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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Rebecca Eastham

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

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

Non-notable actor. Minor appearances and no significant coverage. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 23:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lack of coverage for this particular page I believe makes the page not notable. Wiki Cell ( talk) 08:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete starring in a non-notable film does not make one notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete A few minor roles. Her credits include "Receptionist" and other minor characters. Fails WP:NACTOR. Article creator should take care while putting "his" in a female actor's biography. -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 12:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NACTOR, possibly a TOOSOON situation depending on whether she accumulates more credits and more notable credits moving forward. South Nashua ( talk) 18:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

2010s in music

2010s in music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has been brought up by Sergecross73 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. The following text is taken directly from the "2010s in music" section:

"Mostly unsourced original research and giant paragraphs of excessive example bloat."

Serge also said the article is "largely unsourced and unfocused". DBZFan30 ( talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article could be scratched and started over again with proper sources. TH1980 ( talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep because not only does this article focus on musical trends of this decade, but it's an article of over 500 words, with over 70 references. 107.218.152.97 ( talk) 22:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• None of those factors affect AFD results either way. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Oh wow, did not expect this. I really just contacted the WikiProject for advice on how to approach cleaning it up. I guess I'm neutral at this point? On one hand, the article is truly in awful shape. On the other hand, I'm not sure how one could possibly argue that a decade of music could be not notable, though there could be a good WP:TNT argument to be made. This really probably warrants a bigger discussion about these "decade in music" articles - it's weird to just delete one, but in my spot-checking, many of these types of articles are on just terrible shape. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but with a 90 day deadline to improve it or it gets deleted. I looked at the other decades for music. Various decades had problematic articles and have been tagged such as 2000s in music, I suggest creating a Wikipedia Project to clean up the articles related to decades of music. As far as this article, User:Theatheistgerm created this article and a large portion of the article's content. He has not edited Wikipedia since October 1. 2016. He may have stopped editing Wikipedia for good. The are sections of the article which are problematic. For example, the Hip Hop section which is nearly all internal links and see it is very visually unappealing to the eye. Some of the picture placements are poorly done as well in some sections. The article needs better sourcing as well. desmay ( talk) 01:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thats...not really how WikiProjects work. They only work if there are already many people already interested in the subject. I think the reason these articles are perpetually in bad shape is because there's a lack of editors interested in working on this. So far, my request at existing Music WikiProjects has only resulted in this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable, as it covers the state of genres in the 2010s such as rock, pop, hip hop, just to name a few. MetalDiablo666 ( talk) 01:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thats just a description of the article's scope, not an argument for or against deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This article may be in awful shape, however, if it is improved then it would be worth keeping. This article is informative and notable as it covers a variety of genres throughout a decade-long period. Bmbaker88 ( talk) 02:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The topic of this article is clearly notable, we have articles on other decades in music and on individual years. The article does not fall under any of the reasons for deletion listed on this page. The article should instead be improved, or unreferenced material removed. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - clearly notable, and not so awful as to be blown up. Bearian ( talk) 02:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It's a good article with a lot information about the music in the 2010s. Why would anybody nominate it for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.208.80 ( talk) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - an obviously notable topic. However, it is in need of a lot of cleanup. If the problem is systemic, and not limited to just this article (as it seems), it should be discussed in the context of all those "decade in music" articles. It will be great if we could have a guideline page that talks about things to include and how to write them (an RfC might help with that). But we don't. So, let's stick to fixing the problem for the moment. —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 17:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Indeed, this is related to why I started my initial discussion at the busiest music WikiProject I've observed. I was interested in trying to clean it up, but couldn't find any well-done examples to base my efforts off of. A week later, and no one, here or there, has offered any meaningful insight. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mandini (Singer)

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

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

Apparent autobiography of a non- notable singer. No indications of any record releases, and therefore certainly no indications of any airplay, awards, etc. Speedy deletion declined so here we are. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 21:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete no major label, no major songs, no major... anything. Being the spawn of a (barely) notable person does not mean they should have a page. This should have been speedied, and WP:ATD-R be damned. Primefac ( talk) 21:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Gigi Zancheta. I can't find anything other than that they have the relationship. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

A redirect is a bad idea because he is not mentioned on Gigi's page. Someone searching for Mandini would be rather confused ending up at a (female) soap opera star's page with no mention of him. Primefac ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I've searched for sourcing and can find no evidence of notability.. Redirecting a BLP to another BLP without a very strong reason to do so is troublesome. INVALIDBIO does not call for it to be done, it points out that two non-notable children redirect to their respective parents, which in both of those cases make sense, the children of two of the world' most famous celebrities will likely be searched for and recreated if a red link. We have no reason to think that would be the case here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete What is the CCS here? Being born to someone famous in 99.9% of circumstances is not going to be a CCS. Every person is born, doesn't make it special or significant because their parents have a Wikipedia article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete This article is not well done at all and could easily go. TH1980 ( talk) 22:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No RSes found with either Google or Google news search. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No sources, couldn't find a thing, and the "(Singer)" disambiguation makes it completely inappropriate for a redirect Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Zero evidence of notability. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No evidence of notability. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Associate mobile

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

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

Company fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I added a reference from Bloomberg to the article but that is just a listing verifying that the company exists. CNMall41 ( talk) 21:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete The subject lacks notability. TH1980 ( talk) 22:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no coverage other than business directories, etc. Does not meet basic notability standards. Glendoremus ( talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I could not find significant coverage of the company in any independent reliable source, just listings in business directories. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Lajtay

