls. ansh 666 19:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

School Gyrls (film)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Lack significant coverage of reliable sources and has no full-length reviews, major award and historical notability. — Za wl 17:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related page:

A Very School Gyrls Holla-Day (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 17:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 17:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forever (group)#2008–10: Formation and School Gyrls and also add A Very School Gyrls Holla-Day (film) to this nom The very definition of a vanity project only done due to Nick Cannon's executive connections to Nickelodeon. Both films are paint-by-numbers attempts at failed television pilots, and this only had 'this aired' notice from publications. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. — Za wl 12:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that as of 3 February 2018, two articles are now nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forever (group)#2008–10: Formation and School Gyrls - as above. Tv movie of little notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Commission for Justice and Peace

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

Nothing in coverage to pass tough WP:ORG criteria. Störm (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough per coverage [16]. Mar4d (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As a Christian campaigning organisation operating in an environment hostile, it ought to be notable. However, I wonder whether it should not be called National Commission for Justice and Peace (Pakistan) to make its scope clearer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article lacks the depth of source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be doing some high profile important work of national importance, including winning an International peace award. I will look for some more articles when I get a chance, I;'m sure there is more than this about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable. samee ^talk 14:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple reliable sources in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St. Charles County. It's not 100% clear to me from the discussion that St. Charles County is actually the correct merge target, so whoever does the merge should do a little research and if they find a better target, OK to use that instead. Maybe hash it out on the talk page first. But, it's clear that this AfD says Westplex should not exist as a stand-alone article. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westplex

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

Based on only one website, no one calls it this. See my argument here. — Confession0791 ^talk 17:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on St. Charles County. Vorbee (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are like 95,000 references to "Westplex" on google and a quick look through them seems to indicate more than 90% are referring to the Missouri Westplex rather than something else. Westplex Daily News, Westplex Auto Group, Westplex Community Church etc etc seem to indicate it is a bit more than just one web site that uses the term. Also, it definitely doesn't just refer to St. Charles County--that's why the term has been coined. If you are 'just refer[ring] to it as "St. Charles County"' you are talking about something different from what Westplex is. On the flip side, I don't know how really super-notable the term is. Bhugh (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As noted above, seems there are more common uses of westplex Merge this with the primary page for the concept Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Cheong

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the links and references appear to have in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/fashion/wild-about-watches.html is a New York Times feature about the specific person, which is a pretty good indication that the person is notable, and covered in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the number of quotes, this is clearly based on a non-adversarial interview and thus not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you asserting that only adversarial interviews used for extensive articles in The New York Times actually count as articles? Interesting thought, that. I can not find any other discussions on Wikipedia saying that, alas. Collect (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softball interviews that are effectively promotional are questionable sources at best.--Rpclod (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not everyone mentioned in a NY Times article is notable. Despite the assertion that the subject is "better known as an active party animal among high society circles," there are not enough significant references to support WP:ANYBIO notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Far more than a mere "mention" in fact. One feature article specifically about him, and four more articles quoting him. Also cited in Forbes Magazine, and in a number of trade publications. Collect (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is too promotional, but there is enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Tabloid journalism from the NYT is still tabloid journalism, and we do not base articles on Tabloid journalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no, the New York Times is never discounted for purposes of notability. We do not count interviews as they are primary, but this was enough of a feature in arguably the most reliable print journalistic source in the world that even I can't argue for deletion based on interview status. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Collect. I think the Times story counts as substantial coverage that justifies the article. There is a lot of room for improvement, but the article is a good start and should not be deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently important in the world of Horology, and ...the New york Times article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those Who Do Not

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

Does not appear to satisfy the WP:NALBUM notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Mattg82 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Studio albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Garcia (finance)