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

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

Inadequate evidence of notability. Only ref. 2 contributes anything, and it is from 17 years ago. Maproom ( talk) 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Subject lacks notability. TH1980 ( talk) 22:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a refernece being 17 years old does not diminish notability, but one reliable source indepth reference is not enough to show a businessman is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 07:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Rise of Hip Hop

Rise of Hip Hop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOT#OR. Unreferenced original research. There are footnotes as if they intended to provide sources, but without any provided the article should be deleted Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete The article is completely lacking in proper sourcing and formatting as per Wikipedia guidelines. TH1980 ( talk) 22:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This article is written like an opinion piece instead of an informational piece. Additionally, this article does not have any sources to support the views. Bmbaker88 ( talk) 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Hi! I'm one of the WikiEd people assigned to this course. While looking at the page I noticed that it appears to copy content from here, the Wikipedia article on hip hop, some content from New York City blackout of 1977, and hip hop music. On his sandbox page he seems to give attribution to the other Wikipedia articles, but I don't see where this is in his edit history. I'll send a copy to the student and alert him to this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 05:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Actually, it doesn't look like I can email him. I'll send him a message on his talk page instead. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 05:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This isn't an article, it's a school essay. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Leigh Valentine

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

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

Does not appear to satisfy our notability criteria. The only reliable independent secondary sources I could find say that she had a messy divorce from Robert Tilton and that she led a prayer at a Trump rally last spring. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete She is a background supporter of a lot of causes, but being in the background generally means non-notable. Her winning the state Miss USA competition is also not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I searched, since bio indicated that there might be notability out there, somewhere, but there isn't. Nom and Johnpacklambert have this exactly right. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete unable to locate significant coverage on Gale. Dloh cierekim 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Dlohcierekim, who is Gale? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

" Gale (publisher), a publisher of reference books and databases, formerly known as the Gale Group, then Thomson Gale." They have a large collection of reference materials. I have access via my library. I saw a banner notification over my watchlist saying they were offering free access to a limited number of editors. 65.35.179.54 ( talk) 22:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC) oops, logged out by power failure. Dloh cierekim 22:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 17:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Claire keane

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

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

No evidence here of any notability. She is an illustrator, no doubt a very competent illustrator, but no evidence that she is a notable illustrator. Fails WP:GNG. Reads like a veiled advert for her new book.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete — Richard BB 18:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. The only references I can find are mostly unreliable i.e. blogs Reb1981 ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• I'll just add that Richard BB's speedy deletion tag was declined -- and I'd say, rightly so. I can't see any basis to speedy delete, nor does he offer one here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I'm finding a number of reliable sources on this subject, including a Fast Company article, an NPR station article, and plenty more. Based on my research the subject appears notable.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 00:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep in addition to the above the article had a improperly integrated reference section that with some love should be enough to bring it within WP:GNG. Artw ( talk) 05:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The reliable sources linked to by SouthernNights, above, is enough to pass WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 11:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep It seems the Wall Street Journal reviewed one of her books as one of the "best new children's books." I don't have a subscription to WSJ but the review is linked here. Also, wondering why her last name is in lower case in the WP article (I usually check maiden and married name variance and noticed this.) Netherzone ( talk) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: SouthernNights presents a compelling argument. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes GNG. I added some sources to the article, too. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC per a WP:BEFORE source review. Here's more sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 04:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Dana Arschin

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

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

Clearly fails WP:NJOURNALIST. The emmy award was not an individual award but one for a broadcast of which she was part of the 11 person team. fails WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 18:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Of the 12 sources provided 6 are self-published, 1 (daily dot) just says "Editors of News 12 and the reporter, Dana Arschin, who claims to be a “Holocaust Educator,” did not return our requests for comment" and nothing else about her. NYIT is her Alma Marta and so not independent. 1 (greatneckrecord) doesn't mention her but her name appears in a caption for a photo. Another (Brooklyn eagle) is about a business park and not about her and just gives a passing mention at the end of the article. 1 is a podcast from a private college and the last is the list of winners of the NY Emmys that I added myself to clarify the claim of being an Emmy-winning journalist. This is clearly a puff piece for a non-notable young journalist. Domdeparis ( talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep For now at least. She is young and there are quite a few reliable sources that specifically mentions her, or is about her. Not including the plethora of reports by her that come up during the Google News search with her name.-- Contactpage ( talk) 18:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now at least. Dearth of coverage about her. Google hits for her reports don't fill the need for independent sourcing. May she one day be notable, but is not now. Dloh cierekim

Comment: There are also many Google hits for her videos. Indeed Google hits for her overabundance of reports don't fill the need for independent sourcing, but do provide basis for citation, making her notable another way. BTW independent sourcings do exist -- Contactpage ( talk) 19:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC) boldly going where Domdeparis has gone before. Dloh cierekim 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

please don't hesitate to cite them here and add them to the article it would help to decide the outcome. Domdeparis ( talk) 21:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep Barely enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, the reason I would say keep is there is probably a lot of tv broadcasts that could be used as sources if they could be made available online. I know this argument is a little WP:CRYSTALy but the sources online seem to just be a shadow of the information on this person released to the public. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 19:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep I saw her on TV many times.-- Pediaorg ( talk) 19:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't mean to be rude but that has to be the lamest argument in an Afd discussion I have ever seen... Domdeparis ( talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Having seen someone on TV does not signify notability. Dloh cierekim 21:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep Enough reliable sources to justify notability, and also her work is significant enough to be covered in highly esteemed magazines/journals.-- U2t5h6c9 ( talk) 19:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)— U2t5h6c9 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

!votes struck as all were sockpuppets of the same account that created the page and have been blocked indefinately here. I hope this is appropriate Domdeparis ( talk) 15:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Being part of an 11 person team that wins a REGIONAL emmy is not at all a sign of notability. Nothing else here even comes remotely close. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD G5, article was written entirely by User:Mangoeater1000 socks. Sro23 ( talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Camp Jaycee

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

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

Local organization that fails the WP:AUD test of notability (organizations and companies). Searches of the usual Google types, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest did not return any significant coverage in independent reliable sources more than ten miles from the camp. (Note that there are camps of the same name elsewhere, such as New Jersey and Virginia, operated by other organizations.) -- Worldbruce ( talk) 04:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 27. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete You look at all those ref's and say, "oooo, notable," right? Only not. There is actually no assertion of significance in the article, and much of the content is promotional. There are several dead links that all point to the same source. There are sources connected to the subject, and a couple of local "human interest story" sources. Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 21:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Some of this content can be added about this to the ROTS article provided there are reliable sources backing it up. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 04:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise

The Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a section of script from the Star Wars film. WP:NOTPLOT is the closest reason I could find for deletion Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 17:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - WP:NOTPLOT is a valid reason for deletion. As another user said, it does seem to be a section of the script from Star Wars. XboxGamer 22408^{talk to me} 17:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete More appropriate for some Star Wars wiki. No encyclopedic content. Possibly a copyvio. Certainly unsourced, no indication of notability, several varieties of WP:not's. Dloh cierekim 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Looks like it was ripped straight from Wookiepedia. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 17:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment This is a meme. Not sure if it's gotten enough coverage to merit an article or not--I haven't really looked--but that's one reason why this exists. Might not hurt to merge to Revenge of the Sith, with a 'in popular culture' blurb explaining it. Jclemens ( talk) 02:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, here's some sources showing it's worth a merge: Cinemablend, Mashable, Daily Dot, UpRoxx, Moviepilot, EW.com... heck, I've halfway talked myself to Keep with these. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In universe plot. No sources to show the meme is significant beyond a reddit discussion. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Revenge of the Sith in an In Popular Culture section. The meme has some traction as noted above and that may merit a bullet point. Mytildebang ( talk) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There's honestly just nothing to merge. Most of the article is written in-universe, and there is not a single cited source in the entire article. If we were to add anything to the Revenge of the Sith article, it would have to be written anew. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Managing Successful Programmes

Managing Successful Programmes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable government program. No context, notability unlikely even if external sources were available South Nashua ( talk) 20:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete per nom. when youve seen the scene you've seen the scene. ditto. use it-- chad c mulligan. Er, I mean it's a non-notable government thing that doesn't even need a redirect. Just nothing to get a grip on. Dloh cierekim 21:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Réjean Gaudreault

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

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as the mayor of a city which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. A smalltown mayor could potentially still get into Wikipedia if he could be really well-sourced, per "who have received significant press coverage" in NPOL #2, but the referencing here isn't getting him there: it's based on just one routine piece of election-night coverage, and one piece in which he gives a brief soundbite about his ability to work across political party lines with the local MNA, in an article that isn't otherwise about him. There's simply not enough sourcing, or enough substance, here to deem him notable just for being the mayor of a town with a population of just 11K. Bearcat ( talk) 02:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete another small place mayor in Quebec. Did someone decide to create articles on every mayor in Quebec? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete NN. mentioned in a reminder to the media to attend an event per Gale. No significant coverage was found. Dloh cierekim 21:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Gio Matteo Natoli

Gio Matteo Natoli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This person does not appear to meet our notability requirements – one brief mention is all I've been able to find in modern sources. The page was created by globally-locked long-term nuisance editor Alec Smithson, who was/is obsessed with people named "Natoli". Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment I haven't come across Alec Smithson's other stuff, but this also has an article in the Portuguese version of Wikipedia. That one seems very well-sourced. I think this is probably notable but most sources will not be in the English language. MartinJones ( talk) 12:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Good catch, MartinJones, that's Alec Smithson for certain (note the Telecom Italia IP address)! But to be doubly sure, pinging Voceditenore – who is also familiar with this editor – for a second opinion. However well-sourced that page may look at first sight, you'll note that even with all the duplicated references and general bluster and obfuscation, there's exactly one reference there that's less than about 150 years old – the same Domenico Ligresti book that's the only ref in the stub I wrote here. I read Italian without difficulty, by the way, and have searched for sources in that language. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your detailed and convincing response, Justlettersandnumbers. MartinJones ( talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Perhaps these edits on Wikidata provide some useful cross-connections to other pages and projects which could be affected by related issues. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 03:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete S’io credesse che mia risposta fosse A persona che mai tornasse al mondo, . . . That is to say subject does not even have an inkling of significance let alone notability. Found nothing on Gale. Google books was unavailing. Maybe we should a establish a special CSD cat for article's creator. Dloh cierekim 21:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to An-225. seems to be the consensus. Andy, would you please do what's necessary. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Antonov An-325

Antonov An-325 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources to attest to notability. This information, with reliable sources, would be better of as a mention on the Antonov An-225 article. BilCat ( talk) 16:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and agree if a reliable source is found it can be a one liner in the An-225 article. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to An-225, with a further mention in HOTOL.