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lammin Sullay

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

Fails all elements of WP:AUTHOR and there are only a few passing mentions so GNG isn't met. His big claim to fame appears to be starting a WP:NN newspaper that had 6 editions before closing. Failed CSD because "sources". Toddst1 (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because said individual is an important figure in Finnish literature and media scene, as proven by the several sources seen in this article that mention him. I don't believe the importance vanishes if someone from the United States or somewhere far away from Finland (or perhaps someone who might not even know what Finland is) doesn't recognise said individual. The person isn't Finland's Jack Kerouac, I admit that, but still an important figure in Finland, especially in English-speaking Finland, and thus worth mentioning on Wikipedia. I believe that the individual who proposed this article to be deleted, Toddst1, believes me to be A. either Lammin Sullay or B. related to Lammin Sullay, which I also believe to be the reason for him suggesting to mark this article as just some random individual from Finland with no significant importance to a dictionary or to society as a whole. To prevent further quid pro quo, I shall state here that I don't receive any compensation for any of the articles I've created, nor am I trying to advert, publicise or promote a writer who's been dead for almost 14 years. I chose my username simply because I am an avid fan of Sullay's work, and that's it. Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a case to keep this. No claims of meeting any SNG, and the one book reference I can check on Google Books is a trivial mention, and I can't even verify the existence of "Reindeer Books", his publisher; it could be a vanity publisher/self-published. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Accoerding to WorldCat, the books are in almsot no libraries. That's a good indication of their total lack of importance. Teh yseem to be part of an individual's self-publishing project. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Apart from the clear consensus here for deletion, it is worth mentioning that the articles also qualify for speedy deletion as having been created by a blocked editor evading blocks on both accounts and IP addresses.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Byron

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

Fails general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), being just a minor landholder who has received no significant coverage. The page is entirely genealogical in nature - he was son of these people, he married this person and he had this heir, and hence flies in the face of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. An IP tried to insert the male-line ancestry of the family tracing all the way back to the 11th century into the pages of much later family members, but that was reverted. Then a new User name appeared and created these pages that appear to have the sole intent of presenting the same genealogical information in the form of individual linked pages. No references are given for the entire page, in spite of the editor being instructed to do so for pages they have created, and the editor refuses (or hasn't figured out how) to engage in discussion. This looks like one person's genealogical project. Page should be Redirected to Byron family, also created by the same editor, also without references, but a better platform to discuss the limited information that has appeared on the individual family members. (That page already has the genealogical details that have been expressed with more elaborate prose here, so a merge is not necessary.) Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages, equally non-notable genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator makes the valid point that there is nor a single source to indicate that the person actually existed. However, if existence can be proven there may be a case for an article or family history appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, which would be the sixth baron. Also, the recorded existence of a person so early in European history may be of interest of itself. However, a redirect may also be appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I am not questioning that the individual existed. 'Existence' is insufficient for notability. Likewise, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - we don't create a separate page to help people understand the subject's notable children, let alone their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson, as your argument would suggest. Agricolae (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete all What did these guys do for us to care about them? Well, they had kids, and their kids had kids, and eventually one of those kids was the Byron about which we can say something— that is, the one who is notable in his own right for his own doings. The rest of these are just spots on the Byron lineage, and these articles say almost nothing about them that isn't already in the main Byron family article. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Byron family per nominator. There appear to be a couple of John de Byrons who were knighted for services at Calais, Bosworth and later who might be independently notable [17] but the John de Byron included in this nomination appears to be earlier. Redirects are cheap and the names do pop up in all the genealogies and are plausible search terms. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the 'other' John Byrons, one or two were MPs and one that wasn't was a KG, which is more than just a run-of-the-mill knight. There are some of the later ones that as they currently stand lack an appropriate claim to notability, but they are longstanding articles that have references (though not necessarily reliable ones). I limited this proposal to the newly created ones that have no claim to notability, no references, and little likelihood of improvement given the track record of the creator. Agricolae (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and no evidence of notability. The suggestion of redirecting to Byron family makes little sense, because that article is totally unsourced, and the only content in that article which refers to the subjects of the articles under consideration for deletion is links to those articles and trivial details such as the dates of their lives and the names of their wives. That means that there is no sourced information at all about these people in that article, and there can be no justification for redirecting there, especially as the trivial mentions being unsourced are liable to removal at any time, which would leave redirects to an article not mentioning the subjects of the redirects at all. (Incidentally, the article Byron family was created by the same editor who created the articles under discussion here.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides being unsourced, the articles make not even something that amounts to a claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a geneological database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Godsall

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are quotes or brief mentions. reddogsix (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I argue that Jay Godsall is a notable person under the “General notability guideline” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). Specifically, the criticism is that the person is non-notable and the references are trivial - I see no evidence to support this.

On the issue of notability - "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”. Is there any question that the topic does not have reliable sources, or that the sources are not independent of each other? The diversity and independence of the references should be obvious - is this in question?

On the issue that this is trivial - is disaster relief trivial? Is the suicide rate in the Arctic trivial? Is there some question about the meaningful impact of this person’s work? Is there a question that the references are wrong in saying that solar powered fossil fuel free flight is significant and will have significant impact on the world, particularly remote areas? Is climate change trivial?