AIUI, this was a plan for around 6 months in early 1991 in the euphoria of post-Soviet cooperation before their collapse into non-working plumbing. The first plan was to resurrect HOTOL as the smaller Interim HOTOL with conventional (and Soviet) rocket engines, piggybacked from the back of an An-225. This had a payload of around 5 tons. Increasing the payload to 7 tons was considered necessary to make this a commercial launch vehicle, which increased the vehicle weight still further. However that then made the takeoff roll of the stacked aircraft too long for the available equatorial launch site airfields ( Kourou). Options were considered: longer flights from a longer field (but from where?), RATO (too high structural load on the pylons), an enlarged aircraft or the An-325, an An-225 (probably the #2 airframe that's still incomplete) with the inboard engines doubled up, as the lowest-cost option for greater thrust and a shortened takeoff roll.

Other than as a HOTOL launcher, there was no point to this aircraft as it was still just a STO(L) An-225, which no-one else needed.

Then the endemic HOTOL cold feet did for it, as did general Russian unrest.

As a supposed potential customer for this (and probably the people who'd broken it by asking for larger payloads), by 1993 it was a bit of a joke around ESA and Eutelsat, mostly for the French to taunt the British and their "Dan Dare spaceplane" vs. the French and their "Tintin" rockets. Then the Arianes blew up anyway and the French rocketeers went quiet. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete/Merge as above-- Petebutt ( talk) 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete/Merge as above-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Malik Streams Corporation

Malik Streams Corporation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible A7, definitely not notable. South Nashua ( talk) 14:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The references include only brief mentions. No in depth coverage. Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. -- Rogerx2 ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails corporate notability. Unfocused and promotional. Needs copy-edit (but copy-edit tag was removed without copy-edit). Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Malik Streams Production & Distribution, by same creating author, and probably same company, was previously speedied. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A search turned up some social websites, some self-promoting stuff, and some job advertisements. No independent coverage, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Antonio Walluschnig

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

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

Was prodded with the following rationale: "Unsourced, importance not asserted, could not find sources that cover the subject in any depth." Can't add much to this. GregorB ( talk) 11:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete unsourced article that does not assert notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There's no referencing here to get him over WP:GNG, and no claim of notability strong enough to grant him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrated GNG pass. I'm not familiar enough with Hungarian history to definitively assert that an improved notability claim and better referencing weren't even possible, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly show him to be notable, but nothing here as of right now is claiming or showing anything that could make this keepable. Bearcat ( talk) 16:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Philip Martin (Businessperson)

Philip Martin (Businessperson) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a businessman, with no claim of notability strong enough to grant him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, and nowhere close to the depth of sourcing required to clear WP:GNG. Of the four references cited here, #4 verifies tangential facts about his company while entirely failing to mention Martin's name at all in conjunction with it; #3 is a Q&A interview with Martin in which he answers deeply probing questions like "Are you a saver or a spender?" and "Do you haggle over prices?"; and #2 is a blurb in a newspaper's local news section for the area in which Martin lives. #1 is really the only source here that might actually count for something toward getting him past WP:GNG — it's paywalled, so I can't verify how substantive it is, but even if I give it the benefit of the doubt it takes more than just one GNG-eligible source to pass GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform or an alternative LinkedIn: the fact that a company has an article does not in and of itself automatically translate into a notability freebie for a separate article about its CEO in the absence of better sourcing than this, particularly when even the company's article (created by the same user) has been flagged as raising possible conflict of interest suspicions too. Bearcat ( talk) 14:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per nom. No evidence that meets WP:GNG, or related corporate or generic biographical criteria. (As noted, a single "pen pic" in the Business Post doesn't amount to evidence of notability). Further, beyond the "he was born and went to school" text in the "early life" section, the rest of the article is substantive replication of the text of the article on his company. At *best* therefore this should be merged/redirected (per WP:OVERLAP). But, my own recommendation is for deletion (not least given the WP:PROMO, WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and other tonal issues noted by the nom). Guliolopez ( talk) 16:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not much to add to the thorough nomination statement and the previous !vote. It is worth noting that the article's creator was recently blocked for undisclosed paid editing. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I also do not see how this person satisfies WP:GNG. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per WP:BARE. There is an in-depth piece and two more tangential pieces already cited in the article. Bearian ( talk) 02:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ajay sanchaniya

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

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

Completely lacking notability; was previously deleted via CSD. Re-creation is likely by the subject. Let's kill it via AfD so that any future articles can (if appropriate) be done by G4. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Yeah. No independent sources in article, and lead was copied from [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clear autobiography or resume. No coverage in WP:RS and sourced entirely to own site. Suggest salting, as this has been previously deleted three times under the correctly-capitalized name and rejected at REFUND multiple times. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete total lack of reliable sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no reliable sources. Bearian ( talk) 02:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - can't find reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

All The Ordinary Angels (Film)

All The Ordinary Angels (Film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The play seemed to get some attention, but the film seems very indie with little media coverage. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article has no reliable sources. Searching turned up nothing helpful. Fails WP:NFILM. Gab4gab ( talk) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment It was basically a student film, made at the British Youth Film Academy, and doesn't seem to have been released or received any coverage. The play is sort of notable, so it could be moved to All The Ordinary Angels (which would be the correct title even if it is kept). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment User:Colapeninsula WikiDan61 Any assistance in doing this change would be greatly apprieciated and i'll be happy to make such changes if concensus is reached on deletion of the film/ if you beleive the play is notable enough. Thank you all for your help. Film9 ( talk) 17:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete I have nominated Nicholas Connor (Film Director) and am co-nominating all of his films. This film will also be listed at that discussion. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  Struck comment. This is not a film directed by Connor -- he only served as Script Supervisor on the film. I still don't think the article meets WP:NF as there does not appear to be any significant coverage available. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 19:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 13:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

How did the Arctic iceberg form ?