I am a long time consumer and supporter of Wikipedia content. It has changed my life for the better. I am trying to be a contributor (my first article) and I would like to learn how to improve, instead of my work being criticized generically, I’d like to be pointed to specific areas of improvement. I am trying to use the 5 pillars as the guidelines. The facts presented above are referenced with depth, breadth and independence. The article is written from a neutral point of view. The content is free, and I believe, points to further content for the community to explore and expand for the benefit of everyone.

The last two pillars are my areas of concern:

Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility - can we please point to specifics I should improve, as opposed to generic criticism.

Wikipedia has no firm rules. It is my goal to bring more content to the community and I’d like to be advised and guided by the community on how to stay within the guidelines, but also be creative about including more content. In the spirit of creating and sharing global knowledge, I believe if I learn how to contribute, I can bring more and valuable contributors to the community. Please help me. Mattskilly (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Mattskilly (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The flaw in Mattskilly's logic is that notability for Wikipedia's purposes is not defined by the value of what a person does, but by the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage they have or haven't received for doing what they do. Godsall is not the subject of these sources, however, but merely has his name mentioned in coverage that is about his company rather than being about him — literally the only source here that's about Godsall as an individual is a purely routine entry in a business directory. The sources here are largely very solid ones for the article about the company, but they are not about Godsall to the degree needed to get him a standalone article as a separate topic from the company. He can absolutely be named in the company's article, but he's not automatically entitled to have a separate article about him as an individual separate from having his name mentioned in the company's article — being CEO of a company that has a Wikipedia article is not, in and of itself, an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG. But the sources here aren't helping him clear GNG — they're helping the company clear GNG, but they just mention Godsall while not being about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you read all of the content of the sources it is clear in many of them that Godsall is just as much the subject of these sources as his company.

Godsall's early life and the founding of the company in multiple sources are more than a trivial mention even if not the main topic of the source material in some. The sources address the subject directly and in some detail. Godsall DOES have significant coverage in reliable sources and clearly meets GNG.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

What am I missing here? I've seen several CEO's and their companies with pages that have less sources and coverage. Do you need to be a billionaire to warrant a Wikipedia page?

This guy invented a solar powered aircraft to move medical supplies into hot zones. This went on to be featured in a Wired Magazine article on how to change Disaster Relief - in intellectual property they talk about prior art to prove who deserves credit. Prior to Solar Ship he created the first company that barcoded pathogens. Prior to that he created a company to give IP rights to shamen. All this is about how humanity interacts with remote areas, which is critical for life on the planet.

This is NOT a one company person. The impact comes from a life of figuring out how to solve problems in remote areas. This is not purely routine entry for one business. Look at the reference from the University of Toronto featuring Godsall as an individual on the future of flight, in the same event as the lead rocket scientist in Canada and one of the biggest aerospace companies in the world.

I would love a champion to step up from the Wikipedia community who has more experience than I do to help keep this page alive. I'm having a very hard time seeing any reason it should be deleted and feel that the arguments set forth to delete are weak and not backed up with facts.

Please read the content of the sources and see for yourself why this article should be kept. More articles like this on Wikipedia will only make the resource a better place for all.