How did the Arctic iceberg form ? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It's an essay. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 27. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Article was created 9 minutes prior to nomination, and had already been tagged with CSD. It's redundant and will indeed be deleted, but it's probably best to wait for the CSD rather than initiate a 7-day process. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hirsh Singh

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

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in the primaries for a forthcoming election. As always, this is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOL -- if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before being a candidate in the primaries, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. But this fails to demonstrate that he has the necessary preexisting notability; as written, it just consists of a single sentence stating that he exists, and is referenced entirely to routine coverage of his campaign announcement with no evidence of any coverage predating that. Bearcat ( talk) 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article is so weak it does not identifiy his party. Being a winner of a major party nomination might be enough to show notability with lots of coverage, being a contender for the nomination at this stage is not enough at all to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. @ Bearcat and Johnpacklambert: Found lots of sources. [6] [7] [8] even coverage from India [9] [10] . Passes WP:NPOL point 2, WP:POLOUTCOMES final point, and basic WP:GNG. And Johnpacklambert, he is a Republican.-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Coverage of a person's candidacy in a primary contest is simply expected to always exist for all candidates, so it falls under WP:ROUTINE, and does not assist in building a case for inclusion per WP:GNG except in the extremely rare instance that it explodes into something on the order of the international media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell. Being able to show just five pieces of coverage of a primary candidate's campaign is not evidence that their candidacy is more notable than the norm — especially since (a) PRNewsWire is not a reliable source, but a press release distribution platform, meaning that his own campaign was the author of self-published "coverage" in the instance of link #1, and (b) IndiaWest and NewsIndia Times are not newspapers in India, but Indian-American ethnic community newspapers in the United States. So the scope of coverage being shown here is already three counts less impressive than you've presented it as being, before we've even gotten into why South Jersey Today and Shore News Network aren't strong sources either. (Hint on that last part: think about the rather large difference between "substantive coverage" and "blurb".) And what John Pack Lambert said in his comment is true as well: Singh is a Republican, but this article as written fails to say that. Bearcat ( talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment None of this rises above routine coverage expected of anyone running in an election. People who do not have the party nomination who are running for governor are not notable. The fact that passing mention of him occurs in far off press does not change that it is not above routine coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Johnpacklambert This is reliable significant independent coverage. If this is routine for candidates for NJ Governor, maybe candidates for Governor should have some sort of intrinsic notability. But this passes GNG. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

By your method of counting virtually every candidate for political office would pass GNG. However the coverage in cases like this is short, episodic and routine at present, and just not enough to create a reliable article, plus it would lead us to creating way more articles than we could ever hope to adequately keep updated. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Every single candidate in any election would always pass GNG if all you had to show to get them over GNG just for being a candidate was a few pieces of campaign coverage. That's not how NPOL works, however: in very nearly all cases they must either win the office or already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway. The only way to get over GNG just on campaign coverage alone is to have that coverage explode to a volume far out of proportion what could be merely and routinely expected to exist for all candidates — like what happened to Christine O'Donnell — and the volume of coverage you've offered here is not approaching what it would take to pass that hurdle. Bearcat ( talk) 00:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Virtually no coverage before July 2016 - [11]. He is polling at 0%-1% in the Republican primary - so this isn't even a case of waiting for the election for a potential winner. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Tourism In Indore

Tourism In Indore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It's an travel guide. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Professional Careers in the United States

List of Professional Careers in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

An indiscriminate list of careers that does not meet WP:LISTN. No standard appears to apply for entry to the list. Triptothecottage ( talk) 12:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the title and capitalization make it unlikely for a redirect. Too broad for a list when we already have many lists of occupations (see lists of occupations). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and the potential to become an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this already existed (or at least did until 102 days ago) at bls.gov. Bearian ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Abhimanyu Yadav

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

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

Mostly seems famous for being the son of a politician, whose own Wikipedia page is sparse. The subject's official website is his Facebook page. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep He is notable, reliable sources exist. And he's also a socialite, thereby making him notable for another reason.-- Contactpage ( talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Struck per this development Dloh cierekim 15:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin ICYMI, not sure what to make of this. Dloh cierekim 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable youth leader of a state level party. This is not the thing notability is made of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Delete as I found no significant coverage. Without significant coverage, there is no claim to notability, as pointed out by John. There is another person by this name, sparsely covered. Would appreciate being pointed toward any significant coverage and would appreciate said coverage being added to the article. Dloh cierekim 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

PSNone of the sources in the article are in a language can read, making assessment difficult. Dloh cierekim 15:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Cape May (band)