A high school QB that hasn't done anything for humankind gets a wiki page, but someone who has founded multiple world changing ventures doesn’t? I know children that use Wikipedia regularly and they should be inspired by people that make the world a better place, just as much as sports heros and musicians. Please help me figure this out and make it right. Asante sana. Mattskilly (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, a high school quarterback doesn't get a Wikipedia article. And our role isn't to maintain articles about people who we deem "inspiring" — for one thing, nobody is ever going to find a Wikipedia article they weren't already looking for, so nobody's going to "discover" him or learn anything about him from here that they couldn't have learned about him from anywhere else. Our role is to maintain articles about people who meet our inclusion standards, one of which is that a person is the subject of enough sources to clear WP:GNG — which simply having his name mentioned in coverage of other things isn't satisfying. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Bearcat, but you’re missing my argument by locking on to two small comments I made. If you were to read ALL of the sources provided for Godsall, you would clearly see that he is the subject of enough sources to clear WP:GNG. He is NOT simply just mentioned and the sources should convince anyone of this if read in their entirety. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles often show up in the top three search results and I argue that they will be found by many when searching a subject or individual for more info. There are countless examples of this, here is one for you Jack Dorsey. Wikipedia articles are a great place for people to learn more about an individual and they are discoverable. Muchas gracias. Mattskilly (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that no, he's not the subject of enough of these sources to clear WP:GNG. The strong sources are about the company, not about him as an individual, and the only sources that can be honestly said to be about him as an individual are weak ones, like a directory entry in Bloomberg's business directory and Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself, which are not and can never be notability-assisting sources. These are solid and viable sources for the article about the company — but they aren't supporting enough content about him as a person to deem him as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that yes, he is the subject of enough of these sources to clear WP:GNG. You referred to sources 4 & 12, but what about 8, 11 & 17 to name a few. I come back to my earlier argument that many sources address the subject directly and in some detail. Godsall DOES have significant coverage in reliable sources and clearly meets GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I argue once again, that these are solid and viable sources for the article about Godsall the person — and they are supporting enough content about him as a person to deem him as passing GNG. Merci beaucoup. Mattskilly (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8 and 17 are fundamentally about the company rather than him, and 11 is borked by what I said about Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself. They can be used for secondary verification of stray facts, but they do not constitute support for notability because people can't talk themselves into wikinotability — a source has to be written in the third person, not the first, before it counts as a notability-assisting source. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. On top of 4, 8, 11, 12 & 17, there's also 2, 3, 10 & 16. Several of the sources are reliable and Godsall is mentioned in third person. Thank you. Mattskilly (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have to be the sole topic of the source material, no, but he does have to be more than "mentioned". You're a new user who's been around here for less than a month, so you may not be aware of all the ins and outs of how Wikipedia actually works — but merely showing that the letter of a Wikipedia rule is technically met doesn't count for much if you're missing the spirit of the rule. Even if he doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source, there is still a degree of "about-him-ness" that a source has to surpass before it counts as a source that makes him eligible to have a standalone biography of him separately from the article that already exists about the company — but none of the sources are showing a substantive reason why we would need both an article about the company and a separate spinoff biography of him as a person.
And again: #4 is a WP:ROUTINE profile in a directory of businesspeople, not media coverage, so it doesn't assist in demonstrating notability at all, because that's a type of source that never counts as support for notability: actors do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have IMDb pages, businesspeople do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have a profile in Bloomberg Research, people in any field of endeavour do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have LinkedIn profiles, and on and so forth — directory entries like that do not count as support for notability. And #12 and #17 are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself — and I've already explained several times above that Q&A interviews in which a person is speaking about himself do not count as support for notability.
Wikipedia has, over the years, seen people do everything you could possibly imagine and some things you couldn't imagine to game our rules, so getting an article on here is more complicated than just "some sources are shown to verify that the person exists". We have rules about what counts as enough notability, we have rules about what constitutes a valid notability-supporting source and what doesn't, we have rules about how much sourcing has to be shown before "doesn't meet any specific inclusion test but is still keepable anyway just because some media coverage exists" is a reason to include a person here in and of itself, we have rules about how much "about" the topic a source has to be before it actually counts as support for notability, and on and so forth. It is more complicated than just reading the most basic rules and arguing that they've been met — the rules are much more complex than just "his name is present in some newspaper articles and a business directory".
So the question that needs to be answered here is not just "do sources exist?" — potential sources technically exist for lots of people who still don't actually warrant an encylopedia article at all. Rather, the question is "is there a real reason why just adding a sentence or two of content about him to the company's article isn't enough, but instead he needs to have his own standalone biography separately from the company's article?" And no, "he's inspiring" is not a valid answer to that — valid answers would be "the company's article is really long already, so a standalone biography helps to control its size" (which it isn't here) or "we can source substantial content about other aspects of his life besides just the fact of his role with the company per se" (which the sources here aren't really showing, which is why I keep pointing out that they're fundamentally about the company — because the extent to which they're "about" Jay Godsall himself doesn't extend beyond just his role with the company.) Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that Godsall is more than "mentioned" in multiple, reliable sources and this does make him eligible for a standalone biography. Yes, I'm new to wikipedia as an editor, but I've been using wikipedia for a very long time. I appreciate the job of the wikipedian and plan to continue to contribute to the community. How many reliable sources does a person need? I've answered the question of why he should have his own standalone biography and plan to build upon it. Godsall is a founder of more than just one company that has had massive impact in the world. He's had more than a trivial mention in a Harper Collins published book (I need to figure out how to source a book) and my "inspiring" comment can be stricken from the record. Grazie. Mattskilly (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and then redirect to the company, which might possibly be notable. This is an obvious effort to make two articles for a barely notable subject that would at most justify one--the give-awayis that much of the content is simply repeated. There is no separate notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Madhiwala