Cape May (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Local band 2003-2007. Article unsourced since created in 2005. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and ProQuest found only a profile in a free arts & entertainment weekly, much of which is attributed to the band's MySpace page. No convincing evidence that the subject meets WP:BAND. Worldbruce ( talk) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The band existed, and that's about it. Note there's also The Cape May, a (notable) Canadian band. GregorB ( talk) 14:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure). " Pepper" @ 05:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Richmond Shepard

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

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

Last AfD closed as WP:NPASR. Shepard does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It needs proper investigation, as it has been tagged for notability for almost nine years. Boleyn ( talk) 19:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Below are some sources from cursory searches. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I believe that The Times and The New Yorker sources above are sufficient to meet WP:GNG (two articles in prominent publications centered on the person in question). His role in Noo Yawk Tawk ("conceived and directed") would go half way towards meeting WP:ENT, provided Noo Yawk Tawk itself is a notable show, which I must say does not appear fully certain. GregorB ( talk) 14:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per GregorB ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 19:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw nomination per above. Boleyn ( talk) 19:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per, Mahveotm and GregorB Article meets WP:GNG come on guys!! Celestina007 ( talk) 21:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Raju Rage

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

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

SPAM and GNG. First page of Google search appears to be not much more than self-promotion. South Nashua ( talk) 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

* Too soon. No significant exhibits or museum shows, monographs or collections. Netherzone ( talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Was leaning "keep" when I thought this was a dance style, it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It has a promotional angle. It could be acceptable with another third party review. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Robosoft Technologies

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

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

Typical PR.Non-notable startup. Winged Blades ^Godric 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Just noting that I've declined a CSD G4 nomination for this article as its content differs substantially from the version deleted in the previous AfD. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Wikipedia’s business coverage needs to get better at covering foreign businesses. For example, the website Techinasia.com published a substantial article on Robsoft Technologies. [12] The Alexa rank of Techinasia is 8,798 which means it is one of the most highly trafficked websites on the internet (if its Alexa ranking was not gamed). [13] By all appearances, the website techinasia.com looks like a quality content website. So it appears to be a reliable source. Wikipedia unfortunately has no article on Tech In Asia that I could readily find. The Alexa rank for another website which covers the company is also pretty high – namely vccircle.com. [14] And that website looks credible as well. That article can be found at: Mobile app developer Robosoft secures $3.7M in Series A funding from Kalaari Capital The company is mentioned in other reliable sources in the article too. Robsoft Technologies employs 600 people which is a fairly sizable company. So the main problem is that Wikipedia needs better coverage of business/tech websites in Asia and better coverage of Asian companies. Wikipedia has an article entitled Asian Century which has experts predicting Asia as a major economic/cultural force in the 21st century. It is time that Wikipedia better covers Asian business/tech. desmay ( talk) 01:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- promotional & no indications of significance or notability. For example, the level of funding is minuscule for this private company to be presumed notable. Available sourcing is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources referred to above and in the article are WP:PRIMARY and therefore do not establish notability. The Techinasia article referred to above is clearly an advertorial with the same tired formula including interviews and photos of the founder. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train ^talk 11:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Malhar Thakar

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

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

This article should be deleted as the subject is not notable per the WP:GNG. This is because the only sources included in the article are trivial mentions of the subject or unreliable (and not independent) sources. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable independent sources (such is IMDb). The article also fails WP:NACTOR as the person seems to have only preformed in one notable film and does not appear to meet "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Does seem to fail WP:NACTOR. All of the sources (save for two) are from the same source. No widespread coverage or apparent following. bojo | talk 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not enough to pass NACTOR Spiderone 12:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I am fairly familiar to Gujarati film industry and the region in general and have created a few pages related to it. I was hesitant about creating the page for the actor the same reasons mentioned here. It's a weak case of WP:TOOSOON, but at the same time the actor is fairly well-known and as can now be seen from the page multiple WP:RS support this. So I'd probably favour weak keep over delete. Would also invite Nizil Shah for his opinion. Coderzombie ( talk) 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I had rewritten Gujarati cinema article and I know Gujarati language. I have seen his film Chhello Divas which was blockbuster in Gujarat State. I have pointed out the same cases, to nominator, of Janki Bodiwala, his co-star in the said film and Aarohi Patel who is also Gujarati actress. These all are weak cases of WP:TOOSOON but Malhar Thakar is somewhat known face in the state now. (Disclaimer: He was my schoolmate but we studied in different classes. We had some mutual friends.) I noted that, after these articles are created, their official pages on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are "varified" (blue ticks). So these articles might have been created to serve this purpose. I may not vote here as it may be considered as WP:COI. :) Regards,-- Nizil ( talk) 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you, Coderzombie for inviting.-- Nizil ( talk) 13:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree with your point, that's why I think he might pass WP:GNG if not WP:NACTOR Coderzombie ( talk) 14:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

But those sources would not be useful as they are not independent. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

He has coverage in national newspapers (such as Times of India) as well as Gujarati newspapers, which are widely circulated and independent sources (such as Divya Bhaskar). Coderzombie ( talk) 16:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The actor is notable and is covered by numerous RS. Definitely not a viable candidate for deletion. RoCo ^(talk) 06:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: 3 of the films he played lead roles in have their articles on Wikipedia. The sources present in the article clearly indicate that he has received significant coverage for his acting. The Times of India, Divya Bhaskar and Sandesh are reliable newspapers and they cover the subject independently and for several stories. Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 12:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Tariq Ehsan Ghouri