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

Autobiography of a non notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above, failing WP:NACTOR Alex (Talk) 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gupteshwar Mahadev, Udaipur

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

A non notable temple from India. No significant coverage in reliable sources. All the coverage is limited to "touring websites", nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:NGEO, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this newspaper article indicates that it is the site of a popular local festival. Plus, any 17th century public building that is still around now is almost certainly notable to some degree. If it were in a Western country it would likely be on some kind of historic buildings register. "Touring websites" might not be considered reliable sources, but if it is a tourist destination, that too points to notabiity even if the information on the web pages themselves cannot be used. SpinningSpark 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well; traditionally, every temple observes this type of festival. It is usually called as "Yatra". Here is the article: Zatra. There are lots of temples in any town. So it is natural for every town to have one big yatra once in an year. Whatever coverage I found, the festival of this temple seems to be one of the smallest one. Nothing notable about this particular festival. Regarding the date of construction, around half of the temples in India are older than 18th/17th century. Nothing sets this temple apart. In this case notability shouldn't be assumed as long as there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every temple observes this type of festival? Half of the temples in India are older than 18th/17th century? Well, perhaps they are all notable. Those arguments strike me as a kind of reverse WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is, "we don't have articles on all these other temples, so why should we have an article on this one?" SpinningSpark 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. We keep hearing a lot about this place in local as well as national newspapers. It is mostly in Hindi, which is why probably it is not turning up in google search results: 2012-13 Events, 2016, 2017, More_2017, 2018-Documentary, and few other notability articles should help.Vishal0soni (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC) —SOCKSTRIKE MT Train^Discuss 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people a chance to evaluate the sources suggested by Vishal0soni. It would be useful to have some native Hindi speakers help with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Passes WP:GNG. Has significant coverage from Rajasthan Patrika [(1)] and Dainik Bhaskar [(2)]. There's also citations which Vishal0soni (talk · contribs) provided.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Mann

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

The subject is a non-notable actor - biography and filmography contain several red-link works, meaning that they are not Wikipedia notable, as well as a severe lack of coverage. Only notable work is Code Lyoko. MizukaS (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only supporting RS is 1 trivial mention in LAT. Far from enough. Agricola44 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors and actresses are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article — the notability test is not "has had roles", but "has received enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:GNG for having had roles". But the only sources here are a blurb which mentions her name in the caption to a photograph, but is not substantively about her at all, and a Facebook post. That's not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honda West Calgary

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

While this dealership appears to have won some dealership-related awards, I'm not sure if car dealers by themselves can be notable. Coverage in reliable sources appears to be lacking as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Blatant promo as evident in the creators username User:HondaWest. Ajf773 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ajf773 and nominator. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Vancina

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

A cold fusion entrepreneur who claims, as they all do, to have the solution to our energy needs. I leave it to the reader to decide what they think of these claims, but suffice to say, the WP:BLPFRINGE nature of this biography is one that uses fringe sources only. This includes cold fusion fansites, obscure uncited journal articles, and PR news websites. Other claims to notability are lacking. jps (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and Roxy's fruit test. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find sources in large English newspapers, indicating a lack of notability. The current article's sources are in-universe. —Paleo Neonate – 05:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to all the above points: When one of the sources is OMICS, you know you have a problem. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations 2, 5 and 6 are to OMICS journals. Other sources are either fringe or not WP:RS that could justify notability. Fails WP:PERSON. Burn with fire. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irradiate No evidence of notability in the wider world outside the cold fusion bubble. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very type of article our guidelines about Fringe figures were created to prevent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Love

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to industry PR materials, online directories, interviews, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre, mostly nominations or minor honours, such as "Big-Butt Babe of the Year". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: evidently no significant individual awards or notable contributions to the genre, otherwise lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:BASIC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revelator Coffee

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

A company failing to meet WP:NORG, with cited sources all being brief coverage from from insider journals or local media outlets. Nothing found on Google News showing any in-depth coverage, unlike one of it's "see also"s the Blue Bottle Coffee Company for example, which sources CNN and Bloomberg. Maybe this is simply WP:TOOSOON. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. I've removed most of the spammish external links section. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Casadei Massari

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

advertising, based of press release an local minor reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not provedTribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not established. None of the links pass WP:RS --Theredproject (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sufficient sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Deschenaux

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

No sources showing notability Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, problems with WP:NOR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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