Tariq Ehsan Ghouri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - couldn't locate sources that can establish the notability of the subject. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable. I would say "userfy", but Wikipedia is not a web host. Could see tagging for G-11 as it looks like CV of the creator. don't see a clear assertion of significance, so I see it as deletable under A7 as well. Dloh cierekim 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Obvious delete.-- Contactpage ( talk) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

struck per this development Dloh cierekim 15:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

YouPoundit

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

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

Most of the references are result of PR. No independent sources are found. Fails WP:COMPANY. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Bog-standard non-notable commerce web site. -- Calton | Talk 06:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete - Weak because I found hits, several of them actually. Quite a few are significant. However, these significant sources appear to either be advertising the company, or otherwise unreliable. This link is the most promising I could find, but it's only mentioned as part of an article which also discusses other startups, so it's not exactly significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 14:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Liyo

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

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

Non-notable product/company. Zero coverage in RS as required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE ( talk) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A WP:COI article on a recent new product. No evidence provided or found to indicate attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as this is a recently introduced product that has not yet gained enough coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH. — Stringy Acid ^talk 14:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Uralla Tigers

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

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

Amateur rugby league club with no claim to notability Mattlore ( talk) 09:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per my original CSD A7 rationale. Yashovardhan ( talk) 13:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete minor amateur sport team. LibStar ( talk) 07:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a poorly written stub with no indication of notability. Also, my understanding of the Australian league system is that this club plays at such a low level that Wikipedia notability guidelines are unlikely to be met anytime soon by this club. Skemcraig ( talk) 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Roy Bonds

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

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

Non-notable as a powerlifter, kickboxer or MMA fighter. Peter Rehse ( talk) 08:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can find no record of him fighting MMA at sherdog and there's definitely no indication of him meeting the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Checking to see if he was a notable weightlifter was a bit more difficult--especially since there's no indication of what championships he competed in or won. However, when I went through the records at USA Powerlifting ( [15]), I can not find his name mentioned at all. I looked especially carefully at events in 2000 and 2001 since that is the time period he reputedly set all these records and had so much success. To me, the burden of proof of notability has not been met. Papaursa ( talk) 17:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

PowerDirector

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

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

No individual notability as required by WP:GNG. Redirect attempt reverted by article creator. Exemplo347 ( talk) 08:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Per a WP:BEFORE source search, passes WP:GNG. See source examples below; more in addition to these are available. The article would benefit from copy editing to reduce intricate detail in the Version history section and to be expanded. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Plenty of coverage in RS (both online and published). Pavlor ( talk) 08:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Phacellodomus. with an added hatnote to point people toward The Thorn Birds. No masochistic bird text merged anywhere. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thornbird

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

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

Per WP:PTM, no exact matches. The mythological creature may be notable, but it does not have an article, so describing it is not useful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: the mythological bird may be no older than the novel. I've spent a bit of time Googling and can only find copies or paraphrases of McCullough's paragraph about the myth: Mccullough quote and then here and similar! There's a religious thornbird myth too, cropping up just the once, but it's really about the goldfinch. If anyone can find an account of a pre-McCullough thornbird myth, there should be an article. Otherwise, no need for dab page, just redirect to Phacellodomus with a hatnote there to The Thorn Birds (though the hatnote on that latter article is inadequate, needs expansion or a dab page ....!) Pam D 10:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - If it's truly notable, start with an article and then a DAB page. I don't believe it is notable. Glendoremus ( talk) 05:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Certainly "thornbirds" is a common term to refer to a class of birds. And The Thorn Birds was a blockbuster novel that was made into a TV series. I doubt that the novel and genus Phacellodomus are confused for one another very often, but if they are, it can be handled by hatnotes on each page. As for the self-impaling bird myth, I can find no trace of it in WP:RS, albeit this may because sources on "thornbird" and "thornbirds" are filled with sources about the novel, even when searching with keywords like "myth." I do, howeve, have a storng suspicion that this page is a sneaky kind of PROMO for youtube videos here: [ [16]]. Delete as serving no purpose. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Phacellodomus as common name for the species (genus really). MB 19:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, the term "thornbirds" should be redirected to Phacellodomus (bloodthirsty little buggers,) but not the text about the unsourced myth about suicidal mythological birds. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

E.M.Gregory, not sure I follow what you mean. You can't redirect "text", you redirect articles. Thornbirds currently redirects to Thornbird. I propose that both be changed to redirect to Phacellodomus. Singular and plural form to the same place. MB 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I agree. Sorry I worded it badly. I meant that the unsourced sentence asserting that there is a myth about a self-impaling thornbird should be deleted. Not added to Phacellodomus. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Kidney (disambiguation)

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

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

Was erroneously listed at MFD. Rationale was

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 03:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep but edit: the man with the surname, the Chinese medicine term, and the island are dab-page-worthy, so too much for a simple hatnote. Pam D 08:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Found another name-bearer. Pam D 08:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

And have replaced the PTMs by SAs. Pam D 08:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I've added more entries Boleyn ( talk) 12:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• From WP:PTM, since this didn't come out as a Wikilink during the [intended] nomination for deletion, with emphasis added: "To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article." Six of the 12 articles on the current page are for people whose last name is "Kidney", most of those non-notable people, and none of them is known as "Kidney" the way that Mr. Lincoln is routinely known as "Lincoln." The point here isn't to add more names or entries to the list, the point is to not HAVE a list if the things on it are not routinely referred to as the word or words in the article namespace. Is "Kidney Island" routinely called "Kidney"? If not, then it doesn't belong on this list. The Kidney (food) Wikilink just goes to a subsection of the existing article Kidney, which is kind of pointless. So between the non-notable entries which have no associated Wikipedia article, the various people and places that are almost certainly not known as "Kidney", and the redundant redirect, the only entry which remains at all viable here is the one for Kidney (Chinese medicine), and a single entry doesn't warrant an entire disambig page, it warrants a hatnote, yes? KDS4444 ( talk) 09:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• There are multiple people with surname "Kidney". They could be listed at Kidney (surname) ... which would then be a valid entry at Kidney (disambiguation) (which is not unreasonably long, even with the name-holders listed, so there seems no point in adding the extra layer of a separate surname page). I've always understood that geographic entities called "XYZ" plus a generic term such as "island", "mount", "river" etc are valid dab page entries for "XYZ", so that the Kidney Island entries are also valid. I also think there's a reasonable argument to include the food entry on the list, as the reader looking for "kidney" as food will not expect to find it only mentioned in an anatomy article. Pam D 22:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Okay, starting from the end there: the "Kidney as food" link does go to the article on the anatomical organ (a separate article could be produced on the organ as a food item, and we already have such a precedent in Liver (food), but no such article currently exists for the kidney... Wanna write one?). Me, I don't have a problem having "Kidney" mean both the organ and the food, as they really aren't different things, just different contexts, but this disambig page implies different topics, which they mostly (so far) are not, yes? Second, I agree that there are lots of precedents for using disambig pages for partial title matches like "Kidney Island"... I disagree that the precedents are a good thing or should be imitated, however, as that is not the purpose of a disambig page— the purpose is to give a heads-up to readers who might not know that several other "things" in the world are also known by the same name (usually not just a similar name, and not just a name with the name in it somewhere). The purpose isn't just to catalogue all of the titles that happen to partially match (though I understand that this is how it often appears!). If a person couldn't reasonably be expected to say, "I like kidney" and possibly mean both the food item as well as some famous artist named Mr. Kidney, the two of them don't belong on a disambig list because no one is going to mistake the one for the other in an encyclopedia and no one is going to type in the word "kidney" expecting to find the artist and then be confused when they get the organ. No one. In this sense, having a disamig page that mentions all of the possible permutations of article titles that happen to have the word "kidney" in them only adds to reader confusion. I know it feels right to add all of the partial title matches in here, but it doesn't help the reader and doesn't really do anything to move the project forward— it is a lateral move, which ends up being baggage we don't need. If we need it, then that need should be justified. I am still not seeing that here. Not yet, anyway. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

1. The reader looking for kidney as food lands on the page Kidney and finds that it is an anatomical page; no mention of culinary uses in the lead section; if they scroll down a long way they might get to the TOC and notice, a very long way down it, "Kidneys as food", but I think they are much more likely to click on the hatnote and be led to the dab page, from where a helpful link takes them to the section about "Kidneys as food". Yes, they've gone back to the page where they first landed, but they are now seeing the information they want. Job done, dab page has been useful. (Yes, might get around to creating the article some time - quite a few sources, but not an area of cuisine I'm particularly interested in myself).
2. We differ about the islands etc, but as you acknowledge yourself there are many precedents for such terms being (helpfully to my mind) listed on dab pages.
3. There are two people surnamed "Kidney" with WP articles: are you saying that they should not be made accessible to readers who only know their surname? Surname-holders are usually listed on dab pages, or if the dab page becomes too large then in a surname page. No need for the extra layer of complexity here, the dab page does the job nicely. But a hatnote at Kidney would struggle to cope with the two name-holders who have articles as well as the Chinese medicine concept (let alone the useful-to-readers "Kidneys as food").

In short the dab page is useful to readers and complies with our guidelines so Keep. Pam D 12:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Current version sufficient as DAB. MB 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks discography. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Chipmunks and The Chipettes: Born to Rock

The Chipmunks and The Chipettes: Born to Rock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources cited since April 2010 (7 years). DBZFan30 ( talk) 03:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks discography, fails WP:NALBUM. Article unsourced (per nom) and searching found no coverage. It is available used from Amazon. Gab4gab ( talk) 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks discography per above comment. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Deepak John J

Deepak John J (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable businessperson that fails WP:GNG. A software he created got highlighted in the Hindu, so not A7, but there does not appear to be any substantial coverage of him independent of his companies. I'm doubtful that his companies or software are notable, but even if they were WP:NOTINHERITED would apply. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as there's no evidence that this person passes WP:GNG. The software he created being highlighted in a couple of newspapers is a case of WP:BLP1E. — Stringy Acid ^talk 14:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete The software is not notable, and that is the only thing coming event close. On a side note, should this not actually be John J Deepak? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Johnpacklambert: South Asian naming conventions are complex, but from my (very basic) understanding, there are areas where the father's given name would be roughly the equivalent of the Western surname. I'm sure I'm mucking something up with that explanation, but its what all of his websites refer to him as, so I didn't see a reason to do a move. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The article says his father's name is Joseph J. I guess I am just not used to throwing an initial at the end of the name, except with some formulations of Spanish-names like Agricol Lozano H, where Lozano was his main last name, and the H is for Herrera, the secondary last name, and sometimes just used as an initial, especially when written for English speakers so they use the right last name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I couldn't find much in a source search (also without the initial at the end). Icewhiz ( talk) 19:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply