 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
180° (Gerardo album)
- 180° (Gerardo album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this per WP:NALBUM. SL93 ( talk) 22:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The AllMusic entry is a database entry and has no review. Google provided no additional RSes. The album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dirty 30
- Dirty 30 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as it has no sources, so does not meet WP:MOVIE. The tagging of this problem has been ignored. Alizaa2 ( talk) 22:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Released film with known actors; meets MOVIE just fine to me. Instead of tagging, find sources on your own so you don't have to tag in the first place. Nate • ( chatter) 03:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Per these sources - Common Sense Media, Los Angeles Times, Indie Wire, Variety, and Entertainent Tonight. Did you even bother to search for sources per WP:BEFORE? I'm just asking because I found these sources quickly. SL93 ( talk) 17:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Known actors, seems high profile enough. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
2016 Memorial Tournament
- 2016 Memorial Tournament ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We have a consensus not to create articles for single editions of tournaments, except in clearly defined cases (majors, WGCs, The Players, BMW PGA). pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Sprint International. pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nominator - unnecessary article. Tewapack ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This page is covered by: Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Assessment#Specific individual tournament pages which says "This type of page is restricted to the Major Championships (Men and Women), WGC events and a few of the most important other tournaments." and then gives the current list. There is a consensus in WP:GOLF that this list should only very reluctantly be extended and it doesn't seem to me that creating a page for the 2016 Memorial Tournament is the way forward. Useful content can be added to Memorial Tournament which covers all 41 events. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Zurich Classic of New Orleans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 Nabisco Championship Nigej ( talk) 07:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Alright I now know of the restrictions on tournament pages for the non-elite events. But since I believe we have articles for all of the elite tournaments for every year, would we think about expanding the list of tournaments approved for single-year articles? QatarStarsLeague ( talk) 18:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not true that we have all the articles. eg BMW PGA Championship, World Match Play Championship have many missing articles. Nigej ( talk) 08:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
DJ Diddy
- DJ Diddy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was dePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non notable musician. Sources are either not in-depth or unreliable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Indeed the references are either a name in a listing, primary sources, or social media sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable musician fails WP:MUSICBIO. FITINDIA 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 22:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Meets not one of the 12 criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are self-published, social media, or minor university radio stations. Has fewer Google search returns than there are on me. Not sure that's a criteria for deletion, per se, but it's certainly a measure of their non-notability that I can relate to. Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails MUSICBIO, GNG. South Nashua ( talk) 11:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Camila Perez
- Camila Perez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Far too little widespread media to satisfy WP:ENT. A preliminary news search showed much the same. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: All news sources available (even the blogs) on a Google News search reveal only passing mentions. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Waggie ( talk) 01:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Wisconsin's Badger State Spelling Bee
- Wisconsin's Badger State Spelling Bee ( | 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 of any notability. Such events at State level are rarely notable. No references. Previous PROD removed without any addition of sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete agreed, normally State spelling bees are not notable. Jay Jay What did I do? 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Some sources have now been added, but only as cites for individual winners of specific bees. There are no sources discussing the tournament itself, which are required to show notability. It's been around a long time, so maybe they exist, but in the end it's just a junior high school spelling bee.
- Note that the article starts off by stating that the event has been held annually since 1949, but the table of results starts in 1928. Very strange...
- Comment Note that the article is a duplicate of
The Badger State Spelling Bee, which has been prodded.
32.218.152.242 (
talk)
13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have de-prodded and redirected that page here. If this is kept, the redirect should be retained. If not, it can be speedied as redirect to a non-existent page. But as long as this article exists, it's a plausible redirect and shouldn't be deleted, yet alone PROD-ed. We should probably move this back over there, given Badger State Spelling Bee appears to be the official title, but that's not a deletion issue and we can discuss it if it's kept. Given the open AfD here, I felt it best to retain it here for now.
Smartyllama (
talk)
18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The duplicate articles are the result of a new editor abandoning his original creation and recreating and expanding it under a different name rather than moving it [1]. I agree that the original title "Badger State Spelling Bee" is the more appropriate one. Meters ( talk) 18:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have de-prodded and redirected that page here. If this is kept, the redirect should be retained. If not, it can be speedied as redirect to a non-existent page. But as long as this article exists, it's a plausible redirect and shouldn't be deleted, yet alone PROD-ed. We should probably move this back over there, given Badger State Spelling Bee appears to be the official title, but that's not a deletion issue and we can discuss it if it's kept. Given the open AfD here, I felt it best to retain it here for now.
Smartyllama (
talk)
18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Penicillin. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Penicillin desensitization
- Penicillin desensitization ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic might not meet notability guidelines and, in its current form, does not provide any useful information or sources. Difficult to merge/redirect into the main "Penicilin" page because of the lack of substantial content on the topic on either side 7804j ( talk) 21:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This page does not provide any meaningful content. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- merge to penicillin. It's actually a notable subject, covered in most textbooks of general medicine (Merck, etc.) , and for some reason is not in the main article. It ought to be, and we should be glad to have this gap ointed out to us. Better there than in a specific small article. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to penicillin, as above. 11:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- merge indeed. Jytdog ( talk) 18:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:CHEAP. Bearian ( talk) 01:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With two exceptions, all "keep" opinions are by new accounts and are discounted because of WP:COI / WP:SOCK concerns. Sandstein 14:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Markus Winter
- Markus Winter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. It's possible that his gallery might be notable, but apart from the New York Times reference in the article (which is only a passing mention of him and is actually more about his gallery than himself), the references in the article are mostly about what's in his gallery rather than him specifically, or press releases. I couldn't find enough significant coverage actually about him. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator; there is nothing substantial about the subject. What he sells may be notable, but he hasn't received significant critical attention himself. Mduvekot ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- 3 articles in Die Welt and 2 NYTs that discuss him and his work should be considered sufficient for GNG, no?
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- The NYT pieces are not substantially about him, though. One sentence in
[2]: "Markus Winter, the gallery’s owner, said that only a few of the show’s pieces have a clear provenance trail."
[3]] quotes him and has "Marcus Winter, who organized the show with Brian Kish of the Brian Kish Gallery on Greene Street in SoHo, said it was the first about the architect in America." and "It took Mr. Winter almost two years to put the show together."
Mduvekot (
talk)
21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the 2004 NYT mentions him in several places. Importantly, it acknowledges i.e. notes him as an art historian ("Mr. Winter, an art historian from Düsseldorf, Germany") and it frames him as an authority by reporting his assessment on a historical matter ("'Ulrich was one of the last modern designers who cared about craftsmanship,' Mr. Winter said."). The 2 Die Welt articles have even more detail. Taken as a whole, these sources frame Winter as a recognized authority in this area of art history.
Agricola44 (
talk)
16:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
- There is probably a legitimate case to be made that most of the claims in the article can be verified with as few as two or three of the sources. There is one piece in particular from Die Welt that has some biographical info that is not completely peripheral:
this. For me, it's a bit too thin, considering the promotional tone of the sources by Andrea Hilgenstock (all the Zeit articles are by her), the lack of any support for Winter's status as an expert by real scholars in a relevant field in stead of newspaper editors, and the sudden appearance of
User:Bennyflower whose very first contribution to Wikipedia was
this !vote and
User:Leonachtlicht, whose
second edit to Wikipedia was to contest the speedy deletion nomination. There's something
wrong with this article. It stretches my inclination to believe that all contributors to the article and this discussion are here to contribute in good faith without a
conflict of interest beyond its limits. Of course, I'd be happy to revert my assertion if a satisfactory explanation for their sudden involvement can be provided by the two editors I mentioned.
Mduvekot (
talk)
00:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's no question of the SPA-nature of those 2 accts – I even tagged one of them as such. However, the salient debate is not about them, but about Winter. And, I also agree that there's no scholarly proof that he's an expert, but his opinion/work/gallery has undeniably appeared in Germany's main national daily...and, to me, this seems to be a textbook case of what we mean by GNG. I am the first to admit that GNG is blatantly and widely misused nowadays to shoehorn into WP local arts people having no relevance beyond their own town, but I don't think we'd be guilty of that here with material from NYT & Die Welt. Best, Agricola44 ( talk) 01:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is probably a legitimate case to be made that most of the claims in the article can be verified with as few as two or three of the sources. There is one piece in particular from Die Welt that has some biographical info that is not completely peripheral:
this. For me, it's a bit too thin, considering the promotional tone of the sources by Andrea Hilgenstock (all the Zeit articles are by her), the lack of any support for Winter's status as an expert by real scholars in a relevant field in stead of newspaper editors, and the sudden appearance of
User:Bennyflower whose very first contribution to Wikipedia was
this !vote and
User:Leonachtlicht, whose
second edit to Wikipedia was to contest the speedy deletion nomination. There's something
wrong with this article. It stretches my inclination to believe that all contributors to the article and this discussion are here to contribute in good faith without a
conflict of interest beyond its limits. Of course, I'd be happy to revert my assertion if a satisfactory explanation for their sudden involvement can be provided by the two editors I mentioned.
Mduvekot (
talk)
00:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the 2004 NYT mentions him in several places. Importantly, it acknowledges i.e. notes him as an art historian ("Mr. Winter, an art historian from Düsseldorf, Germany") and it frames him as an authority by reporting his assessment on a historical matter ("'Ulrich was one of the last modern designers who cared about craftsmanship,' Mr. Winter said."). The 2 Die Welt articles have even more detail. Taken as a whole, these sources frame Winter as a recognized authority in this area of art history.
Agricola44 (
talk)
16:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
- The NYT pieces are not substantially about him, though. One sentence in
[2]: "Markus Winter, the gallery’s owner, said that only a few of the show’s pieces have a clear provenance trail."
[3]] quotes him and has "Marcus Winter, who organized the show with Brian Kish of the Brian Kish Gallery on Greene Street in SoHo, said it was the first about the architect in America." and "It took Mr. Winter almost two years to put the show together."
Mduvekot (
talk)
21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- 3 articles in Die Welt and 2 NYTs that discuss him and his work should be considered sufficient for GNG, no?
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep His publications are referred to by all four major auction houses dealing in design: Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips and Wright. His exhibitions are well reviewed not only by the New York Time but the Neue Zuericher Zeitung, Die Welt, Architectural Digest, Elle Decor and Vogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonachtlicht ( talk • contribs)
- Delete This seems like a promotional piece. Agree per nominator that subject is not non-notable. Netherzone ( talk) 03:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As a german design historian Markus Winter is of course a prominent person. He is one a few world wide leading experts in the field of pioneering design in the early 1900 to 1930ies in Germany and has made signifikant contributions to the relation and the worth of this design decade beside the German Bauhaus.He is currently working on the first documentation about that field and does a groundbreaking work for the understanding of the creative cultural forces in early 20th century Germany. It is not only an important part of design history, it is also a new view in cultural history and will alter the common view about how we looking to that very special period. So I prefer to hold the wikipedia source and think it also will be enhanced soon. NOT to be deleted! Bennyflower ( talk) 20:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- — Bennyflower ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete This is a promotional article that tried to fluff up a non-notable curator/historian/antiques dealer who has had a few passing mentions in good pubs. There simply isn't much there when you start scratching the surface, i.e. GNG is not satisfied for WP:Academic or any other criteria really. I had a closer look at the sources while converting four or five improper inline URLS to refs-- there is not much meat on these bones. Bennyflower and Leonachtlicht, the two keep votes, appear to be likely SPA's as well. 198.58.162.149 ( talk) 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Extensive piece in Die Welt and 2 NYT articles that discuss him and his work/gallery are enough for GNG. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree that the keep !votes are not based on any actual Wikipedia policies (although I think SPA might be a bit far), and that although there has been much mention of the NYT articles, they only discuss Winter in the context of his gallery / exhibitions. They are not about he himself. Thus they are great sources for his gallery, etc., but poor for the individual. I cannot find sufficient independent third-party reliable sources to indicate depth or persistence of coverage at this time: [4] (blogs and zines, excluding the passing mentions). Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
- Comment.
WP:NOTINHERITED is usually interpreted to mean that a person isn't notable just because a relative is notable. It can also mean that some facet of a person's work isn't notable just because the person is notable. However, you're arguing the reverse here, that Winter isn't notable, even though his work has been widely noted. A person is notable if they've done notable work. And, for the record, the 2 NYTs do discuss his work, the
Die Welt article discusses him and his work in detail, and there are at least 2 other
Die Welt articles in the bib that discuss him and his work. You have to go through some pretty good mental gymnastics to argue that this sort of sourcing does not satisfy GNG.
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
- It's also frequently used to argue against keeping articles of people who have merely collaborated with famous people without any in-depth coverage of their own work. In this case, that Markus Winter curated exhibitions with works from famous articles is not ipso facto proof of his notability. The fact that news organizations reported more on the famous artworks in the exhibitions and much less (if any) about Markus Winter's role, would militate against finding Winter notable in this case. Even if we accept that a curator is a creative professional and exhibitions are their works, it's unclear how Markus Winter would meet
WP:CREATIVE without making every single curator who managed to successfully assemble an exhibition by notable artists themselves notable. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not arguing his notability from a technical perspective. I'm pointing out the fact that several of the world's main news outlets, like NYT and Die Welt, have covered him, his work, his gallery, etc. on multiple occasions. This phenomenon, to have been noted, is indeed the crux of passing GNG. It's really that simple. You're arguing up a different tree, saying a book he wrote is not widely held and such. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Cheers. Agricola44 ( talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's also frequently used to argue against keeping articles of people who have merely collaborated with famous people without any in-depth coverage of their own work. In this case, that Markus Winter curated exhibitions with works from famous articles is not ipso facto proof of his notability. The fact that news organizations reported more on the famous artworks in the exhibitions and much less (if any) about Markus Winter's role, would militate against finding Winter notable in this case. Even if we accept that a curator is a creative professional and exhibitions are their works, it's unclear how Markus Winter would meet
WP:CREATIVE without making every single curator who managed to successfully assemble an exhibition by notable artists themselves notable. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment.
WP:NOTINHERITED is usually interpreted to mean that a person isn't notable just because a relative is notable. It can also mean that some facet of a person's work isn't notable just because the person is notable. However, you're arguing the reverse here, that Winter isn't notable, even though his work has been widely noted. A person is notable if they've done notable work. And, for the record, the 2 NYTs do discuss his work, the
Die Welt article discusses him and his work in detail, and there are at least 2 other
Die Welt articles in the bib that discuss him and his work. You have to go through some pretty good mental gymnastics to argue that this sort of sourcing does not satisfy GNG.
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
- Delete. Not convinced that the available sources demonstrate that Winter meets our notability guidelines. Also, using WorldCat, I was unable to find the first listed book, but the second one is held by three institutions [5], one of which, the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, literally holds every modern German book published. The only other book I found in WorldCat was held four times. This does not seem like the output of notable art historian.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as neither the subject nor his work meet notability criteria. Ifnord ( talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion has developed pretty far beyond just making assertions. I still can't see any convincing justification that multiple articles in 2 national dailies do not satisfy GNG. Agricola44 ( talk) 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. He is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture by architects such as Oskar Kaufmann, Fritz August Breuhaus and Leo Nachtlicht. Kidflave1 ( talk) 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Kidflave1 After your unsourced contribution to Markus Winter, your keep vote is your second contribution to Wikipedia. I have to wonder; how do you know that Winter "is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture". That doesn't appear in any independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot ( talk) 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Agricola44 - there has been significant coverage in good sources. Taken as a whole, Times, Digest, Welt, all add up. Ordinary editing can remove the puffery. Bearian ( talk) 14:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Josh Levenson
AfDs for this article:
- Josh Levenson ( | 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, quick Google search yields no results from independent sources regarding the subject. lovkal ( talk) 20:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Article has a prior discussion that resulted in speedy delete (instead of just delete, strangely). Per Nom. I agree. Reb1981 ( talk) 20:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
References
- Comment The one on page self-sourced. That alone does not prove notability. You would need a valid secondary independant source, too. The ones listed do not have any info to proved who the person is. Reb1981 ( talk) 21:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom; there is no way I can determine if the author at The Next Web is the person referred to in this article, which is proof of the lack of notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - no significant coverage in secondary sources. His Facebook, Twitter, and other accounts are primary sources and as such can not be used to indicate notability. It is relevant that the article has been speedy deleted before, for lack of credible claims of significance. -- bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - no secondary sources references, as above. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Triple Crown Tournament . -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
1993 British Isles Championship
- 1993 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These kind of leagues are not notable as no notable cricketer is playing in the league. Following seasons can't establish notability so I nominate them for deletion. Greenbörg (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- 1994 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1995 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1996 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1997 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1998 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1999 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2000 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2001 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Greenbörg (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Jack | talk page 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The notability of the players taking part (and there are a number of notable players who have appeared in some of the games e.g. Ian Stanger, George Salmond, Gavin Hamilton, Ed Joyce, Kyle McCallan) is not important, as WP:NOTINHERIT. Important thing is if there are sources available that show that the tournaments were considered notable in their own right. The main source seems to be Cricket Europe, but that is not enough for me. I'd merge the lot into Triple Crown Tournament Spike 'em ( talk) 20:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- All the players in this 1993 match have played first-class and List-A cricket, and in some cases ODIs. Spike 'em ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all the league isn't first-class or List A matches, so we don't need articles for every season. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into Triple Crown Tournament per Spike 'em. These competitions played a role in the development of cricket in Ireland and Scotland, and a level of coverage would be suitable, but definitely not as detailed as currently present. Harrias talk 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Articles not notable, and not apparently useful. Elliot321 ( talk) 16:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge all into Triple Crown Tournament per Spike 'em. All of these articles are short, including the Triple Crown Tournament parent article, and while these tournaments maybe not be notable as individual tournaments, the content should be merged into the parent article, which is not up for AFD.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge all into Triple Crown Tournament - agree with Spike'em and Patar's points. LAroboGuy ( talk) 16:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are we merging or are we deleting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Are we merging or are we deleting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment just a comment because I am ignorant of the subject, but I do not see that any of the delete comments give a reason why merge is not suitable. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I will be happy with merge. Greenbörg (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 14:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Stroma New Music Ensemble
- Stroma New Music Ensemble ( | 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, fails
WP:NBAND. The references do not back up any claims made
JMHamo (
talk) 20:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN
JMHamo (
talk)
14:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
-
JMHamo, could you please clarify what you mean by "the references do not back up any claims made"? The
version that you AfDed had three references:
- Watson, Chris (2000) is offline
- Rosiny, Claudia (Autumn 2013) is behind a paywall
- Hiekel, Jörn Peter; Utz, Christian (2016) is online, but in German
- I obviously don't know whether you have checked the first two sources; please say if you did. I'm wondering about your statement because the third source backs up exactly what is written in the article. I don't know whether you can read German, or bothered to transcribe the text into Google translate (I'm not aware that you can copy text from Google Books), but I can read it and I can tell you that it's fine. Given the above, what exactly do you mean by "the references do not back up any claims made"? Schwede 66 20:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as clearly notable. Meets criterion 6 of WP:NBAND apart from GNG. Schwede 66 20:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gulmarg#St Mary.27s Church. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
St. Mary's Church, Gulmarg
- St. Mary's Church, Gulmarg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed a few days ago. Couldn't find much on external references other than some passing glances in tourist guides. Not a part of List of Monuments of National Importance in Jammu and Kashmir or List of State Protected Monuments in Jammu and Kashmir or any other list of notable places I can find. Fails GNG and MAPOUTCOMES. South Nashua ( talk) 20:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete Having found a few more references and images online, this might have been a 'very weak keep'. However, I also found there is already a section on St Mary's Church in the article on Gulmarg itself, so I've now expanded that section, and see no reason for the church having an article of its own as it really isn't sufficiently notable, despite being an unusual building in an unusual location. Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Gulmarg per Nick Moyes. James ( talk/ contribs) 15:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's now anything left to merge - it's all been put into the Gulmarg article, so I'd still propose deletion which would result in no net loss of wikipedia content. Nick Moyes ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Convert to REdirect for reasons above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect, based on what's been explained here. -- do ncr am 23:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - not enough in article to salvage. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ek din Boston mein
- Ek din Boston mein ( | 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 for lack of available sources. - Mr X 20:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No references provided. Searching does not provide for any hits other than the Wikipedia page. Fails WP:GNG. Probably a vanity page created by some amateur filmmaker to promote their movie. Jupitus Smart 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Batman in film#Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher. Clear consensus not to have an article per WP:CFORK. Unclear whether to delete, merge or redirect. The redirect is a compromise, allowing mergers if anybody wants to. Sandstein 09:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Batman (1989–1997 film series)
- Batman (1989–1997 film series) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Should be redirected to the superior Batman in film article. WP:CONTENTFORK that should never have been created in the first place. Fair support for this option during a recent recent rm: Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)#Requested move 19 April 2017. Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. The article at present contains very little content that isn't present in either Batman in film or the individual film articles and there is very little evidence that sources identify this set of films as being a 'series' in itself. Scribolt ( talk) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any doubt that the four films in question form a discrete series, it's just that the topic is better covered elsewhere. --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, the key point is the content fork (hence as per nom). But even though they have in-universe continuity, the four films aren't always described as a discrete series; there's much more variance in the sources (the Burton Films, the Keaton films, the Schumacher films) unlike the Dark Knight Trilogy which has a well defined and recognised identity as a 'series'. This strengthens the delete rationale imo because there's less of a case for a standalone article on this set of films to exist at all (I think, anyway. I'll let more experienced people decide if I'm misunderstood the issues). Scribolt ( talk) 12:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any doubt that the four films in question form a discrete series, it's just that the topic is better covered elsewhere. --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, due to being a content fork. These films are already covered at the Batman in film article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- The split was apparently done in the second version of the page, claiming authority from
Talk:Batman_in_film#Split_into_multiple_articles. Invite
User:S Marshall the RfC closer to comment, again. I think that having three levels of articles: (1) Articles on each film; (2) Articles on sets of films; and (3) an article on all the films, is too much, and that (2) is the one to go. (3) might use some trimming. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
13:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- The split was made with the consensus that Batman in film shouldn't be significantly changed, and was supposed to facilitate expansion of the Batman (1989–1997 film series). I brought it up after nothing had been improved a few months after the split. Three years later, and this still hasn't been expanded. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for good summary collocation of unique stylistic elements to this series, or redirect. Hyperbolick ( talk) 13:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect/Delete All the content at this article is already covered at Batman in film and List of Batman films cast members. I don't really see how Batman (1989–1997 film series) can evolve into a distinct article that simply doesn't replicate Batman in film. Trimming content from that article would make it less comprehensive in its overview of the franchise. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - Per Betty Logan. Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep- ideally this should be a speedy procedural keep since the nominator is asking for redirection rather than deletion, and this is Articles for Deletion. But this series was a major media phenomenon, much like
The Dark Knight Trilogy, for those who are old enough to have memories stretching back longer than 15 years. A merger can be a separate discussion, but AfD is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
23:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is already so much overlap that a "merge" would basically equate to a "redirect" in this case.
Betty Logan (
talk)
00:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Neither a merge nor redirect is carried out via AfD and neither requires deletion. This is the completely wrong place.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
00:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. Not really. Or just no. It is a request for Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. These are common at AfD, always have been, and a consensus anywhere is a consensus and is all that is required to do something. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Neither a merge nor redirect is carried out via AfD and neither requires deletion. This is the completely wrong place.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
00:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is already so much overlap that a "merge" would basically equate to a "redirect" in this case.
Betty Logan (
talk)
00:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Batman_in_film#Tim_Burton.2FJoel_Schumacher per above. The redirect should target the section, not the entire article since this section covers the film series in question. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Batman in film per the above. That article already covers the topic better than this fork.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 20:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 20:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Betty's rationale. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, due to being a content fork, as above. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ward_(band)
AfDs for this article:
- Ward_(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)
not-notable F4Parks ( talk) 19:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
1. WARD music label is not 'major record label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)" Rather, "an independent electronica and post rock record label". Searches for LOCA records revealed no links other than the wikipedia page itself. Further, one of the members of WARD, David Meme (
/info/en/?search=David_Meme) appears to co-own the label. The label appears to only publish Meme's music and his band's, WARD.
2. Page references no links to any sources of reliable 3rd party coverage. Google searches for additional coverage found no alternate sources
3. As well, Google searches revealed no awards, nominations, no performances in television shows or notable films, or inclusion on any compilation album, etc.
4. Broken links with no alternate sources. Wikipedia is the main source material for both WARD and Loca Records.
- WARD's Label is referenced as Loca Records. The link included ( http://www.locarecords.com/) appears to point to x-rated site Ran Google search. Found no alternate website for Loca Records
- WARD's referenced band website ( http://www.wearericharddavid.com/) does not exist: Ran Google search. Found no alternate homepage website for WARD
- Only source exterior to Wikipedia for WARD is four songs listed on one Myspace page. https://myspace.com/wearericharddavid/music/songs
- Delete no evidence of any notability. No independent refs. Probably qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. Velella Velella Talk 20:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
— Hello, re: Velella's comment, should I mark this article for speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F4Parks ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete no evidence of any notability
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 L'appel du vide. Any relevant content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
High place phenomenon
- High place phenomenon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recently created article with a topic identical to the L'appel du vide article KarlPoppery ( talk) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to L'appel du vide. Why could this not have been done per WP:ATD instead of nominating the article for deletion? Smartyllama ( talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Right, I should have done that. KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect. Same topic. Alex Mattrick 21:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. L'appel du vide is more general than the High place phenomenon, which is specific to the urge to jump from a high place, and was coined by the researchers in the source cited. If there's a case for High place phenomenon to be redirected, then I think the same case could be made for L'appel du vide to be redirected to Intrusive thought, which the article describes as the ″French phrase used to refer to intrusive thoughts″. Taoswiki ( talk) 00:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Taoswiki ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
- Merge with L'appel du vide -- The Anome ( talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Euphony Official
- Euphony Official ( | 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 band; all references given, with the exception of the third, are just passing mentions. Not enough for WP:BAND. Creator also had an obvious WP:COI. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is claimed at
Joshua Rajan that this band placed in a music competition, that on its face would seem to meet
WP:BAND; should this still be deleted?(genuine question) I've suggested that page be redirected to this one.
331dot (
talk)
21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ 331dot: update: somebody on Josh's AfD entry pointed out the competition itself is not a notable one. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is claimed at
Joshua Rajan that this band placed in a music competition, that on its face would seem to meet
WP:BAND; should this still be deleted?(genuine question) I've suggested that page be redirected to this one.
331dot (
talk)
21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: For the reasons by proposer, as per my comment, and as per Joshua Rajan's AfD comment. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Wole Ojo
- Wole Ojo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stub article about a non-notable actor, created by a user who has done nothing but creating short articles about non-notable people, and !voting keep, with no policy-based reason, in AfD-discussions about similar articles created by similar single-purpose accounts, making me believe we're seeing paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: He has starred in multiple notable films including Maami, Brave (2014 film), Apartment 24, Entreat, Beyond Blood, Lasgidi Copsetc. Having multiple lead roles denotes passing WP:GNGACTOR. There are also reliable references on him online. Darreg ( talk) 20:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Subject passes WP:GNG. He has being extensively covered in reliable sources. Quick google search brings up 1, 2. He has been starred in major roles in several notable films.-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as Darreg rightly pointed out. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 22:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:GNGACTOR. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The subject passes WP:NACTOR and has had significant role in multiple films. The subject has also being nominated for notable accolades in their native country. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 16:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep because Darreg's comment makes me satisfied that this person meets WP:NACTOR. The nomination statement seems a bit harsh ;paid editing is a problem but doesn't mean that the article should be deleted, nor does the fact that the editor has made other similr articles. Amisom ( talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- KeepPasses WP:GNGACTOR as far as I can see. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Bae Yong Kwon
- Bae Yong Kwon ( | 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 MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete He's an MMA fighter with no top tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. Being a top featherweight prospect is insufficient to show notability since "prospect" implies he's not reached the top level yet. Papaursa ( talk) 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hopeless Fountain Kingdom. Kurykh ( talk) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour
- Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Few to no in depth references after cursory search. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. There was coverage of the original tour announcement [6] [7] [8] [9], but to satisfy the spirit of the WP:NTOUR guideline, as far as supporting a standalone article, I would prefer to see details of the tour's "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience". This is possible once the tour begins, so for now (at least), I think a redirect to the Hopeless Fountain Kingdom album article would be appropriate, or even a merge. gongshow talk 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @ Gongshow:, with respect to redirecting or merging the article, I could not agree with you more. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per Gongshow. It sounds like this one could potentially be a standalone eventually, but going back to "the mothership" is a good option for now. South Nashua ( talk) 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge with main page. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Marta Cunningham (director)
AfDs for this article:
- Marta Cunningham (director) ( | 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 and WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE; Of the 10 sources cited: 5 are Imdb (self published) 3 are published by Glamour about a film they made with her (so not independent) 1 is from Sundance institute announcing that she was chosen to follow one of their programs (not independent and not in-depth just a resume) and 1 is a list of nominees for a prize the she didn't win. The article creator is Sugarskypic which is the name of her production company. Clearly a promotional puff piece. Domdeparis ( talk) 08:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment new links have been added but they refer to her first documentary that was nominated for a number of awards notably 2 Emmys but won none of them. None of the links talk about the subject but rather the documentary. None of the sources are independent in-depth coverage of the subject and this article now reads even more like a resume than before. This does not help her to pass WP:CREATIVE I maintain my nomination fro deletion. Domdeparis ( talk) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete scanning the sources and my search, there are nominations for prizes and writing credits, not no major prizes won, the credits are for episodes in series except for one minor documentary film. Moreover, there do not seem to be any profiles or feature articles about her. Looks like it's just WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete per above. WP:Gale search found references to one of er moview, but not to her per se. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Yash!: and @ SwisterTwister: you have left comments on a draft article for this same subject saying that it is notable. I thought you might like to contribute to this afd discussion as it seems to be going the other way. Domdeparis ( talk) 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give pinged users a chance to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting to give pinged users a chance to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep because I think there are sufficient sources. Not sure what disqualifies the Glamour ones since it is an independent editorial outlet writing about not itself? Amisom ( talk) 14:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The glamour sources are talking about a film they commissioned to be made by her so it is an affiliated source. Domdeparis ( talk) 14:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Parallel Media Group
- Parallel Media Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. My concern was: Fails WP:CORP. Existing cited secondary coverage is an extremely brief passing comment in the telegraph. All I can find myself are other brief mentions about it's share price e.g. [10] [11] but those provide no information about the company.
Further sources were added but these still do not provide substantial in-depth coverage. SmartSE ( talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep (as a declaration, i contributed to this article) Not sure this is enough or not as a notable summary, or this news coverage by the independent regarding the business profile. Matthew_hk t c 20:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Content of previous business was added, a coverage of William Morris Fine Arts plc with 1098 words by The Financial Times in 1984 ("The recycling of Peterlee - Tim Dickson chronicles a wallpaper company's route to the USM"), was found in Factiva (i had an academic account linked to my study in university, which granted my access to paid content). Unfortunately free content in the web slander to recentism . Matthew_hk t c 16:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep the article from the Independent provided above is an acceptable reference. There are other references to the spat between the shareholders available also. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 18:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. It;'s notable overall. Sufficient size, sufficient sources. What we need to be sure of is not to also make articles for each of its compenents. Much better to have one comprehensive article.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Lucha Britannia
- Lucha Britannia ( | 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 wrestling promotion, relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Strong Keep. It is notable. It just needs better referencing. The article does not "depend" on primary sources. It includes them. It is notable as it is one of the first of its kind in the UK. It is unique in genre and has appeared on television and in print media many times. The secondary sources supporting the article are Time Out, Bizarre Magazine, BBC News. I could also add this: < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucha-britannia-mexicos-iconic-wrestling-lands-the-uk-to-entertain-the-crowds-10376345.html>. Can you help me improve it please. Aetheling1125 ( talk) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the following: Business Insider (2015) [12]. The Independent (2015) [13]. BBC News (2011) [14]. KBS Korean News (2011) [15]. Combined with the mentions in Time Out magazine dating back to 2007. Nikki♥ 311 21:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Adequately sourced. Not sure why this was relisted as consensus pretty clear. Amisom ( talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Zenuity
- Zenuity ( | 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 sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability. Seems to too soon also. BilCat ( talk) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing ++ 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: An article on a new joint venture, which is also covered in the article on one of the parties, at Autoliv#Autonomous_Driving. The brief Sydsvenskan item does not seem to go beyond coverage of the start-up. Perhaps one day this will prove to have been an important venture but at the moment I am not seeing sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 17:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Pat Astley
AfDs for this article:
- Pat Astley ( | 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 gng and pornbio Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 00:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Cathy Barry
AfDs for this article:
- Cathy Barry ( | 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 pornbio and gng. None of the sources pass muster - the times is about a surgeon and the list reaches no article to verify her inclusion in the text. Also, there is something deeply creepy about linking a porn performers online birth certificate as a source of of their real identity. Spartaz Humbug! 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 00:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Montanabw (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Pay-for-play awards fail the "well-known and significant" stamdard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 11:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Control (Uppermost album)
- Control (Uppermost album) ( | 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:NALBUM and GNG nothing found in a search that helps prove notability Domdeparis ( talk) 16:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Strongly fails WP:NALBUM MassiveYR ♠ 10:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Centre for the Humanities and Medicine
- Centre for the Humanities and Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of many sub-divisions of this university. Exactly one trivial mention news result. Admittedly 75 hits on scholar, but most/all seems to be "Dr. So and So, with The Centre..." or other passing mention.
Only claim I'm seeing in the current article is that it exists, but apparently that's sufficient not to A7. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
Timothyjosephwood: The significance is in that it is part of
The University of Hong Kong. I recall the blistering lecture some of us received in an AfD (an AfD, mind you) long ago for !voting to delete a program at some university, I forget which. The admin rejected our arguments and closed as "Keep". SO, yes, I detagged as asserting significance as part of the University of Hong Kong. Have not searched for sourcing or done a
WP:Before, so no !vote. Just explaining how it did not meet A7. Notably is not inherited, but significance is there.
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- With 4,000 degree granting institution in the US alone ( [16]), with about ~4% of the world population, so we could probably say 15 to 20 times that, or somewhere around 60,000-80,000 worldwide, I'm not seeing a terribly convincing argument that simply being affiliated with an university is a claim of much of anything other than existence. Nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing on the matter; just noting my disagreement. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. U Hong Kong is a very notable university, but not every program there is a notable program. Some will be, but there is no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, departments within a university are generally considered non-notable, unless they have "made significant contributions to their field". After doing some research on the topic, I (sadly) came to the conclusion that nothing suggested the Centre had achieved anything remarkable worthy of a standalone article, and certainly nothing about the centre's unique achievements was mentioned in the article. -- Dps04 ( talk) 13:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. New links have been added and this entry should be kept. This Center has developed a new way of thinking about the Humanities and Medicine – both in teaching and research – that is recognized globally. This is far more than the promotion of a ‘department’. -
Casper200008
12:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome! Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This passes the notability test and has sufficiently reliable sources, including an AHA publication, the South China Morning Post etc.
User:Matthewwells55 (
talk)
15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete the SPA editors have made the article worse under the policies and guidelines, not better. We now have promotional SYN along with the other problems.
Jytdog (
talk)
18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please comment on the article NOT the editors, this isn't the correct forum. You says SPA editors yet the article only has one editor so please check your facts as this is misleading. Also This is not a valid argument for deletion. 99.254.120.118 ( talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- promotional for the entity in question; belongs on the program's web site. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - no significant coverage (passing mentions don't suffice). Short mention in another article might be OK. Neutrality talk 17:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Kothari Brothers
- Kothari Brothers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable individuals. The article is about two persons who were killed by police firing during a political rally and are barely known beyond the incident (we don't even have an article for the incident in which they were killed). regentspark ( comment) 14:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:ONEEVENT. SL93 ( talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Per User:RegentsPark, whose point that "we don't even have an article for the incident in which they were killed," is well made. Tragedy, for sure, but, unfortunately the individuals are not notable for WP:Biography. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, the firing incident has not been written on Wikipedia as yet but I will create it after assembling proper data. It was important event in local and national political history. [1] [2]. The incident is finds mention in article on Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ayodhya_dispute&action=edit§ion=10. There are quite a few articles on Kothari brothers but they are in Hindi and hence can not be referenced here. (key words-Kothari Bandhu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zap guy ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
References
- Delete: As per nom. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dan Babic
- Dan Babic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Many sources which on closer look seem to boil down to very little actually. His role as host of "Design Genius" has received no attention in reliable independent sources, his role in the Degeneres show was the recipient of a cheque because he suffered from leukemia and only got a passing mention, and none of the other roles seem to have gotten more attention than this. The Geelong coast magazine is the only indepth source, but as a single, low quality source (an ad-packed local magazine) isn't sufficient. The image may need scrutiny as well, as this "March 2017 own work" photo is the same as the one used in the 2016 Geelong source.
Anyway, fails WP:BIO. Fram ( talk) 14:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I just verified all the sources. Great, honest article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portialloyd ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Note: I moved this comment to the bottom where it belongs. — KuyaBriBri Talk 00:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Portialloyd is the creator of this article and has edited nothing but Babic related things here. Fram ( talk) 06:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A non trivial handful but of essentially mostly minor references, does not meet WP:GNG. If anything WP:TOOSOON. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as NN. That the article is true, well-written, and nice do not matter. Bearian ( talk) 01:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Big Fish Theory
- Big Fish Theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, non-notable article, no track listing. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 13:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. A redirect until more content is added to the article would have been my preferred option. In the meantime, I have added sources to the article, and if the album indeed comes out in two days, then a wealth of additional coverage will surely become available along with the track listing. gongshow talk 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @ Gongshow:, to keep the article history, I would be on board with a redirect. In the mean time, would you be willing to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete We need a speedy category for upcoming albums that fail
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM like this one and assume that they are
WP:TOOSOON.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @
Walter Gorlitz:, @
Gongshow:, personally, I think that
speedy deletion gets overused, and that one week of discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. BTW, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Jax 0677: PRODs take one week and require no discussion. AfDs usually take longer. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @
Walter Gorlitz:, @
Gongshow:, personally, I think that
speedy deletion gets overused, and that one week of discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. BTW, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: If a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @ Another Believer:, in the interest of keeping the article history, I do not disagree. With that said, would you be so kind and comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep: The original complaints have been addressed, with a partial track listing added. Louis Waweru Talk 00:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)- Reply - @
Louis Waweru:, per
WP:FUTUREALBUM, "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". With that said, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677
- Thanks, @ Jax 0677:, did not know about that. I've removed my keep vote. Louis Waweru Talk 04:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @
Louis Waweru:, per
WP:FUTUREALBUM, "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". With that said, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677
( talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Bearian ( talk) 14:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Cantabria (Mesozoic island)
- Cantabria (Mesozoic island) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find evidence for the claims in this article. The major aspect of the geology around current Cantabria in the Mesozoic period seems to have been the Vasco-Cantabrian Basin or Basque-Cantabrian Basin. The rather passing mention in Walking with Dinosaurs seems insufficient to base an article on Fram ( talk) 13:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete this island seems to be a fictionalization, here is a wikia article for more details. The Cantabrian basin (or its hyphenates) may be notable, as could the Soba Reef Area of the basin. Smmurphy( Talk) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as unsupported in reliable sources. Geology_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula#Cantabrian_Zone covers this fairly nicely: "In the Permian and into the Mesozoic there was extension tectonics. The Permian Autunian succession – Viñon Formation formed when basins were created by downwards normal faulting." In addition to the reference cited for that article section, a number of geology texts and papers relate the history of the Cantabrian zone, Cantabrian orocline or Cantabrian arc as being formed in the Variscan orogeny, i.e. before the Mesozoic. See, e.g., Buckling an orogen: The Cantabrian Orocline and Oroclinical bending and evidence against the Pangea megashear: The Cantabria-Asturias arc (northern Spain). I can find no mention of a Cantabria in reliable geologic sources as a separate island when Laurasia separated from Gondwana in the Mesozoic. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 17:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - NN fictional place. Bearian ( talk) 01:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Chelsea Bond
- Chelsea Bond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stubified due to a total lack of sources to support the detailed content which appeared to be Original Research by someone close to her (possibly her agent), Bond's notability under either of her names fails to be asserted by Ghits and hence fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see adequate depth of independent coverage to build an article. VQuakr ( talk) 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
In-Depth Diagnostics
- In-Depth Diagnostics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a four month old non profit. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of independent sources. - Mr X 22:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable per nom. Ifnord ( talk) 15:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. non notable, like most new companies until proved otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Stephen Glass (photographer)
- Stephen Glass (photographer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find reliable, independent sources about this photographer. Fails WP:BIO. Fram ( talk) 14:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I haven't turned up anything about him. He has a few photo credits but no in-depth/reliable coverage. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Leeds Hornets HC 2011
- Leeds Hornets HC 2011 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find any reliable sources for this article. having played at the top level they ought to be notable but it seems they've only been noticed by the match reports on their opponents websites. The fact that the author has only been able to supply a team roster for the 2015-16 season, not the current season, speaks volumes. Regrettably, it's just not notable. Cabayi ( talk) 08:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Malo95 ( talk) 09:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Re-Define
- Re-Define ( | 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 organisation does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. I have checked the organisation is real, which it does appear to be, but it appears to more a vehicle of Sony Kapoor rather than an independent think tank that is normally seen. The article has not links to other Wikipedia. In summary, I proposed deletion of this article due to lack of notability. Seaweed ( talk) 12:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Having notable people on the advisory bard does not make any organization notable, and there;'s really nothing else. Just links to notable organizations and countries and its own publications. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4, article retains same problems from previous version. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Laura Dunn
AfDs for this article:
- Laura Dunn ( | 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 and WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACTOR a search turns up nothing notable. A correspondant (and not host as is claimed in the article) role in a TV show, a small role in a 1997 film a role in a series of TV commercials (we don't even know how many times she appeared I looked at about 20 from the period and she appeared in 1 about swingers where she said "thanks for inviting us"...) Domdeparis ( talk) 09:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - article was deleted last year as a result of an AfD discussion. Nothing has changed since then except a small role on a non-notable talking heads program. As nom states, based on searches fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 11:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per prior AFD result, and per WP:CSD G4. Also tagging as such for admin review Roberticus talk 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Venancio Cadle Gomani Jr.
- Venancio Cadle Gomani Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-created vanity article, fails WP:AUTHOR - works are self published - and WP:GNG Melcous ( talk) 09:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: As the nominator says, a vanity promotional article by a self-publisher. Sites such as BookReader invite self-interviews ("If you are an author and you are looking to get some free publicity for your book fill out our author interview." [17]) so cannot be considered as WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - we are a charity, not a free webhost for those who would profit from us. Bearian ( talk) 01:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Invalid rationale for deletion. Furthermore, assertions that an individual is not notable without some explanation is disruptive. I JethroBT drop me a line 18:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Sophie Labelle
- Sophie Labelle ( | 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 page and subject matter have been established by pediatric psychologists as "child abuse" and keeping this page around only gives a portal for those enabling this abusive practice of transgendering children who have no authority nor autonomy of their own. Also, this page is not notable or important to any facet of Wikipedia's goals or mission statement DalSheron ( talk) 08:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Rationale does not provide a legitimate reason for deletion under policy. Note also that there is currently a 4chan/pol/ campaign of harassment against the subject of the article, making this a possible bad faith nomination.
Yunshui
雲
水
15:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually it does, it has to be notable, and of sound judgement, advocating a certifiable act of child abuse is neither notable nor of sound judgement. There is no obectivity tobe found here. DalSheron ( talk) 15:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad-faith nomination. The subject does not support child abuse. Supporting trans children is not considered child abuse by the present-day medical establishment. This page has been continually subjected to attack campaigns from trans-antagonistic people, and this is just more of the same. Funcrunch ( talk) 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Passes GNG and I can confirm that I've heard about the harassment campaign mentioned by Yunshui in my own social media circles. In addition, what Funcrunch has said is true: supporting trans children provides a better outlook on their overall happiness & mental health and reduces suicide and homelessness for the transgendered population. [18] [19] [20]. I have no idea where DalSheron has found information that supporting trans kids is "abuse," but that claim is patently false and WP:FRINGE. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The page is a biography of a living person. The subject's personal views should not influence the relevance of the page itself, as long as the information about the subject conforms to standards. 62.64.208.155 ( talk) 18:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per my note below. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The opera corpus
- The opera corpus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redundant to List of important operas.
The two articles share identical scope (though not content: this one is an indiscriminately bloated and completely unreferenced assortment, the other one is a Featured List). I see no prospects for a merger so this one has to go. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a valuable list of opera composers and their most important operas. The scope, format, order, content, and text of List of important operas is completely and utterly different, as even a passing glance reveals. Softlavender ( talk) 09:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a very useful list, which should be kept under its original name,
The opera corpus.
Cote d'Azur (
talk)
09:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I've returned the article to its original title, as it had been moved to an inaccurate title without discussion. See the thread I started on the article's talk page. Softlavender ( talk) 10:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – This list is not redundant. It is more inclusive than the List of important operas. It is a helpful encyclopedic compendium/almanac of a wide range of operas, and its red links are useful to identify missing articles. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: This list is currently listed here, at AfD, and it's PRODed at the same time; shouldn't it be one or the other? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- It wasn't PRODed, it was SPEEDYed. The way to contest a CSD is to click the link in the template (which I have already done, but more people can do it as well I suppose). Softlavender ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as a redirect to list of important operas. If these were separate lists, they had been merged before I got here. So I moved it all to list of important operas. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Qaqortoq Hostel
- Qaqortoq Hostel ( | 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. found no significant coverage LibStar ( talk) 07:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Hotels are generally not notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Raja Mishra (Filmmaker)
- Raja Mishra (Filmmaker) ( | 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 WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete- Looks like a hoax the source mentioned is for Rohan Mehra and not the subject.Cant find a single source on the subject. FITINDIA 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete (CSD G3): The "references" were repurposed from someone else's career, and the article text is copied /adapted from Rohan Mehra without attribution. Wannabe, but isn't notable. I've flagged CSD G3. AllyD ( talk) 13:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Jason Stewart (actor)
- Jason Stewart (actor) ( | 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 meat GNG or WP:SIGCOV, the only source cited within the article text is not significant coverage and arguably primary as it was published by his employer at the time. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR either, his roles were bit parts at best and not particularly significant. Roberticus talk 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. He's a guy with a job in broadcasting who's also acted a little. Neither qualify him for an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. For now anyways, but I won't be surprised if his article could stand overhere in the future. Antonio the love of your life Martin ( what's that? 00:14, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Piano rock
AfDs for this article:
- Piano 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, made-up genre. Two consensuses were formed to delete the article since 2009, but this never happened for some reason. The third one, from 2015, was tagged as "no consensus". Its rationales for "Keep" noted that the genre is sometimes mentioned by AllMusic and Rolling Stone, but that does not automatically cement its notability, per
WP:SIGCOV (Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention
).
An article could be made about the general subject of pianos in rock music (a la Electronics in rock music), but as far as a dedicated "piano rock" category goes, it's about as much a thing as "banjo rock" or "trombone rock". -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - A correction to the nomination statement. The article was deleted after the first two AfDs. It was then deleted twice more as a recreation. RHaworth restored it and then it went to the third AfD and was kept as no consensus. See [ logs]. ~ GB fan 22:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -Well now. It seems to me that there is quite good evidence that this is a thing. It is certainly mentioned in news articles, in books and academic studies. There are various student books for learning piano rock songs. The question for me then is whether this is sufficiently distinct as a subset of rock to deserve it's own page. I'm not sure it is. At best it is a simple wiktionary definition - there doesn't appear to me to be any evidence of significant coverage of piano rock which would show it was notable in its own right. I'm going to hold off from !voting to see if anyone's keep arguments are persuasive, but that's how I see it at the moment. JMWt ( talk) 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete with apologies to Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino and Elton John. All I'm seeing is a bunch of lists and forum comments, nothing that elevates this to a recognized subgenre. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It has never been shown to be a genre. It is a term that gets used to describe rock music that prominently features piano, so there will be GHits, but the artists described as 'piano rock' are a pretty diverse lot. -- Michig ( talk) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the WP:OR concerns. Moreover, we happen to have a policy about this type of content, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. In view of this, the "keep" opinions in the vein of: it's interesting, popular, etc., must be given less weight. That other similar articles may exist is not a reason not to apply our policies to this one (and is even a reason to suppress it insofar as these articles overlap, per WP:CFORK). Sandstein 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ancestry charts of the current British royal family
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just seems to be someone's collection of whatever genealogical connections interest them. Poorly sourced, with no unifying principle, criteria for inclusion, reason for being. Agricolae ( talk) 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It is what the nom has described. Srnec ( talk) 23:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Delete or Merge or something - There are dozens (ok, maybe just a dozen) of these:
- British monarchs' family tree
- Genealogy of the British royal family
- House of Windsor
- English monarchs family tree
- English and British monarchs family tree (simple)
- Alternative successions of the English crown
- Line of succession to the British throne
- Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror
- Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Descent from the Franks)
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Irish connection)
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)
- Ancestry of Elizabeth II
- I'm all for multiple perspectives (within a single article or across multiple articles), but I'm not sure all of these are necessary. I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy of this AfD, perhaps people over there have some thoughts. Smmurphy( Talk) 20:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. Just . . . . wow! A lot of these are NOR violations, and in particular, they select a specific aspect that the page creator thought was interesting, and present any old line of descent. As an exmple, the 'descent from Franks' page selects one of what must be over a million different ways you can trace back from the current kings to Charlemagne, every one equally valid. Many of them amount to 'hey, look at this interesting line of descent I stumbled across'. I am not saying that they aren't correct, although the sourcing is abysmal, largely depending on user-submitted on-line trees. Its just that the fact that such lines exists is not in and of itself notable. (WP:NOTGENEALOGY - "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.") Agricolae ( talk) 21:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - entirely relevant and notable today. The Internet was all abuzz last night because Prince Philip might have died. Bearian ( talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- So because people care if someone might have died, an arbitrary selection of charts about his wife's distant ancestry is notable? Please provide the policy that would support that. Agricolae ( talk) 03:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. This does seem to be in violation of Wikipedia:Notability, i.e. although material may be verifiable, we should avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. I think 'Ancestry charts of the current British royal family' can be redirected to one of the other charts, and the three split-off articles (Franks, Irish and Saxon) deleted. Celia Homeford ( talk) 09:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- While the complaints are similar, the rationale for deleting Frank, Irish & Saxon would be different - as opposed to this one, which is just 'charts documenting connections I think are interesting' they each have a coherent guiding principle, just a non-notable arbitrary one, so rather than adding them to this proposal I will wait for it to play out and be sure there is a concensus for getting rid of any royal genealogy pages before initiating a new proposal for them.
Agricolae (
talk)
15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let me add that this is a cancer not only affecting British royalty. Why do we need:
- The motivation for a lot of these seems to be 'because we can'.
Agricolae (
talk)
20:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- 'Because we can' is a great motivation to do things on wikipedia - what can have an article is only bounded by a few policies and guidelines. In the case of the Medici, the British royals, and many other trees I'm sure, AfD feels like TNT to me; pruning, merging, and reorganizing seems more reasonable if more difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if you but mergeto templates on a number of these, you would either get a useful discussion or none at all.
Smmurphy(
Talk)
21:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest that 'because we can' make a tree tracing Queen Elizabeth to Brian Boru is a poor motivation for a new page that shows one of thousands of possible lines, and that there may well be nothing in such a page worth saving.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Here is a comparison of the page-views of 10 of these pages: [21]. Five of them get hardly any views, have hardly any edits, etc. I agree with Bearian that the topic is relevant and notable. In spite of this, I think some improvement in organization would be useful. I think that this page and its three subpages should be deleted, as well as Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton and maybe Ancestry of Elizabeth II. The three subpages of this tree could be added to this AfD or submitted as a group, but the others should probably have their own. Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror and Family tree of English and British monarchs mostly duplicate each other and could be merged. English monarchs' family tree and British monarchs' family tree could also be merged, but perhaps that would be politically insensitive, I do not know. I'll wait a bit to see if any discussion here or there makes different/better suggestions; and will plan to propose merges on those pages over the coming weeks. I'll try to add citations where possible/necessary. The Medici ones are different enough that I will let them be. Smmurphy( Talk) 23:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest that 'because we can' make a tree tracing Queen Elizabeth to Brian Boru is a poor motivation for a new page that shows one of thousands of possible lines, and that there may well be nothing in such a page worth saving.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- 'Because we can' is a great motivation to do things on wikipedia - what can have an article is only bounded by a few policies and guidelines. In the case of the Medici, the British royals, and many other trees I'm sure, AfD feels like TNT to me; pruning, merging, and reorganizing seems more reasonable if more difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if you but mergeto templates on a number of these, you would either get a useful discussion or none at all.
Smmurphy(
Talk)
21:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- While the complaints are similar, the rationale for deleting Frank, Irish & Saxon would be different - as opposed to this one, which is just 'charts documenting connections I think are interesting' they each have a coherent guiding principle, just a non-notable arbitrary one, so rather than adding them to this proposal I will wait for it to play out and be sure there is a concensus for getting rid of any royal genealogy pages before initiating a new proposal for them.
Agricolae (
talk)
15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I had no idea this was so out of hand. I'd support PRODing Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton, Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Descent from the Franks), Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Irish connection) and Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent) if the current AFD goes through. The others probably require AFDs. Srnec ( talk) 18:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with other royal ancestry articles. We probably have rather too many of these, but because the claim to the throne is by descent we probably do need a few articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Though we have discussed them more broadly this is not a proposal to eliminate all royal genealogies. It is about one specific page, a page that has absolutely nothing to do with any claim to a throne. It has a chart showing descent from Vikings, a chart showing how the male royal consorts are related, descent from a Byzantine emperor and a relationship to Count Dracula, none of which have any relevance to the right to rule Great Britain. Agricolae ( talk) 16:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The reason there are so many articles (and books and forums) on royal lineage is that 1. the subjects of the genealogies -- rulers of states and peoples -- are inherently notable 2. genealogy continues to be a key factor, often determinate, in who reigns, and who are significant competitors for thrones -- competitions that constitute much of recorded, notable history 3. they are probably the best documented human lineages available to us, and 4. readers want to know the most complete and accurate lines of descent and, often, how they correlate through royal intermarriage, such alliances also often being historically notable. FactStraight ( talk) 18:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- You speak in generalities about royal genealogies, but again, this proposal is about one specific page. Yes, royal people are inherently notable, but the genealogical connections between two royal people chosen at random, who lived at different times in distant places are not inherently notable. This page is just a magpie collection of any pedigrees that interested the compiler. Every one of the tables shown is entirely unreferenced, the product of Original Research by the editor who made the charts. This is genealogical Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, with no indication of why any of the lines of descent shown being noteworthy. They have nothing to do with each other - they don't trace to the same people, they don't trace from the same people. There are no succession claims, competing or otherwise, being documented through these descents. We have have royal genealogy pages more targeted on the noteworthy issues of succession, but this specific page, which is basically 'hey, look at these interesting things I found', has no basis for notability. This argument that because some royal genealogies can be helpful, any genealogy linking any randomly chosen royals must be notable is unsupportable. Agricolae ( talk) 19:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as unreliably-sourced OR and the like. Potentially very interesting unreliably-sourced OR which someone has spent considerable time getting into the present format, but the OR and the unreliable sourcing trump the time, effort and interest any day of the week. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Delete The ancestry of the British royal family before Sophia of Hanover is not relevant for any legal matters. The article as written is clearly not encyclopedic; the ancestries listed are purely arbitrary. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I wonder how expert is the nom in the subject? It seems to me that an ancestry expert would want to fix and improve this article rather than delete it based upon what "seems to be someone's collection of whatever genealogical connections interest them". Genealogy is a growingly popular subject, and British as well as other royal ancestries have been popular subjects for a very long time. It makes no sense for Wikipedia to abandon this subject. Ancestry of Elizabeth II has been getting nearly 900 page views daily, and the nominated article gets more than 200 page views every day. If experts were to work on these articles, then they could be modernized and made more readable and more sensible, even to non-experts. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 23:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is about this specific article, rather than genealogy in particular, or the ancestries of given royals in particular. Nobody's suggesting Wikipedia "abandon this subject".
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an
00:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- My given opinion and rationale is in regard to the article under nomination. The subject of that article is the charted ancestry of the current British royal family. That is the subject that should not be abandoned. Hope that makes it clearer.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Clearer in relation to what you said, yes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- My given opinion and rationale is in regard to the article under nomination. The subject of that article is the charted ancestry of the current British royal family. That is the subject that should not be abandoned. Hope that makes it clearer.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Who knows, the nom may be more expert than you think (or they may not be, since the anonymity of Wikipedia lets anyone claim to be anything - is this really relevant?). This is not a proposal to abandon the entire subject of Wikipedia royal genealogy, just to ditch a single ill-conceived random collection of royal genealogy trivia. This one page is what we are talking about. 'Ancestry charts of the current British royal family' may be a good Category, but it is not a good topic for a page, because it isn't about anything specific, and will invariably accumulate the kind of random assortment that appears on this page, all subject to the whims of any editor that finds a particular genealogical conection to be fascinating.
Agricolae (
talk)
00:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting take, and it was interesting the first time you said it. What is so bad about an editor writing an article about a subject that fascinates them? I think we should probably be assessing the notability of this article that was split from another article five years ago that was created in 2005. No, it makes no sense to turn our backs on this article when all it needs is the help of an expert in ancestry and genealogy. Only then can we really know if any so-called "whims" were amateurish.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with an editor writing an article about a subject that fascinates them - a vast amount of the articles here have doubtless started that way. If the editor writes an article that's unsourced, unreliably-sourced, unencyclopedic and full of original research, that's where the problem arises. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Well, for starters, 'what fascinates an editor' is not the standard that Wikipedia uses as its basis for articles. More importantly, though, you are misrepresenting what I said. That someone might create an article on 'pedigrees that interest me' is a problem, but not what I was referring to. It is the content that is the problem: why does an article on 'pedigrees that interest me' include such an unfocussed collection of material? Because the topic itself is unfocussed. It is an umbrella that would encompass any genealogical tree connecting anyone to anyone, as long as it had a British royal in it. Thus its content is driven entirely by the whims of editors. This is not something an 'expert' can fix, because it's like asking an expert to fix an article entitled 'My Favorate Pedigrees' - what is and is not appropriate, what does and does not belong, is entirely subjective. An expert could fully document every tree there, and it would still be a whimsical collection of whatever trees got put there. Why is the desent of Elizabeth from Rollo the viking more noteworthy than the descent of Elizabeth from Anlaf Cuaran the viking? arbitrary. Why is this specific descent tracing Elizabeth from Rollo the viking noteworthy, while the thousands of other lines also tracing Ellizabeth from Rollo the viking are not? arbitrary. Why trace William III of England to John of Gaunt through Mary Queen of Scots rather than through Lord Darnley? arbitrary. Why not trace through Elizabeth of York and Edward IV, then to John of Gaunt, or his brother Edmund, or his brother Lionel? arbitrary. Why trace from Isaac Angelos and not any of the other Byzantine Emperors from whom Elizabeth descends? arbitrary. Why trace from the Byzantine Emperor and not the Emperor of all Hispania? arbitrary. Why does it trace Maria Henrietta of France from the Byzantine emperor though Medici, Germany and Castile rather than through France, Navarre and France, or through France, Savoy, Burgundy and Flanders to get to Brabant, also on the other side of the chart? arbitrary. Why is being cousin of Vlad the Impaler shown, but not being related to Ivan the Terrible? arbitrary. Why it traces from certain people is arbitrary, why it traces to certain people is arbitrary, why it traces through certain people is arbitrary. It's all arbitrary, and there is no fixing it because the page is about a Category of things, with no governing criteria other than that it should be a genealogical chart and that it should have something to do with the British royal family.
Agricolae (
talk)
02:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following you on this, mostly because of the contradictions. For example, you keep coming down on those who want to keep this article with "This is just about this one article," when it was you who didn't argue with Smmurphy's long list of related articles, and it was you who brought up the Medicis. It seems that every part of your argument is about how this article is in disarray, which is a reason to improve, not to delete, and you don't seem to think that the notability of the subject is in question. Can you be specific about precisely which of the
14 reasons for deletion you think apply in this case? Then maybe I can put that together with the other things you've said and better understand your reasoning.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- An ancestry chart of the current British royal family is what is shown at the other articles. Hence it should be merged or renamed. We shouldn't have articles that duplicate existing topics or articles where the content does not reflect the information that a reader will be looking for at a page with that name. That name should instead redirect to a pertinent page. This article purports to show the important descents of the British royal family, but it fails to do that by instead showing their descent from Agnes of the Palatinate and Margaret of Bavaria when it should be directing readers to their descent from previous British monarchs, which is clearly relevant and important. Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following you on this, mostly because of the contradictions. For example, you keep coming down on those who want to keep this article with "This is just about this one article," when it was you who didn't argue with Smmurphy's long list of related articles, and it was you who brought up the Medicis. It seems that every part of your argument is about how this article is in disarray, which is a reason to improve, not to delete, and you don't seem to think that the notability of the subject is in question. Can you be specific about precisely which of the
14 reasons for deletion you think apply in this case? Then maybe I can put that together with the other things you've said and better understand your reasoning.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting take, and it was interesting the first time you said it. What is so bad about an editor writing an article about a subject that fascinates them? I think we should probably be assessing the notability of this article that was split from another article five years ago that was created in 2005. No, it makes no sense to turn our backs on this article when all it needs is the help of an expert in ancestry and genealogy. Only then can we really know if any so-called "whims" were amateurish.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is about this specific article, rather than genealogy in particular, or the ancestries of given royals in particular. Nobody's suggesting Wikipedia "abandon this subject".
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an
00:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Two different conversations have gone on here. Conversation 1 is that this page should be deleted. Conversation 2 is that this page is part of a larger problem of duplication, overlap, content forking, original research, etc., among the royal genealogies on Wikipedia as a whole. There is no contradiction between these two conversations - this page is abysmal and needs deleted, the larger area needs cleaning up. I admit that the introduction of the second conversation perhaps muddied the waters, but, say what you will about the larger topic area, this proposal is still about deleting one specific article, not deleting all royal genealogy on Wikipedia, so generic arguments about royal ancestry as a whole fascinating people don't really address the question.
- I do challenge the notability of this article. Let me try an analogy, a hypothetical article 'Pictures of the British royal family' - we use pictures to illustrate articles on notable members of the royal family, but the topic itself is not independently notable. Were it to be made very specific, say 'Official portrature of Queen Elizabeth II over time', I think that would represent a defensible namespace, not only clearly defined but I have seen studies directly addressing this specific topic, but 'Pictures of the British royal family' is too nebulous, too much a catch-all topic that will invariably turn into a random collection of whatever pictures editors want to include, because to fit the topic a picture can be of anything, as long as it has a Brit royal somewhere in it. Further, you can't 'fix' 'Pictures of the British royal family' because the topic is so vague that there are no non-arbitrary criteria for excluding one and including another royal-containing picture. The same applies to 'Ancestry charts of the British royal family' - that authors have used ancestry charts to illustrate specific aspects of the British royals does not make the generic category of Brit royal ancestry charts itself a notable topic, and the result has been as would be expected, an unfixable collection of whatever. Specifically, I think the article fails: WP:DEL5, DEL8, and DEL14 (and depending on how the rule is interpreted, DEL6, in so much as the unfocussed topic invites, almost demands, WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH). Agricolae ( talk) 14:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saru Lock. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Naoki Serizawa
- Naoki Serizawa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Manga artist known mainly for Saru Lock (22 volumes), has some manga titles for Resident Evil (Biohazard/heavenly island) and Resident Evil: The Marhawa Desire, but is that enough to keep around? I looked at Resident_Evil#Comics but do not see it listed. Has been tagged for notability since 2011, and outside of Resident Evil, not much improvement on the article. JA Wikipedia isn't promising either, barely a stub there with just a short list of works. MADB isn't showing anything for his anime either, so it must be all manga artist stuff. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Saru Lock as a possible search term. Such a redirect is cheap, in this case. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 22:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - I have a vague feeling that deletion may be the wiser choice in this case, but after considerable reflection I can't come up with any defensible reason why. The only concern I can put forth is that Saru Lock may not be the most appropriate redirect target, but if so then it's easy enough for someone to change it later.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 15:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. The opinion by Seraphim System must be discounted because longstanding practice is that Wikipedias are not inherently any more notable than any other websites. Sandstein 09:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Chechen Wikipedia
- Chechen Wikipedia ( | 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 of notability. f e minist 10:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. f e minist 10:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. f e minist 10:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias ( WP:ATD-R). Per source searches, does not meet WP:N. North America 1000 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is notable, I don't think we need to establish independent notability for every foreign language edition of Wikipedia. Some of our userbox templates automatically link to foreign language wikipedia pages - I think the assumption is they share the notability of Wikipedia. Seraphim System ( talk) 03:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Tadap (1990 film)
- Tadap (1990 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)
No claims of further release and clearly fails WP:NFILM. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage. A 1990 film that was never completed. SL93 ( talk) 22:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Trapped In Static
AfDs for this article:
- Trapped In Static ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated this early last year. Closed as no consensus with no participation other than myself and the article creator. While he/she compiled some sources at the previous AfD, I haven't seen anything close to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject ( WP:NBAND/ WP:GNG). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I could not find significant coverage either; subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
User:OutlinerThis band is mentioned in the credits of the movie Preying for Mercy (as writing the music - sources have been cited before). A movie that stars the Emmy award winner Martha Byrne and directed by Bill Duke. According to n.10 article in the criteria, this band has performed music for a work or a media that is notable. —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from a unsuccessful tv pilot, no matter who else worked on it. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
India Kids
- India Kids ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Good intentions, but no evidence of actual notability. The editor has worked only on Kovind Gupta and associated topics. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mohsen Yeganeh. Kurykh ( talk) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hobab (album)
- Hobab (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unremarkable album. Mjbmr ( talk) 03:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Deliberately not weighing in with an opinion either way, but it is important to note that the nominator here is also the article creator and had listed a large number of articles he/she had created for speedy deletion, in what may be a way of "retaliating" for other articles being deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Mohsen Yeganeh; no independent sourcing to confirm individual notability.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nom's comment: Please delete it and create whatever you want on it. Mjbmr ( talk) 06:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 TT me 18:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Action Man: X Missions – The Movie
- Action Man: X Missions – The Movie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is largely unsourced and only contains one source in the "Release" section, but it is not an official Action Man website. There is no evidence of notability and one section even states that there was a sequel to this movie which was only released in Mexico, but there are no sources backing it up at all. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Plasticity Forum
- Plasticity Forum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A promotional page on an unremarkable organisation and its event. The article is cited to the org itself or to otherwise unsuitable sources. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Checa985 with no other contributions outside of this topic. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a page on an organisation, but rather on an event that is organized internationally twice annually - in Shanghai and London in 2016 and this year two events in the US. I will link in news about more recent events. Checa985 ( talk) 18:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. This is borderline for me, but I'd say the topic barely passes the GNG threshold. It is true that Plasticity Forum hasn't received significant coverage in large news organizations, save for a trivial mention in CNN. That said, the forum did receive significant coverage in a Dallas News article, and covered numerous times by Plastics News. Although Dallas/Plastics News are certainly not as notable as CNN, nothing suggests they should not be treated as unreliable sources either. -- Dps04 ( talk) 14:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nom's comment -- the Dallas News article is not SIGCOV & is part of the pre-event publicity, as can be seen by the headline: "Earth Day Texas event in Dallas will bring together experts to tackle plastic pollution". It contains a quote by an exec, which is followed by an interview. If instead, the journalist attended the event and then wrote up a summary of the talks, then yes, that would be significant coverage. But covering how great the event will be is not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Paul Eryk Atlas
- Paul Eryk Atlas ( | 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:ENT. The sourcing is pretty thin: the obligatory IMDb bio, some cruft, passing mentions and a puff piece in a local paper. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but the notability just isn't there at the moment. - Biruitorul Talk 01:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cultural appropriation. Clearly a student paper ("My first observation from the food examples will begin with pizza and spaghetti ...") that is unsuitable for Wikipedia in this form per WP:NOT#ESSAY. The redirect leaves the content in the history of the redirected page so that it any sourced and useful content can still be merged. Sandstein 09:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Culture Appropriation in Food, Clothing, & Music
- Culture Appropriation in Food, Clothing, & 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)
Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix ( talk) 01:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi! This was part of a student assignment with WikiEd. If the student expresses interest, can they have a copy of this either e-mailed to them or moved to their userspace so they can work on seeing if there's anything that could be useful to the cultural appropriation article? It looks like fashion is covered at Cultural_appropriation#Fashion, but there really isn't any sections that have content on general cultural appropriation of food or music. The content would need to be re-written to remove any WP:OR and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's WP:MoS, or course. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 12:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've contacted the student and explained the reasons for deletion, as well as asked them if they would be interested in any potential merging to the main article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 12:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge - sounds as if a judicious bit of pruning followed by a merge of whatever's left (both new and cited) to Cultural appropriation would be best here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
CicCartuja
- CicCartuja ( | 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 notabiltiy criteria -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 01:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Robin Foster
- Robin Foster ( | 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 musician -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 01:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No independent sources in article beyond one WP:LOCAL source and searches turn up only non- WP:RS (SoundCloud, Bandcamp, YouTube, Facebook, etc.). Albums have been release on minor labels, so does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Highlands, North Carolina#Tourism. Consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) J 947( c) 19:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Martin-Lipscomb Performing Arts Center
- Martin-Lipscomb Performing Arts Center ( | 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 performing arts center lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I had a similar issue recently with a golf course. Outcome was merging to it's town, so merge to Highlands, North Carolina in Tourism. Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge as above to the Highlands, North Carolina. The center lack the in-depth coverage required for notability. MB 18:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Pamposh Bhat
- Pamposh Bhat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unknown activist Uncletomwood ( talk) 07:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- She isn't "unknown." A Gbooks search does reveal some passing mentions in reputable publications. I agree that we can't find evidence of her meeting GNG and or AUTHOR in English. Maybe someone can in Hindi -- though her article in Hindi Wikipedia is a one-line unreferenced stub. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Has plenty of reliable sources regarding her notability but the problem is they aren't in English. But a lack of sources in English isn't a reason to delete a notable subject.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the verifiability bar isn't met. — Spaceman Spiff 03:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Alumni of santragachi kedarnath institution
- Alumni of santragachi kedarnath institution ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of seemingly non-notable people linked to an educational establishment. At best, the articles need to be created first to show notability for the persons, and THEN such a list can be created - not the other way round. PROD was removed, and none of the speedy cats seem to fit, so discussion it is. Mabalu ( talk) 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not enough notable alumni that have wikipedia articles at present (only one in the current list) so a list is not needed Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge - The
Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (For Boys) does not have an alumni section so merging seems a sensible option.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
09:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think just mention the notable alumni in the school article and delete. No merger process or redirect necessary. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 01:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment- The institute is located in India, would anyone mind sorting it into the India related discussion. I am not sure how to do it. Thank you. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 09:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge only one article in a very short, unreferenced list of redlinks. When a referenced list gets too big for that article, then it's worth thinking about a split. Uncle Roy ( talk) 09:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge the sole blue-linked entry, Jatu Lahiri, to Santragachi Kedarnath Institution, which presently has no mention of Jatu Lahiri.North America 1000 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Upon consideration, delete, the entry denoted in my !vote above is not verified, and some searches (e.g. [22]) are not providing much to properly verify. North America 1000 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge and redirect/Merge and delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Merge and redirect/Merge and delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- the blue linked article contains one sentence and does not speak about the connection to the institution, so there's nothing to merge. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, only one of those names has an article and even then is questionable whether they even qualify under WP:BLP. Ajf773 ( talk) 02:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh ( talk) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The Darrell Schweitzer Megapack
AfDs for this article:
- The Darrell Schweitzer Megapack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage per WP:BK. SL93 ( talk) 23:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. As before, I would argue that Wildside Press is a reputable publisher in the science fiction, fantasy and horror fields and the author is a notable figure in the speculative fiction field who has won and been nominated for major awards. But of course, I would say that. I created the article. BPK ( talk) 00:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Darrell Schweitzer#Other short story collections. Fails all elements of WP:NBOOK. The article sources provide no significant critical commentary. Searching finds nothing helpful. That the author is notable, has won awards, etc. is not enough to satisfy criteria #5 of WP:NBOOK. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
RUiN
- RUiN ( | 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:GNG. The game has not yes been released, the producing company does not currently have a wp page, and no evidence of notability during the production phase of the game development. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, as it does not seem to meet the GNG at this time. I have found three articles in RSs about the game ( Kotaku, PC Gamer, Gamestar.de), though - with just a few more (which may very well happen as development progresses and the game gets closer to launch) it should meet the GNG.-- IDV talk 08:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
International Pro Wrestling: United Kingdom
- International Pro Wrestling: United Kingdom ( | 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 wrestling promotion, relies primarily on a single primary reference. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Local/regional wrestling promotion with no sources and no search results. No significant reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The promotion is small, but recieved attention form reliable sources. [23] [24] -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as largely unsourced spam; the article lists one citation and it's to the org itself. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Saori Yumiba
- Saori Yumiba ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable voice actor. Mei Karuma in Ace Attorney is a supporting role, Kyouka in Engage Planet Kiss Drum is supporting, and Miyuki in Present is also supporting. Not much to go on for now so it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article. ANN shows no news articles. BTVA confirms no roles so it is useless as a reference. Being a Keira Knightley voice-over doesn't show notability either. JA Wikipedia also has no biography and is just a credits list. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The Japanese Wikipedia does have a few sources, though. Have you checked those out?-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 14:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- They appear to be film cast announcements. I've added them to the article. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete - Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I was unable to find enough significant coverage about her. However, if anyone can confirm that she has had more main roles, I'm willing tor reconsider my !vote. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Onion Creek (band)
- Onion Creek (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)
This article has no external sources and has been around for a very long time. A quick check through Google shows no information about the band except through Wikipedia mirrors of the page in question. The band may have existed but they are obviously not notable due to the lack of external sources. One Salient Oversight ( talk) 03:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 10. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 03:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage for this subject; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 21:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete unreferenced and no credible claim to meeting WP:BAND. LibStar ( talk) 13:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Willits Town Center
- Willits Town Center ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
undefined neighborhood--the article is just a business directory DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This "neighborhood" is really a commercial development. I find this to be disguised promotional article. Sources are mostly primary or not significant coverage. Fails GNG. MB 02:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Your local beige big-box power center is not a 'neighborhood'. Nate • ( chatter) 03:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen
- List of Knight's Cross recipients 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list article that contains two entries that are actual articles; the rest are redirects to a list. Per recent discussion ( Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the redirected subject would be considered notable in the future and the list is not needed.
The article was created by the same editor who created about 500 articles on the members of the Waffen-SS, and the cross caterigorisation of "Knight's Cross winner by [X] category" strikes me as excessive. The list was created in 2008, at a time when the Knight's Cross recipients were presumed by default to be notable. This has changed recently, so both the many individual articles created by the editor in question, along with the lists, are no longer encyclopedically relevant. For recent AfDs on comparative lists, please see:
- AfD: List of Knight's Cross recipients of the 22nd SS Division
- AfD: List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft
Comparative lists by X category do not exist for highly decorated Allied personnel of WW2. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether or not the Knight's Cross confers notability, there's no real reason to segregate by unit, especially for so few recipients. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessarily specific and arbitrarily divided. -- Joshualouie711 talk 17:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Rupali Dash
- Rupali Dash ( | 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 advertorial-like page for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Article sourced to directory listings and other non independent sources. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete article states she is active in tons of things, but not even one thing that she has done. The prestigious awards are dubious too. Blatant advertisement. Maybe she uses this article as her visiting card. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Pavan Kushwaha
AfDs for this article:
- Pavan Kushwaha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined a speedy deletion of this puff-piece article, on grounds that there are in fact a couple of usable references showing coverage in reliable sources (for example reference 2, to Entrepreneur Magazine).
The question remains if these are sufficient to cross the general notability guideline. Thought I'd bring it here for wider review. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Euryalus ( talk) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete even though mentioned in couple of RS, fails notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Chasing criminals in Poland in the Middle Ages
- Chasing criminals in Poland in the Middle Ages ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do like historical articles, but this one seems basically too much of a mess to warrant anything but a WP:TNT. It seems a poor translation of pl:Ściganie przestępców w Polsce w okresie średniowiecza. I am not sure if the underlying topic is notable, and anyway in the current form it may be better to move it back to user sandbox, as the low quality of writing make it IMHO hardly helpful (I could only figure out what it is about after reading the original Polish article). To summarize: I am not sure if this topic is notable, and the text is so hard to understand it fails our prose quality requirements for mainspace. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah. Seems like one of those helpless cases where purging and restarting from scratch is the best solution. Renata ( talk) 11:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per above, WP:TNT seems like the best way to go. The enthusiasm from an editor to translate the article into English is admirable but I too don't think the topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Maybe merge into one of the History of Poland in the Middle Ages articles? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment An historical duty of commoners to pursue criminals can certainly be a notable topic. See, e.g.,
Hue and cry and
Posse comitatus. Whether this article is a fair presentation of the Polish sources is beyond my linguistic ability and there may be a better term that could be used for the article's title.
24.151.10.165 (
talk)
16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to cover a related topic in a more readable and properly sourced fashion at Fugitive peasants. Since the article we discuss here is not using inline (or online) citations, there is nothing I could rescue from it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Janet Hudson Schroeder
- Janet Hudson Schroeder ( | 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 meet WP:GNG. Unable to locate significant, independent coverage despite winning of awards. She won 8th place at a WPJA contest in 2007-- just a captioned photo for coverage. Only sources in article are subject's web pages. WP:Gale search through my library was unavailing. Was DeProDed by article creator. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete zero coverage. I could only find coverage for a namesake who is the Toledo city spokesperson. LibStar ( talk) 07:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plaxo. Also, Alexf505, seeing as nobody here has access to Special:ReadMind, remember to put in a deletion rationale in the future Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Cameron Ring
- Cameron Ring ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alexf505 ( talk) 04:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Weak deleteRedirect to Plaxo - He certainly gets mentioned in a number of articles (e.g. Forbes, Bloomberg, Business Insider, and other smaller sites), but always in passing as "Cameron Ring, co-founder of -insert companies-". I'm not convinced there's enough here to pass WP:GNG or perhaps more importantly, to maintain an article about him. Maybe someone else can find better sources? Ajpolino ( talk) 05:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - He is indeed mentioned quite a bit - Plaxo and aftermath (including a person who claimed to be a co-founder and murdered someone - who Plaxo (Cameron included) claimed was not a co-founder). But I don't see an in-depth piece about him - it is all him and his co-founder together, and in relation to whatever enterprise they are doing at the moment. A good source or two would convince me to change my vote. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
Ajpolino and
Icewhiz: it seems to me that this is a likely enough search term that it shouldn't be a redlink. Any suggestions for a good redirect target for this one?
VQuakr (
talk)
00:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
VQuakr: The companies he co-founded have quite a bit of coverage. It seems like he's currently involved in
Honor, Inc., so I'd vote for that? Alternatively, he might be best associated with
Plaxo, so that might be another good location. Thoughts?
Ajpolino (
talk)
01:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Plaxo is the more significant at the moment. Honor might be borderline for GNG. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
VQuakr: The companies he co-founded have quite a bit of coverage. It seems like he's currently involved in
Honor, Inc., so I'd vote for that? Alternatively, he might be best associated with
Plaxo, so that might be another good location. Thoughts?
Ajpolino (
talk)
01:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
Ajpolino and
Icewhiz: it seems to me that this is a likely enough search term that it shouldn't be a redlink. Any suggestions for a good redirect target for this one?
VQuakr (
talk)
00:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Plaxo. This seems the best option discussed so far; I agree with the other !voters that there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing available at this time to form the basis of an article. VQuakr ( talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - if you can include a trout for the nominator in your official close summary, it'll make my week. VQuakr ( talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Crisis of faith
- Crisis of faith ( | 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 term is likely notable, but this article suffers from major OR/essay issues. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it almost certainly is an essay-like OR piece. It has been my experience that such articles are better off getting WP:TNTed, and hopefully someone will recreate it with proper footnotes and references. Ping User:Staszek Lem who brought it to my attention. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete and redirect to Spiritual crisis per nom. Based on Google search it looks like this term is somewhat common in Christian circles? I don't think there's anything in there that would improve Spiritual crisis (which badly needs a cleanup with inline refs). Ajpolino ( talk) 05:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete WP:TNT. Article history shows it was created as an unreferenced blugb, then someone added more blurb about doubts and temptations. And this resulted is something still incomprehensible without faith in wikipedians :-) who wrote that. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: when I searched for Crisis of faith I found this source, it also use the term "religious crisis", this term is used by a bunch of sources. I agree that the citations are incomplete and that it seems to be an OR. But maybe there is some material for an article. I would recommend the deletion of any unsourced or poorly sourced content and start again with reliable sources. Even if left us with a stub article. In my opinion it's better have a well sourced stub than an OR filled article that could give the readers wrong information about the subject. Rupert Loup ( talk) 08:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Julia Conley
- Julia Conley ( | 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 model lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 03:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Watches.com
- Watches.com ( | 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 of sustained coverage in independent sources. There's a few news articles here about the earlier activities of the founders, and one Adweek blog post that doesn't fully support any claims to notability. There's a warmed-over press release over at HuffPo. [25]. It all looks like a puff piece about a company that few have shown an interest in. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Coverage is too small, mostly passing/press releases/unreliable, to make this pass Wikipedia:Notability (companies) or Wikipedia:Notability (websites) , IMHO. WP:CORPSPAM. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- too promotional to be worth keeping. This content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Leicester Pro Wrestling
- Leicester Pro Wrestling ( | 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 wrestling promotion. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete fails WP:GNG. no decent coverage including nothing in gnews. LibStar ( talk) 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Seoman Snowlock
- Seoman Snowlock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn character unreferenced for 7 years Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 02:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ryan McKay
- Ryan McKay ( | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NHOCKEY #4.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- What award has he won that satisfies NHOCKEY #4?
Joeykai (
talk)
19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking either the first or second one listed is fairly notable although neither is enumerated in the guide.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
00:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Right, so he fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai ( talk) 04:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking either the first or second one listed is fairly notable although neither is enumerated in the guide.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
00:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- What award has he won that satisfies NHOCKEY #4?
Joeykai (
talk)
19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- This guy is not as bad as a lot of delete notifications. He fails WP:NHOCKEY, so I'd give it a reluctant Delete with the caveat that we may be getting into excessive delete territory. There is a lot of junk that comes through and the ice hockey subject should be regularly purged of such. I'm not sure if it makes sense to go after these articles, but so far I'm willing to keep the Delete. BTW, should we consider that Dave Peterson Award for deletion? It's completely out of date, and appears to be a fairly low level award, Bill McKenna ( talk) 23:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, there've only been as many hockey-related deletion discussions as there've been because Dolovis for years openly defied notability guidelines and community consensus to plump up his article creation count into the top 50, and we're reaping the consequences of not shutting him down a lot earlier than it eventually took. Joeykai and others have nominated nearly 200 of these NN subjects in the last year or so, and that's just the tip of the iceberg; my own estimate is that there are over a thousand such articles and redirects. Ravenswing 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage and fails WP:NHOCKEY. SL93 ( talk) 22:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Only coverage was for USHL awards, and that does not fulfill NHOCKEY. 18abruce ( talk) 13:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: per above and WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT. Ravenswing 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The schools of thought on strategy formulation
- The schools of thought on strategy formulation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not independently notable ( WP:GNG). If appropriate, content can be merged to Henry Mintzberg / strategic management. Brianga ( talk) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This may be worth a muchmuch shorter summary on the author's main article. But currently is just a vaguely promotional book report. The book itself may be notable ...maybe... It's got a lot of citations on scholar, but apparently this guy is not even the sole author of it, and it's not clear why this fairly arbitrary classification system needs singled out. I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but all I see is promotionalism through undue (if otherwise fairly neutral) attention. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
List of Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge episodes
- List of Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I realize that I created this article, but I did so for the specific reason of questioning its inclusion. The details on this list were formerly included on the parent article, Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge, but I came to the conclusion that the information here was extremely lengthy, and quite possibly not in cooperation of WP:IINFO since it really didn't contribute to the actual understanding of the article. Since that deletion though, there have been three separate reversions by IP-only editors who have never made any other edits before or since, and a fourth by User:TrogWoolley who has barely made any edits to actual articles (see edit history here). Their arguments seem to be "every other article has episodes, so this one should too." I find that extremely vague and broad, and have seen many other articles about TV shows that have not had an episode guide.
I'd love to hear feedback from other editors as to whether or not this is in violation of WP:IINFO or not. Thanks. SanAnMan ( talk) 18:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment it's excessive, but not more excessive than coverage of other TV shows. Power~enwiki ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as excessive fancruft. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
List of social clubs in Pakistan
- List of social clubs in Pakistan ( | 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:NOTDIR. Only a couple of list entries have articles and they are questionable whether they fit the proper criteria of a social club Ajf773 ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:DIR cited to primary sources. Excessive. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Permutation (policy debate)
- Permutation (policy debate) ( | 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 topic is incredibly specific and fails WP:GNG because any possible source is not independent from the subject. The GNG says that a topic must have received coverage from sources that are independent from the subject. There are plenty of websites and a couple books that discuss permutations in policy debate, but all of those websites and books are related to policy debate and therefore are not independent. The reason I didn't PROD this is that I want to get a consensus that my interpretation of the word "independent" is legitimate in this case. WP:INDEPENDENT discusses independence mostly as a form of protection against self-promotion or financial benefit, but in my AfD experience I've seen independence as pertaining to sources that don't solely cover policy debate or high school/college debate in general, and common sense certainly leads to that conclusion. Some of the information in this article would work well with a merger into the Policy debate article too, especially seeing as that article doesn't even include the word "permutation". I want to reiterate that I think this article is a pretty good deletion candidate, but I felt it necessary to check consensus concerning the independence of all available sources. For the record, the only source I could find that was independent in the sense I discussed above is what looks to be a memoir, link here. Icebob99 ( talk) 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete the term is jargon. The article is advice for high-school students participating in debate club. Power~enwiki ( talk) 02:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as part of a how-to for competing in this style of debating. I'm not sure there's much chance of non-specialist sources covering such a specialised term, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the "independence" of the sources is an issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
IRENA Renewable Energy Learning Partnership
- IRENA Renewable Energy Learning Partnership ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this website. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 ( talk) 01:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete:A WP:SPA article by User:IrelpTeam about a website. I am finding nothing beyond a page on the parent organisation's site and some routine listings. (A merge to the International Renewable Energy Agency article was previously proposed and abandoned.) No evidence of attained notability in its own right, whether by WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 05:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ngân Hàng Công Thương
- Ngân Hàng Công Thương ( | 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 notability criteria -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 01:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment A winner of the Volleyball Vietnam League is notable. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- not per WP:ORG, which is the guideline for sports clubs and teams. if you find sources, which give a better depth of coverage, and are of a more regional, as opposed to local nature, then it will meet the criterion. if you can do that, i will withdraw. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 23:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - the team will participate in a 2017 Asian Women's Club Volleyball Championship, the highest level of women's club volleyball in Asia. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
ArtFacts.Net
- ArtFacts.Net ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-promotion. Notability is not given as the Alexa rank is just around 220,000. The main content of the website can only be accessed via a paywall. The business model is not mentioned. They claim to to do an artist ranking but in order to get a better ranking artists are encouraged to buy a membership ( http://www.artfacts.net/purchase/artist) to "actively promote their career". Bouba20k ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- The argument of Bouba20k is not inexplicable. On Wikipedia are similar company entries such as for artnet working in the same field with same relevance as ArtFacts.Net. Furthermore in english wiki many artist entries are linked to Artfacts.net which is self-evidently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerie 10243 ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In the Germany-related deletion discussion Marek Claassen founder of Artfacts identified himself as being the author of these articles Galerie 10243. Comparing himself with artnet, a company with a much higher Alexa Rank shows the authors exaggerated opinion on himself. After knowing that he himself wrote the article it's imaginable that the links on the artist pages were also created by the company themself -- Bouba20k ( talk) 17:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Probably keep, but with a sharp eye: WP:COI may be of concern here and at the related article, and lest they be tended as press releases, there are reliable sources that may be added such as [26]. 2601:188:180:11F0:41E8:3E22:766:8808 ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: See Yogev, Tamar; Grund, Thomas (2012). "Network Dynamics and Market Structure: The Case of Art Fairs". Sociological Focus. 45 (1): 30.
doi:
10.1080/00380237.2012.630846.
The availability of these rankings and the richness of the data make Artfacts.Net the largest and most reliable data source currently available.
That certainly shows the website's notability. -- CorrectHorseBatteryStaple ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It seems to have enough industry-specific information that it may be notable as a reference in the art world, I see no reason to delete at this time. Power~enwiki ( talk) 07:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete None of the sources or references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources either fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. The source posted above by the anon IPV6 address is to a blog post. Blog posts are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The source posted above by User:CorrectHorseBatteryStaple appears to be a research paper. I have no idea if the authors are experts in their fields or reliable. The quote provided appears to be a mention in passing and a little tangential to the topic being researched. It is not an in-depth look at the company. As such, it does not establish notability. -- HighKing ++ 16:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Eh, seems notable enough in its own field. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- too promotional to be worth keeping. Notability is marginal at best; sources do not meet WP:AUD / WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for unremarkable businesses. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numbers wise, the !votes are equal, but all the delete !votes came in before David Eppstein's work on the article, which was enough to change one delete !voter's vote. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
James Mannon
- James Mannon ( | 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 references. No evidence of notability supplied, none found. Maproom ( talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete.I did a search and all I found about him were a couple press releases. I did not find any evidence that he meets WP:NPROF or the general notability guidelines. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)- Changing to Keep per work and sources found by David Eppstein. Good job; I didn't find that stuff. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A google search shows this article, Facebook, Linked in etc and very little else besides some press releases. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, Fails NPROF, GNG. South Nashua ( talk) 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete He is just not hitting WP:NPROF. I tried also to find some notability via references and found none. Gtstricky Talk or C 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't appear to make the cut for WP:PROF. Alansohn ( talk) 02:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I have significantly expanded the article (to stub length from sub-stub) and added more sources and more details of his career. His books have attracted both academic reviews and mainstream newspaper attention. (I'm not counting his two recent self-published books, which don't count for much but also shouldn't take away from any notability of the earlier work.) I think he passes
WP:AUTHOR. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I found
this source which gives him a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C5 as well (he held a named chair prior to his retirement). —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Question. Does DePauw University really qualify as a "major institution of higher education and research" for C5? It's got a fairly small enrollment (2300). Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I found
this source which gives him a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C5 as well (he held a named chair prior to his retirement). —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple published books with decent library holdings. Here's a sample review:
- The performance ethic. Futurist, Mar 01, 1992; Vol. 26, No. 2, p. 58-59 Reviews the book `American Gridmark: Why You've Always Suspected That Measuring Up Doe... more
- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Named chair would clinch WP:PROF. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of new sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 11:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: For evaluation of new sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 11:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. meets several different parts of WP:PROF, and meets WP:AUTHOR. It should have been closed as keep after David E's comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - meets wp:prof and wp:author. Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
SkeptiCamp
- SkeptiCamp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically a part of the promotional network around Monterey County Skeptics (now deleted). From the article, it looks like the main point is to insert an inappropriate video of a particular presentation. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Skepticamp is not part of a promotional network around Monterey County Skeptics. Its was created by a guy in Colorado, and has spread around the country (and in several other countries), so if it is referenced by some group in California, that would be why. But it is certainly not confined to there. Rjmail ( talk) 23:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree the overly large video from the Monterey Skepticamp should be removed, but to say the "main point" of this article is to insert that video is at best confusing. For one thing, this article originally dates from 2012, long before any of that Monterey Skeptics material was added to Wikipedia. There have been over 118 skepticamps since the first one in 2007, so there are lots of better sources and other material that can be added to improve the article. I've passed along some of those to Rjmail and will try to help improve the article myself. -- Krelnik ( talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Of the six sources in the article, four are either written or co-written by the founder of the movement. One is local coverage for a single event in Monterey. The sixth mentions the subject only in passing. Indeed, the sum total of what appears in that source is repeated in the article's first sentence. There's not enough here to sustain an article. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not completely convinced as to the independence and substance of several of the sources that have since been added to the article, but there's enough good new sourcing for me to withdraw my earlier recommendation.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with that. A good number of the sources are, as you say, indeed passing mentions, or perhaps not entirely independent, particularly the ones specifically dedicated to skepticism. However, there is just enough for me to be inclined to keep the article. Mz7 ( talk) 22:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Since the initial comments, four more sources including The Gazette (Colorado Springs), Winnipeg Free Press and Scientific American have been added. Other work has been done on the article as well.-- Krelnik ( talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Commencement of Australian skepticamps added & sourced under sub heading Outside the United States. The page is no longer promotional for skepticamp in general or Monterey County Skepticamp in particular. 8==8 Boneso ( talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added two more sources today, from newspapers in Toronto, Canada and Nashua, New Hampshire. -- Krelnik ( talk) 02:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – Right, given the international scope of these conferences, along with coverage in a Scientific American blog (a nationally read source), and combined with nontrivial local coverage ( [27] [28] [29]), I'm inclined to say this is notable under the guidelines at WP:ORG. I've edited the article to remove any direct mention of the Monterey County Skeptics beyond just that a SkeptiCamp has been held in Seaside, California, where they were located. That video has since also been removed (replaced with {{ Commons}}). Mz7 ( talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NDreams. (non-admin closure) f e minist 06:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Venus Redemption
- Venus Redemption ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Video game project started a decade ago, received minor coverage at the time, barely enough to warrant an article even back then. It has had essentially no additional coverage in nearly a decade, causing additional notability concerns per the WP:SUSTAINED section of WP:GNG. The project also seems to have been dropped years ago, and the company's main article ( nDreams) makes no mention of it. Indications are this project will never be completed nor will it receive more coverage in WP:RSes. — Torchiest talk edits 19:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge – I had originally created the article, thinking something was actually going to become of it, and eventually completely forgot about it as no information came about. The last bit of information was several years ago. I'd say move what can be moved to the nDreams article. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
|
|
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
180° (Gerardo album)
- 180° (Gerardo album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this per WP:NALBUM. SL93 ( talk) 22:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The AllMusic entry is a database entry and has no review. Google provided no additional RSes. The album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dirty 30
- Dirty 30 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as it has no sources, so does not meet WP:MOVIE. The tagging of this problem has been ignored. Alizaa2 ( talk) 22:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Released film with known actors; meets MOVIE just fine to me. Instead of tagging, find sources on your own so you don't have to tag in the first place. Nate • ( chatter) 03:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Per these sources - Common Sense Media, Los Angeles Times, Indie Wire, Variety, and Entertainent Tonight. Did you even bother to search for sources per WP:BEFORE? I'm just asking because I found these sources quickly. SL93 ( talk) 17:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Known actors, seems high profile enough. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
2016 Memorial Tournament
- 2016 Memorial Tournament ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We have a consensus not to create articles for single editions of tournaments, except in clearly defined cases (majors, WGCs, The Players, BMW PGA). pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Sprint International. pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nominator - unnecessary article. Tewapack ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This page is covered by: Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Assessment#Specific individual tournament pages which says "This type of page is restricted to the Major Championships (Men and Women), WGC events and a few of the most important other tournaments." and then gives the current list. There is a consensus in WP:GOLF that this list should only very reluctantly be extended and it doesn't seem to me that creating a page for the 2016 Memorial Tournament is the way forward. Useful content can be added to Memorial Tournament which covers all 41 events. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Zurich Classic of New Orleans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 Nabisco Championship Nigej ( talk) 07:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Alright I now know of the restrictions on tournament pages for the non-elite events. But since I believe we have articles for all of the elite tournaments for every year, would we think about expanding the list of tournaments approved for single-year articles? QatarStarsLeague ( talk) 18:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not true that we have all the articles. eg BMW PGA Championship, World Match Play Championship have many missing articles. Nigej ( talk) 08:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
DJ Diddy
- DJ Diddy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was dePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non notable musician. Sources are either not in-depth or unreliable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Indeed the references are either a name in a listing, primary sources, or social media sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable musician fails WP:MUSICBIO. FITINDIA 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 22:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Meets not one of the 12 criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are self-published, social media, or minor university radio stations. Has fewer Google search returns than there are on me. Not sure that's a criteria for deletion, per se, but it's certainly a measure of their non-notability that I can relate to. Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails MUSICBIO, GNG. South Nashua ( talk) 11:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Camila Perez
- Camila Perez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Far too little widespread media to satisfy WP:ENT. A preliminary news search showed much the same. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: All news sources available (even the blogs) on a Google News search reveal only passing mentions. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Waggie ( talk) 01:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Wisconsin's Badger State Spelling Bee
- Wisconsin's Badger State Spelling Bee ( | 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 of any notability. Such events at State level are rarely notable. No references. Previous PROD removed without any addition of sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete agreed, normally State spelling bees are not notable. Jay Jay What did I do? 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Some sources have now been added, but only as cites for individual winners of specific bees. There are no sources discussing the tournament itself, which are required to show notability. It's been around a long time, so maybe they exist, but in the end it's just a junior high school spelling bee.
- Note that the article starts off by stating that the event has been held annually since 1949, but the table of results starts in 1928. Very strange...
- Comment Note that the article is a duplicate of
The Badger State Spelling Bee, which has been prodded.
32.218.152.242 (
talk)
13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have de-prodded and redirected that page here. If this is kept, the redirect should be retained. If not, it can be speedied as redirect to a non-existent page. But as long as this article exists, it's a plausible redirect and shouldn't be deleted, yet alone PROD-ed. We should probably move this back over there, given Badger State Spelling Bee appears to be the official title, but that's not a deletion issue and we can discuss it if it's kept. Given the open AfD here, I felt it best to retain it here for now.
Smartyllama (
talk)
18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The duplicate articles are the result of a new editor abandoning his original creation and recreating and expanding it under a different name rather than moving it [1]. I agree that the original title "Badger State Spelling Bee" is the more appropriate one. Meters ( talk) 18:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have de-prodded and redirected that page here. If this is kept, the redirect should be retained. If not, it can be speedied as redirect to a non-existent page. But as long as this article exists, it's a plausible redirect and shouldn't be deleted, yet alone PROD-ed. We should probably move this back over there, given Badger State Spelling Bee appears to be the official title, but that's not a deletion issue and we can discuss it if it's kept. Given the open AfD here, I felt it best to retain it here for now.
Smartyllama (
talk)
18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Penicillin. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Penicillin desensitization
- Penicillin desensitization ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic might not meet notability guidelines and, in its current form, does not provide any useful information or sources. Difficult to merge/redirect into the main "Penicilin" page because of the lack of substantial content on the topic on either side 7804j ( talk) 21:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This page does not provide any meaningful content. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- merge to penicillin. It's actually a notable subject, covered in most textbooks of general medicine (Merck, etc.) , and for some reason is not in the main article. It ought to be, and we should be glad to have this gap ointed out to us. Better there than in a specific small article. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to penicillin, as above. 11:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- merge indeed. Jytdog ( talk) 18:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:CHEAP. Bearian ( talk) 01:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With two exceptions, all "keep" opinions are by new accounts and are discounted because of WP:COI / WP:SOCK concerns. Sandstein 14:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Markus Winter
- Markus Winter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. It's possible that his gallery might be notable, but apart from the New York Times reference in the article (which is only a passing mention of him and is actually more about his gallery than himself), the references in the article are mostly about what's in his gallery rather than him specifically, or press releases. I couldn't find enough significant coverage actually about him. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator; there is nothing substantial about the subject. What he sells may be notable, but he hasn't received significant critical attention himself. Mduvekot ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- 3 articles in Die Welt and 2 NYTs that discuss him and his work should be considered sufficient for GNG, no?
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- The NYT pieces are not substantially about him, though. One sentence in
[2]: "Markus Winter, the gallery’s owner, said that only a few of the show’s pieces have a clear provenance trail."
[3]] quotes him and has "Marcus Winter, who organized the show with Brian Kish of the Brian Kish Gallery on Greene Street in SoHo, said it was the first about the architect in America." and "It took Mr. Winter almost two years to put the show together."
Mduvekot (
talk)
21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the 2004 NYT mentions him in several places. Importantly, it acknowledges i.e. notes him as an art historian ("Mr. Winter, an art historian from Düsseldorf, Germany") and it frames him as an authority by reporting his assessment on a historical matter ("'Ulrich was one of the last modern designers who cared about craftsmanship,' Mr. Winter said."). The 2 Die Welt articles have even more detail. Taken as a whole, these sources frame Winter as a recognized authority in this area of art history.
Agricola44 (
talk)
16:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
- There is probably a legitimate case to be made that most of the claims in the article can be verified with as few as two or three of the sources. There is one piece in particular from Die Welt that has some biographical info that is not completely peripheral:
this. For me, it's a bit too thin, considering the promotional tone of the sources by Andrea Hilgenstock (all the Zeit articles are by her), the lack of any support for Winter's status as an expert by real scholars in a relevant field in stead of newspaper editors, and the sudden appearance of
User:Bennyflower whose very first contribution to Wikipedia was
this !vote and
User:Leonachtlicht, whose
second edit to Wikipedia was to contest the speedy deletion nomination. There's something
wrong with this article. It stretches my inclination to believe that all contributors to the article and this discussion are here to contribute in good faith without a
conflict of interest beyond its limits. Of course, I'd be happy to revert my assertion if a satisfactory explanation for their sudden involvement can be provided by the two editors I mentioned.
Mduvekot (
talk)
00:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's no question of the SPA-nature of those 2 accts – I even tagged one of them as such. However, the salient debate is not about them, but about Winter. And, I also agree that there's no scholarly proof that he's an expert, but his opinion/work/gallery has undeniably appeared in Germany's main national daily...and, to me, this seems to be a textbook case of what we mean by GNG. I am the first to admit that GNG is blatantly and widely misused nowadays to shoehorn into WP local arts people having no relevance beyond their own town, but I don't think we'd be guilty of that here with material from NYT & Die Welt. Best, Agricola44 ( talk) 01:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is probably a legitimate case to be made that most of the claims in the article can be verified with as few as two or three of the sources. There is one piece in particular from Die Welt that has some biographical info that is not completely peripheral:
this. For me, it's a bit too thin, considering the promotional tone of the sources by Andrea Hilgenstock (all the Zeit articles are by her), the lack of any support for Winter's status as an expert by real scholars in a relevant field in stead of newspaper editors, and the sudden appearance of
User:Bennyflower whose very first contribution to Wikipedia was
this !vote and
User:Leonachtlicht, whose
second edit to Wikipedia was to contest the speedy deletion nomination. There's something
wrong with this article. It stretches my inclination to believe that all contributors to the article and this discussion are here to contribute in good faith without a
conflict of interest beyond its limits. Of course, I'd be happy to revert my assertion if a satisfactory explanation for their sudden involvement can be provided by the two editors I mentioned.
Mduvekot (
talk)
00:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the 2004 NYT mentions him in several places. Importantly, it acknowledges i.e. notes him as an art historian ("Mr. Winter, an art historian from Düsseldorf, Germany") and it frames him as an authority by reporting his assessment on a historical matter ("'Ulrich was one of the last modern designers who cared about craftsmanship,' Mr. Winter said."). The 2 Die Welt articles have even more detail. Taken as a whole, these sources frame Winter as a recognized authority in this area of art history.
Agricola44 (
talk)
16:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
- The NYT pieces are not substantially about him, though. One sentence in
[2]: "Markus Winter, the gallery’s owner, said that only a few of the show’s pieces have a clear provenance trail."
[3]] quotes him and has "Marcus Winter, who organized the show with Brian Kish of the Brian Kish Gallery on Greene Street in SoHo, said it was the first about the architect in America." and "It took Mr. Winter almost two years to put the show together."
Mduvekot (
talk)
21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- 3 articles in Die Welt and 2 NYTs that discuss him and his work should be considered sufficient for GNG, no?
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep His publications are referred to by all four major auction houses dealing in design: Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips and Wright. His exhibitions are well reviewed not only by the New York Time but the Neue Zuericher Zeitung, Die Welt, Architectural Digest, Elle Decor and Vogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonachtlicht ( talk • contribs)
- Delete This seems like a promotional piece. Agree per nominator that subject is not non-notable. Netherzone ( talk) 03:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As a german design historian Markus Winter is of course a prominent person. He is one a few world wide leading experts in the field of pioneering design in the early 1900 to 1930ies in Germany and has made signifikant contributions to the relation and the worth of this design decade beside the German Bauhaus.He is currently working on the first documentation about that field and does a groundbreaking work for the understanding of the creative cultural forces in early 20th century Germany. It is not only an important part of design history, it is also a new view in cultural history and will alter the common view about how we looking to that very special period. So I prefer to hold the wikipedia source and think it also will be enhanced soon. NOT to be deleted! Bennyflower ( talk) 20:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- — Bennyflower ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete This is a promotional article that tried to fluff up a non-notable curator/historian/antiques dealer who has had a few passing mentions in good pubs. There simply isn't much there when you start scratching the surface, i.e. GNG is not satisfied for WP:Academic or any other criteria really. I had a closer look at the sources while converting four or five improper inline URLS to refs-- there is not much meat on these bones. Bennyflower and Leonachtlicht, the two keep votes, appear to be likely SPA's as well. 198.58.162.149 ( talk) 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Extensive piece in Die Welt and 2 NYT articles that discuss him and his work/gallery are enough for GNG. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree that the keep !votes are not based on any actual Wikipedia policies (although I think SPA might be a bit far), and that although there has been much mention of the NYT articles, they only discuss Winter in the context of his gallery / exhibitions. They are not about he himself. Thus they are great sources for his gallery, etc., but poor for the individual. I cannot find sufficient independent third-party reliable sources to indicate depth or persistence of coverage at this time: [4] (blogs and zines, excluding the passing mentions). Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
- Comment.
WP:NOTINHERITED is usually interpreted to mean that a person isn't notable just because a relative is notable. It can also mean that some facet of a person's work isn't notable just because the person is notable. However, you're arguing the reverse here, that Winter isn't notable, even though his work has been widely noted. A person is notable if they've done notable work. And, for the record, the 2 NYTs do discuss his work, the
Die Welt article discusses him and his work in detail, and there are at least 2 other
Die Welt articles in the bib that discuss him and his work. You have to go through some pretty good mental gymnastics to argue that this sort of sourcing does not satisfy GNG.
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
- It's also frequently used to argue against keeping articles of people who have merely collaborated with famous people without any in-depth coverage of their own work. In this case, that Markus Winter curated exhibitions with works from famous articles is not ipso facto proof of his notability. The fact that news organizations reported more on the famous artworks in the exhibitions and much less (if any) about Markus Winter's role, would militate against finding Winter notable in this case. Even if we accept that a curator is a creative professional and exhibitions are their works, it's unclear how Markus Winter would meet
WP:CREATIVE without making every single curator who managed to successfully assemble an exhibition by notable artists themselves notable. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not arguing his notability from a technical perspective. I'm pointing out the fact that several of the world's main news outlets, like NYT and Die Welt, have covered him, his work, his gallery, etc. on multiple occasions. This phenomenon, to have been noted, is indeed the crux of passing GNG. It's really that simple. You're arguing up a different tree, saying a book he wrote is not widely held and such. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Cheers. Agricola44 ( talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's also frequently used to argue against keeping articles of people who have merely collaborated with famous people without any in-depth coverage of their own work. In this case, that Markus Winter curated exhibitions with works from famous articles is not ipso facto proof of his notability. The fact that news organizations reported more on the famous artworks in the exhibitions and much less (if any) about Markus Winter's role, would militate against finding Winter notable in this case. Even if we accept that a curator is a creative professional and exhibitions are their works, it's unclear how Markus Winter would meet
WP:CREATIVE without making every single curator who managed to successfully assemble an exhibition by notable artists themselves notable. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment.
WP:NOTINHERITED is usually interpreted to mean that a person isn't notable just because a relative is notable. It can also mean that some facet of a person's work isn't notable just because the person is notable. However, you're arguing the reverse here, that Winter isn't notable, even though his work has been widely noted. A person is notable if they've done notable work. And, for the record, the 2 NYTs do discuss his work, the
Die Welt article discusses him and his work in detail, and there are at least 2 other
Die Welt articles in the bib that discuss him and his work. You have to go through some pretty good mental gymnastics to argue that this sort of sourcing does not satisfy GNG.
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
- Delete. Not convinced that the available sources demonstrate that Winter meets our notability guidelines. Also, using WorldCat, I was unable to find the first listed book, but the second one is held by three institutions [5], one of which, the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, literally holds every modern German book published. The only other book I found in WorldCat was held four times. This does not seem like the output of notable art historian.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as neither the subject nor his work meet notability criteria. Ifnord ( talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion has developed pretty far beyond just making assertions. I still can't see any convincing justification that multiple articles in 2 national dailies do not satisfy GNG. Agricola44 ( talk) 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. He is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture by architects such as Oskar Kaufmann, Fritz August Breuhaus and Leo Nachtlicht. Kidflave1 ( talk) 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Kidflave1 After your unsourced contribution to Markus Winter, your keep vote is your second contribution to Wikipedia. I have to wonder; how do you know that Winter "is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture". That doesn't appear in any independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot ( talk) 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Agricola44 - there has been significant coverage in good sources. Taken as a whole, Times, Digest, Welt, all add up. Ordinary editing can remove the puffery. Bearian ( talk) 14:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Josh Levenson
AfDs for this article:
- Josh Levenson ( | 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, quick Google search yields no results from independent sources regarding the subject. lovkal ( talk) 20:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Article has a prior discussion that resulted in speedy delete (instead of just delete, strangely). Per Nom. I agree. Reb1981 ( talk) 20:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
References
- Comment The one on page self-sourced. That alone does not prove notability. You would need a valid secondary independant source, too. The ones listed do not have any info to proved who the person is. Reb1981 ( talk) 21:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom; there is no way I can determine if the author at The Next Web is the person referred to in this article, which is proof of the lack of notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - no significant coverage in secondary sources. His Facebook, Twitter, and other accounts are primary sources and as such can not be used to indicate notability. It is relevant that the article has been speedy deleted before, for lack of credible claims of significance. -- bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - no secondary sources references, as above. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Triple Crown Tournament . -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
1993 British Isles Championship
- 1993 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These kind of leagues are not notable as no notable cricketer is playing in the league. Following seasons can't establish notability so I nominate them for deletion. Greenbörg (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- 1994 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1995 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1996 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1997 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1998 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1999 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2000 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2001 British Isles Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Greenbörg (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Jack | talk page 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The notability of the players taking part (and there are a number of notable players who have appeared in some of the games e.g. Ian Stanger, George Salmond, Gavin Hamilton, Ed Joyce, Kyle McCallan) is not important, as WP:NOTINHERIT. Important thing is if there are sources available that show that the tournaments were considered notable in their own right. The main source seems to be Cricket Europe, but that is not enough for me. I'd merge the lot into Triple Crown Tournament Spike 'em ( talk) 20:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- All the players in this 1993 match have played first-class and List-A cricket, and in some cases ODIs. Spike 'em ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all the league isn't first-class or List A matches, so we don't need articles for every season. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into Triple Crown Tournament per Spike 'em. These competitions played a role in the development of cricket in Ireland and Scotland, and a level of coverage would be suitable, but definitely not as detailed as currently present. Harrias talk 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Articles not notable, and not apparently useful. Elliot321 ( talk) 16:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge all into Triple Crown Tournament per Spike 'em. All of these articles are short, including the Triple Crown Tournament parent article, and while these tournaments maybe not be notable as individual tournaments, the content should be merged into the parent article, which is not up for AFD.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge all into Triple Crown Tournament - agree with Spike'em and Patar's points. LAroboGuy ( talk) 16:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are we merging or are we deleting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Are we merging or are we deleting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment just a comment because I am ignorant of the subject, but I do not see that any of the delete comments give a reason why merge is not suitable. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I will be happy with merge. Greenbörg (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 14:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Stroma New Music Ensemble
- Stroma New Music Ensemble ( | 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, fails
WP:NBAND. The references do not back up any claims made
JMHamo (
talk) 20:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN
JMHamo (
talk)
14:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
-
JMHamo, could you please clarify what you mean by "the references do not back up any claims made"? The
version that you AfDed had three references:
- Watson, Chris (2000) is offline
- Rosiny, Claudia (Autumn 2013) is behind a paywall
- Hiekel, Jörn Peter; Utz, Christian (2016) is online, but in German
- I obviously don't know whether you have checked the first two sources; please say if you did. I'm wondering about your statement because the third source backs up exactly what is written in the article. I don't know whether you can read German, or bothered to transcribe the text into Google translate (I'm not aware that you can copy text from Google Books), but I can read it and I can tell you that it's fine. Given the above, what exactly do you mean by "the references do not back up any claims made"? Schwede 66 20:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as clearly notable. Meets criterion 6 of WP:NBAND apart from GNG. Schwede 66 20:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gulmarg#St Mary.27s Church. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
St. Mary's Church, Gulmarg
- St. Mary's Church, Gulmarg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed a few days ago. Couldn't find much on external references other than some passing glances in tourist guides. Not a part of List of Monuments of National Importance in Jammu and Kashmir or List of State Protected Monuments in Jammu and Kashmir or any other list of notable places I can find. Fails GNG and MAPOUTCOMES. South Nashua ( talk) 20:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete Having found a few more references and images online, this might have been a 'very weak keep'. However, I also found there is already a section on St Mary's Church in the article on Gulmarg itself, so I've now expanded that section, and see no reason for the church having an article of its own as it really isn't sufficiently notable, despite being an unusual building in an unusual location. Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Gulmarg per Nick Moyes. James ( talk/ contribs) 15:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's now anything left to merge - it's all been put into the Gulmarg article, so I'd still propose deletion which would result in no net loss of wikipedia content. Nick Moyes ( talk) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Convert to REdirect for reasons above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect, based on what's been explained here. -- do ncr am 23:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - not enough in article to salvage. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ek din Boston mein
- Ek din Boston mein ( | 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 for lack of available sources. - Mr X 20:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No references provided. Searching does not provide for any hits other than the Wikipedia page. Fails WP:GNG. Probably a vanity page created by some amateur filmmaker to promote their movie. Jupitus Smart 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Batman in film#Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher. Clear consensus not to have an article per WP:CFORK. Unclear whether to delete, merge or redirect. The redirect is a compromise, allowing mergers if anybody wants to. Sandstein 09:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Batman (1989–1997 film series)
- Batman (1989–1997 film series) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Should be redirected to the superior Batman in film article. WP:CONTENTFORK that should never have been created in the first place. Fair support for this option during a recent recent rm: Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)#Requested move 19 April 2017. Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. The article at present contains very little content that isn't present in either Batman in film or the individual film articles and there is very little evidence that sources identify this set of films as being a 'series' in itself. Scribolt ( talk) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any doubt that the four films in question form a discrete series, it's just that the topic is better covered elsewhere. --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, the key point is the content fork (hence as per nom). But even though they have in-universe continuity, the four films aren't always described as a discrete series; there's much more variance in the sources (the Burton Films, the Keaton films, the Schumacher films) unlike the Dark Knight Trilogy which has a well defined and recognised identity as a 'series'. This strengthens the delete rationale imo because there's less of a case for a standalone article on this set of films to exist at all (I think, anyway. I'll let more experienced people decide if I'm misunderstood the issues). Scribolt ( talk) 12:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any doubt that the four films in question form a discrete series, it's just that the topic is better covered elsewhere. --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, due to being a content fork. These films are already covered at the Batman in film article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- The split was apparently done in the second version of the page, claiming authority from
Talk:Batman_in_film#Split_into_multiple_articles. Invite
User:S Marshall the RfC closer to comment, again. I think that having three levels of articles: (1) Articles on each film; (2) Articles on sets of films; and (3) an article on all the films, is too much, and that (2) is the one to go. (3) might use some trimming. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
13:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- The split was made with the consensus that Batman in film shouldn't be significantly changed, and was supposed to facilitate expansion of the Batman (1989–1997 film series). I brought it up after nothing had been improved a few months after the split. Three years later, and this still hasn't been expanded. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for good summary collocation of unique stylistic elements to this series, or redirect. Hyperbolick ( talk) 13:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect/Delete All the content at this article is already covered at Batman in film and List of Batman films cast members. I don't really see how Batman (1989–1997 film series) can evolve into a distinct article that simply doesn't replicate Batman in film. Trimming content from that article would make it less comprehensive in its overview of the franchise. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - Per Betty Logan. Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep- ideally this should be a speedy procedural keep since the nominator is asking for redirection rather than deletion, and this is Articles for Deletion. But this series was a major media phenomenon, much like
The Dark Knight Trilogy, for those who are old enough to have memories stretching back longer than 15 years. A merger can be a separate discussion, but AfD is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
23:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is already so much overlap that a "merge" would basically equate to a "redirect" in this case.
Betty Logan (
talk)
00:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Neither a merge nor redirect is carried out via AfD and neither requires deletion. This is the completely wrong place.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
00:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. Not really. Or just no. It is a request for Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. These are common at AfD, always have been, and a consensus anywhere is a consensus and is all that is required to do something. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Neither a merge nor redirect is carried out via AfD and neither requires deletion. This is the completely wrong place.
Ribbet32 (
talk)
00:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is already so much overlap that a "merge" would basically equate to a "redirect" in this case.
Betty Logan (
talk)
00:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Batman_in_film#Tim_Burton.2FJoel_Schumacher per above. The redirect should target the section, not the entire article since this section covers the film series in question. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Batman in film per the above. That article already covers the topic better than this fork.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 20:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) 20:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Betty's rationale. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, due to being a content fork, as above. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ward_(band)
AfDs for this article:
- Ward_(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)
not-notable F4Parks ( talk) 19:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
1. WARD music label is not 'major record label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)" Rather, "an independent electronica and post rock record label". Searches for LOCA records revealed no links other than the wikipedia page itself. Further, one of the members of WARD, David Meme (
/info/en/?search=David_Meme) appears to co-own the label. The label appears to only publish Meme's music and his band's, WARD.
2. Page references no links to any sources of reliable 3rd party coverage. Google searches for additional coverage found no alternate sources
3. As well, Google searches revealed no awards, nominations, no performances in television shows or notable films, or inclusion on any compilation album, etc.
4. Broken links with no alternate sources. Wikipedia is the main source material for both WARD and Loca Records.
- WARD's Label is referenced as Loca Records. The link included ( http://www.locarecords.com/) appears to point to x-rated site Ran Google search. Found no alternate website for Loca Records
- WARD's referenced band website ( http://www.wearericharddavid.com/) does not exist: Ran Google search. Found no alternate homepage website for WARD
- Only source exterior to Wikipedia for WARD is four songs listed on one Myspace page. https://myspace.com/wearericharddavid/music/songs
- Delete no evidence of any notability. No independent refs. Probably qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. Velella Velella Talk 20:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
— Hello, re: Velella's comment, should I mark this article for speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F4Parks ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete no evidence of any notability
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 L'appel du vide. Any relevant content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
High place phenomenon
- High place phenomenon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recently created article with a topic identical to the L'appel du vide article KarlPoppery ( talk) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to L'appel du vide. Why could this not have been done per WP:ATD instead of nominating the article for deletion? Smartyllama ( talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Right, I should have done that. KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect. Same topic. Alex Mattrick 21:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. L'appel du vide is more general than the High place phenomenon, which is specific to the urge to jump from a high place, and was coined by the researchers in the source cited. If there's a case for High place phenomenon to be redirected, then I think the same case could be made for L'appel du vide to be redirected to Intrusive thought, which the article describes as the ″French phrase used to refer to intrusive thoughts″. Taoswiki ( talk) 00:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Taoswiki ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
- Merge with L'appel du vide -- The Anome ( talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Euphony Official
- Euphony Official ( | 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 band; all references given, with the exception of the third, are just passing mentions. Not enough for WP:BAND. Creator also had an obvious WP:COI. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is claimed at
Joshua Rajan that this band placed in a music competition, that on its face would seem to meet
WP:BAND; should this still be deleted?(genuine question) I've suggested that page be redirected to this one.
331dot (
talk)
21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ 331dot: update: somebody on Josh's AfD entry pointed out the competition itself is not a notable one. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is claimed at
Joshua Rajan that this band placed in a music competition, that on its face would seem to meet
WP:BAND; should this still be deleted?(genuine question) I've suggested that page be redirected to this one.
331dot (
talk)
21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: For the reasons by proposer, as per my comment, and as per Joshua Rajan's AfD comment. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Wole Ojo
- Wole Ojo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stub article about a non-notable actor, created by a user who has done nothing but creating short articles about non-notable people, and !voting keep, with no policy-based reason, in AfD-discussions about similar articles created by similar single-purpose accounts, making me believe we're seeing paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: He has starred in multiple notable films including Maami, Brave (2014 film), Apartment 24, Entreat, Beyond Blood, Lasgidi Copsetc. Having multiple lead roles denotes passing WP:GNGACTOR. There are also reliable references on him online. Darreg ( talk) 20:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Subject passes WP:GNG. He has being extensively covered in reliable sources. Quick google search brings up 1, 2. He has been starred in major roles in several notable films.-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 22:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as Darreg rightly pointed out. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 22:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:GNGACTOR. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The subject passes WP:NACTOR and has had significant role in multiple films. The subject has also being nominated for notable accolades in their native country. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 16:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep because Darreg's comment makes me satisfied that this person meets WP:NACTOR. The nomination statement seems a bit harsh ;paid editing is a problem but doesn't mean that the article should be deleted, nor does the fact that the editor has made other similr articles. Amisom ( talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- KeepPasses WP:GNGACTOR as far as I can see. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Bae Yong Kwon
- Bae Yong Kwon ( | 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 MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete He's an MMA fighter with no top tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. Being a top featherweight prospect is insufficient to show notability since "prospect" implies he's not reached the top level yet. Papaursa ( talk) 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hopeless Fountain Kingdom. Kurykh ( talk) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour
- Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Few to no in depth references after cursory search. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. There was coverage of the original tour announcement [6] [7] [8] [9], but to satisfy the spirit of the WP:NTOUR guideline, as far as supporting a standalone article, I would prefer to see details of the tour's "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience". This is possible once the tour begins, so for now (at least), I think a redirect to the Hopeless Fountain Kingdom album article would be appropriate, or even a merge. gongshow talk 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @ Gongshow:, with respect to redirecting or merging the article, I could not agree with you more. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per Gongshow. It sounds like this one could potentially be a standalone eventually, but going back to "the mothership" is a good option for now. South Nashua ( talk) 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge with main page. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Marta Cunningham (director)
AfDs for this article:
- Marta Cunningham (director) ( | 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 and WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE; Of the 10 sources cited: 5 are Imdb (self published) 3 are published by Glamour about a film they made with her (so not independent) 1 is from Sundance institute announcing that she was chosen to follow one of their programs (not independent and not in-depth just a resume) and 1 is a list of nominees for a prize the she didn't win. The article creator is Sugarskypic which is the name of her production company. Clearly a promotional puff piece. Domdeparis ( talk) 08:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment new links have been added but they refer to her first documentary that was nominated for a number of awards notably 2 Emmys but won none of them. None of the links talk about the subject but rather the documentary. None of the sources are independent in-depth coverage of the subject and this article now reads even more like a resume than before. This does not help her to pass WP:CREATIVE I maintain my nomination fro deletion. Domdeparis ( talk) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete scanning the sources and my search, there are nominations for prizes and writing credits, not no major prizes won, the credits are for episodes in series except for one minor documentary film. Moreover, there do not seem to be any profiles or feature articles about her. Looks like it's just WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete per above. WP:Gale search found references to one of er moview, but not to her per se. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Yash!: and @ SwisterTwister: you have left comments on a draft article for this same subject saying that it is notable. I thought you might like to contribute to this afd discussion as it seems to be going the other way. Domdeparis ( talk) 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give pinged users a chance to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting to give pinged users a chance to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep because I think there are sufficient sources. Not sure what disqualifies the Glamour ones since it is an independent editorial outlet writing about not itself? Amisom ( talk) 14:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The glamour sources are talking about a film they commissioned to be made by her so it is an affiliated source. Domdeparis ( talk) 14:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Parallel Media Group
- Parallel Media Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. My concern was: Fails WP:CORP. Existing cited secondary coverage is an extremely brief passing comment in the telegraph. All I can find myself are other brief mentions about it's share price e.g. [10] [11] but those provide no information about the company.
Further sources were added but these still do not provide substantial in-depth coverage. SmartSE ( talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep (as a declaration, i contributed to this article) Not sure this is enough or not as a notable summary, or this news coverage by the independent regarding the business profile. Matthew_hk t c 20:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Content of previous business was added, a coverage of William Morris Fine Arts plc with 1098 words by The Financial Times in 1984 ("The recycling of Peterlee - Tim Dickson chronicles a wallpaper company's route to the USM"), was found in Factiva (i had an academic account linked to my study in university, which granted my access to paid content). Unfortunately free content in the web slander to recentism . Matthew_hk t c 16:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep the article from the Independent provided above is an acceptable reference. There are other references to the spat between the shareholders available also. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 18:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. It;'s notable overall. Sufficient size, sufficient sources. What we need to be sure of is not to also make articles for each of its compenents. Much better to have one comprehensive article.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Lucha Britannia
- Lucha Britannia ( | 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 wrestling promotion, relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Strong Keep. It is notable. It just needs better referencing. The article does not "depend" on primary sources. It includes them. It is notable as it is one of the first of its kind in the UK. It is unique in genre and has appeared on television and in print media many times. The secondary sources supporting the article are Time Out, Bizarre Magazine, BBC News. I could also add this: < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucha-britannia-mexicos-iconic-wrestling-lands-the-uk-to-entertain-the-crowds-10376345.html>. Can you help me improve it please. Aetheling1125 ( talk) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by the following: Business Insider (2015) [12]. The Independent (2015) [13]. BBC News (2011) [14]. KBS Korean News (2011) [15]. Combined with the mentions in Time Out magazine dating back to 2007. Nikki♥ 311 21:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Adequately sourced. Not sure why this was relisted as consensus pretty clear. Amisom ( talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Zenuity
- Zenuity ( | 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 sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability. Seems to too soon also. BilCat ( talk) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing ++ 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: An article on a new joint venture, which is also covered in the article on one of the parties, at Autoliv#Autonomous_Driving. The brief Sydsvenskan item does not seem to go beyond coverage of the start-up. Perhaps one day this will prove to have been an important venture but at the moment I am not seeing sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 17:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Pat Astley
AfDs for this article:
- Pat Astley ( | 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 gng and pornbio Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 00:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Cathy Barry
AfDs for this article:
- Cathy Barry ( | 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 pornbio and gng. None of the sources pass muster - the times is about a surgeon and the list reaches no article to verify her inclusion in the text. Also, there is something deeply creepy about linking a porn performers online birth certificate as a source of of their real identity. Spartaz Humbug! 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 00:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Montanabw (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Pay-for-play awards fail the "well-known and significant" stamdard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 11:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Control (Uppermost album)
- Control (Uppermost album) ( | 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:NALBUM and GNG nothing found in a search that helps prove notability Domdeparis ( talk) 16:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Strongly fails WP:NALBUM MassiveYR ♠ 10:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Centre for the Humanities and Medicine
- Centre for the Humanities and Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of many sub-divisions of this university. Exactly one trivial mention news result. Admittedly 75 hits on scholar, but most/all seems to be "Dr. So and So, with The Centre..." or other passing mention.
Only claim I'm seeing in the current article is that it exists, but apparently that's sufficient not to A7. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
Timothyjosephwood: The significance is in that it is part of
The University of Hong Kong. I recall the blistering lecture some of us received in an AfD (an AfD, mind you) long ago for !voting to delete a program at some university, I forget which. The admin rejected our arguments and closed as "Keep". SO, yes, I detagged as asserting significance as part of the University of Hong Kong. Have not searched for sourcing or done a
WP:Before, so no !vote. Just explaining how it did not meet A7. Notably is not inherited, but significance is there.
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- With 4,000 degree granting institution in the US alone ( [16]), with about ~4% of the world population, so we could probably say 15 to 20 times that, or somewhere around 60,000-80,000 worldwide, I'm not seeing a terribly convincing argument that simply being affiliated with an university is a claim of much of anything other than existence. Nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing on the matter; just noting my disagreement. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. U Hong Kong is a very notable university, but not every program there is a notable program. Some will be, but there is no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, departments within a university are generally considered non-notable, unless they have "made significant contributions to their field". After doing some research on the topic, I (sadly) came to the conclusion that nothing suggested the Centre had achieved anything remarkable worthy of a standalone article, and certainly nothing about the centre's unique achievements was mentioned in the article. -- Dps04 ( talk) 13:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. New links have been added and this entry should be kept. This Center has developed a new way of thinking about the Humanities and Medicine – both in teaching and research – that is recognized globally. This is far more than the promotion of a ‘department’. -
Casper200008
12:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome! Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This passes the notability test and has sufficiently reliable sources, including an AHA publication, the South China Morning Post etc.
User:Matthewwells55 (
talk)
15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete the SPA editors have made the article worse under the policies and guidelines, not better. We now have promotional SYN along with the other problems.
Jytdog (
talk)
18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please comment on the article NOT the editors, this isn't the correct forum. You says SPA editors yet the article only has one editor so please check your facts as this is misleading. Also This is not a valid argument for deletion. 99.254.120.118 ( talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- promotional for the entity in question; belongs on the program's web site. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - no significant coverage (passing mentions don't suffice). Short mention in another article might be OK. Neutrality talk 17:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Kothari Brothers
- Kothari Brothers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable individuals. The article is about two persons who were killed by police firing during a political rally and are barely known beyond the incident (we don't even have an article for the incident in which they were killed). regentspark ( comment) 14:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:ONEEVENT. SL93 ( talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Per User:RegentsPark, whose point that "we don't even have an article for the incident in which they were killed," is well made. Tragedy, for sure, but, unfortunately the individuals are not notable for WP:Biography. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, the firing incident has not been written on Wikipedia as yet but I will create it after assembling proper data. It was important event in local and national political history. [1] [2]. The incident is finds mention in article on Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ayodhya_dispute&action=edit§ion=10. There are quite a few articles on Kothari brothers but they are in Hindi and hence can not be referenced here. (key words-Kothari Bandhu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zap guy ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
References
- Delete: As per nom. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dan Babic
- Dan Babic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Many sources which on closer look seem to boil down to very little actually. His role as host of "Design Genius" has received no attention in reliable independent sources, his role in the Degeneres show was the recipient of a cheque because he suffered from leukemia and only got a passing mention, and none of the other roles seem to have gotten more attention than this. The Geelong coast magazine is the only indepth source, but as a single, low quality source (an ad-packed local magazine) isn't sufficient. The image may need scrutiny as well, as this "March 2017 own work" photo is the same as the one used in the 2016 Geelong source.
Anyway, fails WP:BIO. Fram ( talk) 14:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I just verified all the sources. Great, honest article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portialloyd ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Note: I moved this comment to the bottom where it belongs. — KuyaBriBri Talk 00:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Portialloyd is the creator of this article and has edited nothing but Babic related things here. Fram ( talk) 06:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A non trivial handful but of essentially mostly minor references, does not meet WP:GNG. If anything WP:TOOSOON. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as NN. That the article is true, well-written, and nice do not matter. Bearian ( talk) 01:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Big Fish Theory
- Big Fish Theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, non-notable article, no track listing. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 13:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. A redirect until more content is added to the article would have been my preferred option. In the meantime, I have added sources to the article, and if the album indeed comes out in two days, then a wealth of additional coverage will surely become available along with the track listing. gongshow talk 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @ Gongshow:, to keep the article history, I would be on board with a redirect. In the mean time, would you be willing to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete We need a speedy category for upcoming albums that fail
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM like this one and assume that they are
WP:TOOSOON.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @
Walter Gorlitz:, @
Gongshow:, personally, I think that
speedy deletion gets overused, and that one week of discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. BTW, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Jax 0677: PRODs take one week and require no discussion. AfDs usually take longer. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @
Walter Gorlitz:, @
Gongshow:, personally, I think that
speedy deletion gets overused, and that one week of discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. BTW, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: If a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect. ---
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @ Another Believer:, in the interest of keeping the article history, I do not disagree. With that said, would you be so kind and comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep: The original complaints have been addressed, with a partial track listing added. Louis Waweru Talk 00:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)- Reply - @
Louis Waweru:, per
WP:FUTUREALBUM, "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". With that said, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677
- Thanks, @ Jax 0677:, did not know about that. I've removed my keep vote. Louis Waweru Talk 04:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reply - @
Louis Waweru:, per
WP:FUTUREALBUM, "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". With that said, would you be so kind and comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feed the Machine Tour? --
Jax 0677
( talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Bearian ( talk) 14:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Cantabria (Mesozoic island)
- Cantabria (Mesozoic island) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find evidence for the claims in this article. The major aspect of the geology around current Cantabria in the Mesozoic period seems to have been the Vasco-Cantabrian Basin or Basque-Cantabrian Basin. The rather passing mention in Walking with Dinosaurs seems insufficient to base an article on Fram ( talk) 13:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete this island seems to be a fictionalization, here is a wikia article for more details. The Cantabrian basin (or its hyphenates) may be notable, as could the Soba Reef Area of the basin. Smmurphy( Talk) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as unsupported in reliable sources. Geology_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula#Cantabrian_Zone covers this fairly nicely: "In the Permian and into the Mesozoic there was extension tectonics. The Permian Autunian succession – Viñon Formation formed when basins were created by downwards normal faulting." In addition to the reference cited for that article section, a number of geology texts and papers relate the history of the Cantabrian zone, Cantabrian orocline or Cantabrian arc as being formed in the Variscan orogeny, i.e. before the Mesozoic. See, e.g., Buckling an orogen: The Cantabrian Orocline and Oroclinical bending and evidence against the Pangea megashear: The Cantabria-Asturias arc (northern Spain). I can find no mention of a Cantabria in reliable geologic sources as a separate island when Laurasia separated from Gondwana in the Mesozoic. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 17:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - NN fictional place. Bearian ( talk) 01:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Chelsea Bond
- Chelsea Bond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stubified due to a total lack of sources to support the detailed content which appeared to be Original Research by someone close to her (possibly her agent), Bond's notability under either of her names fails to be asserted by Ghits and hence fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see adequate depth of independent coverage to build an article. VQuakr ( talk) 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
In-Depth Diagnostics
- In-Depth Diagnostics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a four month old non profit. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of independent sources. - Mr X 22:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable per nom. Ifnord ( talk) 15:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. non notable, like most new companies until proved otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Stephen Glass (photographer)
- Stephen Glass (photographer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find reliable, independent sources about this photographer. Fails WP:BIO. Fram ( talk) 14:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I haven't turned up anything about him. He has a few photo credits but no in-depth/reliable coverage. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Leeds Hornets HC 2011
- Leeds Hornets HC 2011 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find any reliable sources for this article. having played at the top level they ought to be notable but it seems they've only been noticed by the match reports on their opponents websites. The fact that the author has only been able to supply a team roster for the 2015-16 season, not the current season, speaks volumes. Regrettably, it's just not notable. Cabayi ( talk) 08:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Malo95 ( talk) 09:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Re-Define
- Re-Define ( | 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 organisation does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. I have checked the organisation is real, which it does appear to be, but it appears to more a vehicle of Sony Kapoor rather than an independent think tank that is normally seen. The article has not links to other Wikipedia. In summary, I proposed deletion of this article due to lack of notability. Seaweed ( talk) 12:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Having notable people on the advisory bard does not make any organization notable, and there;'s really nothing else. Just links to notable organizations and countries and its own publications. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4, article retains same problems from previous version. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Laura Dunn
AfDs for this article:
- Laura Dunn ( | 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 and WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACTOR a search turns up nothing notable. A correspondant (and not host as is claimed in the article) role in a TV show, a small role in a 1997 film a role in a series of TV commercials (we don't even know how many times she appeared I looked at about 20 from the period and she appeared in 1 about swingers where she said "thanks for inviting us"...) Domdeparis ( talk) 09:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - article was deleted last year as a result of an AfD discussion. Nothing has changed since then except a small role on a non-notable talking heads program. As nom states, based on searches fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 11:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per prior AFD result, and per WP:CSD G4. Also tagging as such for admin review Roberticus talk 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Venancio Cadle Gomani Jr.
- Venancio Cadle Gomani Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-created vanity article, fails WP:AUTHOR - works are self published - and WP:GNG Melcous ( talk) 09:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: As the nominator says, a vanity promotional article by a self-publisher. Sites such as BookReader invite self-interviews ("If you are an author and you are looking to get some free publicity for your book fill out our author interview." [17]) so cannot be considered as WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - we are a charity, not a free webhost for those who would profit from us. Bearian ( talk) 01:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Invalid rationale for deletion. Furthermore, assertions that an individual is not notable without some explanation is disruptive. I JethroBT drop me a line 18:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Sophie Labelle
- Sophie Labelle ( | 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 page and subject matter have been established by pediatric psychologists as "child abuse" and keeping this page around only gives a portal for those enabling this abusive practice of transgendering children who have no authority nor autonomy of their own. Also, this page is not notable or important to any facet of Wikipedia's goals or mission statement DalSheron ( talk) 08:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Rationale does not provide a legitimate reason for deletion under policy. Note also that there is currently a 4chan/pol/ campaign of harassment against the subject of the article, making this a possible bad faith nomination.
Yunshui
雲
水
15:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually it does, it has to be notable, and of sound judgement, advocating a certifiable act of child abuse is neither notable nor of sound judgement. There is no obectivity tobe found here. DalSheron ( talk) 15:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad-faith nomination. The subject does not support child abuse. Supporting trans children is not considered child abuse by the present-day medical establishment. This page has been continually subjected to attack campaigns from trans-antagonistic people, and this is just more of the same. Funcrunch ( talk) 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Passes GNG and I can confirm that I've heard about the harassment campaign mentioned by Yunshui in my own social media circles. In addition, what Funcrunch has said is true: supporting trans children provides a better outlook on their overall happiness & mental health and reduces suicide and homelessness for the transgendered population. [18] [19] [20]. I have no idea where DalSheron has found information that supporting trans kids is "abuse," but that claim is patently false and WP:FRINGE. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The page is a biography of a living person. The subject's personal views should not influence the relevance of the page itself, as long as the information about the subject conforms to standards. 62.64.208.155 ( talk) 18:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per my note below. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The opera corpus
- The opera corpus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redundant to List of important operas.
The two articles share identical scope (though not content: this one is an indiscriminately bloated and completely unreferenced assortment, the other one is a Featured List). I see no prospects for a merger so this one has to go. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a valuable list of opera composers and their most important operas. The scope, format, order, content, and text of List of important operas is completely and utterly different, as even a passing glance reveals. Softlavender ( talk) 09:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a very useful list, which should be kept under its original name,
The opera corpus.
Cote d'Azur (
talk)
09:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I've returned the article to its original title, as it had been moved to an inaccurate title without discussion. See the thread I started on the article's talk page. Softlavender ( talk) 10:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – This list is not redundant. It is more inclusive than the List of important operas. It is a helpful encyclopedic compendium/almanac of a wide range of operas, and its red links are useful to identify missing articles. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: This list is currently listed here, at AfD, and it's PRODed at the same time; shouldn't it be one or the other? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- It wasn't PRODed, it was SPEEDYed. The way to contest a CSD is to click the link in the template (which I have already done, but more people can do it as well I suppose). Softlavender ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as a redirect to list of important operas. If these were separate lists, they had been merged before I got here. So I moved it all to list of important operas. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Qaqortoq Hostel
- Qaqortoq Hostel ( | 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. found no significant coverage LibStar ( talk) 07:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Hotels are generally not notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Raja Mishra (Filmmaker)
- Raja Mishra (Filmmaker) ( | 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 WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete- Looks like a hoax the source mentioned is for Rohan Mehra and not the subject.Cant find a single source on the subject. FITINDIA 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete (CSD G3): The "references" were repurposed from someone else's career, and the article text is copied /adapted from Rohan Mehra without attribution. Wannabe, but isn't notable. I've flagged CSD G3. AllyD ( talk) 13:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Jason Stewart (actor)
- Jason Stewart (actor) ( | 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 meat GNG or WP:SIGCOV, the only source cited within the article text is not significant coverage and arguably primary as it was published by his employer at the time. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR either, his roles were bit parts at best and not particularly significant. Roberticus talk 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. He's a guy with a job in broadcasting who's also acted a little. Neither qualify him for an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. For now anyways, but I won't be surprised if his article could stand overhere in the future. Antonio the love of your life Martin ( what's that? 00:14, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Piano rock
AfDs for this article:
- Piano 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, made-up genre. Two consensuses were formed to delete the article since 2009, but this never happened for some reason. The third one, from 2015, was tagged as "no consensus". Its rationales for "Keep" noted that the genre is sometimes mentioned by AllMusic and Rolling Stone, but that does not automatically cement its notability, per
WP:SIGCOV (Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention
).
An article could be made about the general subject of pianos in rock music (a la Electronics in rock music), but as far as a dedicated "piano rock" category goes, it's about as much a thing as "banjo rock" or "trombone rock". -- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - A correction to the nomination statement. The article was deleted after the first two AfDs. It was then deleted twice more as a recreation. RHaworth restored it and then it went to the third AfD and was kept as no consensus. See [ logs]. ~ GB fan 22:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -Well now. It seems to me that there is quite good evidence that this is a thing. It is certainly mentioned in news articles, in books and academic studies. There are various student books for learning piano rock songs. The question for me then is whether this is sufficiently distinct as a subset of rock to deserve it's own page. I'm not sure it is. At best it is a simple wiktionary definition - there doesn't appear to me to be any evidence of significant coverage of piano rock which would show it was notable in its own right. I'm going to hold off from !voting to see if anyone's keep arguments are persuasive, but that's how I see it at the moment. JMWt ( talk) 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete with apologies to Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino and Elton John. All I'm seeing is a bunch of lists and forum comments, nothing that elevates this to a recognized subgenre. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It has never been shown to be a genre. It is a term that gets used to describe rock music that prominently features piano, so there will be GHits, but the artists described as 'piano rock' are a pretty diverse lot. -- Michig ( talk) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the WP:OR concerns. Moreover, we happen to have a policy about this type of content, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. In view of this, the "keep" opinions in the vein of: it's interesting, popular, etc., must be given less weight. That other similar articles may exist is not a reason not to apply our policies to this one (and is even a reason to suppress it insofar as these articles overlap, per WP:CFORK). Sandstein 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ancestry charts of the current British royal family
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just seems to be someone's collection of whatever genealogical connections interest them. Poorly sourced, with no unifying principle, criteria for inclusion, reason for being. Agricolae ( talk) 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It is what the nom has described. Srnec ( talk) 23:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Delete or Merge or something - There are dozens (ok, maybe just a dozen) of these:
- British monarchs' family tree
- Genealogy of the British royal family
- House of Windsor
- English monarchs family tree
- English and British monarchs family tree (simple)
- Alternative successions of the English crown
- Line of succession to the British throne
- Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror
- Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Descent from the Franks)
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Irish connection)
- Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)
- Ancestry of Elizabeth II
- I'm all for multiple perspectives (within a single article or across multiple articles), but I'm not sure all of these are necessary. I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy of this AfD, perhaps people over there have some thoughts. Smmurphy( Talk) 20:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. Just . . . . wow! A lot of these are NOR violations, and in particular, they select a specific aspect that the page creator thought was interesting, and present any old line of descent. As an exmple, the 'descent from Franks' page selects one of what must be over a million different ways you can trace back from the current kings to Charlemagne, every one equally valid. Many of them amount to 'hey, look at this interesting line of descent I stumbled across'. I am not saying that they aren't correct, although the sourcing is abysmal, largely depending on user-submitted on-line trees. Its just that the fact that such lines exists is not in and of itself notable. (WP:NOTGENEALOGY - "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.") Agricolae ( talk) 21:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - entirely relevant and notable today. The Internet was all abuzz last night because Prince Philip might have died. Bearian ( talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- So because people care if someone might have died, an arbitrary selection of charts about his wife's distant ancestry is notable? Please provide the policy that would support that. Agricolae ( talk) 03:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. This does seem to be in violation of Wikipedia:Notability, i.e. although material may be verifiable, we should avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. I think 'Ancestry charts of the current British royal family' can be redirected to one of the other charts, and the three split-off articles (Franks, Irish and Saxon) deleted. Celia Homeford ( talk) 09:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- While the complaints are similar, the rationale for deleting Frank, Irish & Saxon would be different - as opposed to this one, which is just 'charts documenting connections I think are interesting' they each have a coherent guiding principle, just a non-notable arbitrary one, so rather than adding them to this proposal I will wait for it to play out and be sure there is a concensus for getting rid of any royal genealogy pages before initiating a new proposal for them.
Agricolae (
talk)
15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let me add that this is a cancer not only affecting British royalty. Why do we need:
- The motivation for a lot of these seems to be 'because we can'.
Agricolae (
talk)
20:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- 'Because we can' is a great motivation to do things on wikipedia - what can have an article is only bounded by a few policies and guidelines. In the case of the Medici, the British royals, and many other trees I'm sure, AfD feels like TNT to me; pruning, merging, and reorganizing seems more reasonable if more difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if you but mergeto templates on a number of these, you would either get a useful discussion or none at all.
Smmurphy(
Talk)
21:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest that 'because we can' make a tree tracing Queen Elizabeth to Brian Boru is a poor motivation for a new page that shows one of thousands of possible lines, and that there may well be nothing in such a page worth saving.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Here is a comparison of the page-views of 10 of these pages: [21]. Five of them get hardly any views, have hardly any edits, etc. I agree with Bearian that the topic is relevant and notable. In spite of this, I think some improvement in organization would be useful. I think that this page and its three subpages should be deleted, as well as Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton and maybe Ancestry of Elizabeth II. The three subpages of this tree could be added to this AfD or submitted as a group, but the others should probably have their own. Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror and Family tree of English and British monarchs mostly duplicate each other and could be merged. English monarchs' family tree and British monarchs' family tree could also be merged, but perhaps that would be politically insensitive, I do not know. I'll wait a bit to see if any discussion here or there makes different/better suggestions; and will plan to propose merges on those pages over the coming weeks. I'll try to add citations where possible/necessary. The Medici ones are different enough that I will let them be. Smmurphy( Talk) 23:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would suggest that 'because we can' make a tree tracing Queen Elizabeth to Brian Boru is a poor motivation for a new page that shows one of thousands of possible lines, and that there may well be nothing in such a page worth saving.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- 'Because we can' is a great motivation to do things on wikipedia - what can have an article is only bounded by a few policies and guidelines. In the case of the Medici, the British royals, and many other trees I'm sure, AfD feels like TNT to me; pruning, merging, and reorganizing seems more reasonable if more difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if you but mergeto templates on a number of these, you would either get a useful discussion or none at all.
Smmurphy(
Talk)
21:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- While the complaints are similar, the rationale for deleting Frank, Irish & Saxon would be different - as opposed to this one, which is just 'charts documenting connections I think are interesting' they each have a coherent guiding principle, just a non-notable arbitrary one, so rather than adding them to this proposal I will wait for it to play out and be sure there is a concensus for getting rid of any royal genealogy pages before initiating a new proposal for them.
Agricolae (
talk)
15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I had no idea this was so out of hand. I'd support PRODing Ancestry charts of Lady Diana Spencer and Catherine Middleton, Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Descent from the Franks), Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Irish connection) and Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent) if the current AFD goes through. The others probably require AFDs. Srnec ( talk) 18:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with other royal ancestry articles. We probably have rather too many of these, but because the claim to the throne is by descent we probably do need a few articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Though we have discussed them more broadly this is not a proposal to eliminate all royal genealogies. It is about one specific page, a page that has absolutely nothing to do with any claim to a throne. It has a chart showing descent from Vikings, a chart showing how the male royal consorts are related, descent from a Byzantine emperor and a relationship to Count Dracula, none of which have any relevance to the right to rule Great Britain. Agricolae ( talk) 16:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The reason there are so many articles (and books and forums) on royal lineage is that 1. the subjects of the genealogies -- rulers of states and peoples -- are inherently notable 2. genealogy continues to be a key factor, often determinate, in who reigns, and who are significant competitors for thrones -- competitions that constitute much of recorded, notable history 3. they are probably the best documented human lineages available to us, and 4. readers want to know the most complete and accurate lines of descent and, often, how they correlate through royal intermarriage, such alliances also often being historically notable. FactStraight ( talk) 18:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- You speak in generalities about royal genealogies, but again, this proposal is about one specific page. Yes, royal people are inherently notable, but the genealogical connections between two royal people chosen at random, who lived at different times in distant places are not inherently notable. This page is just a magpie collection of any pedigrees that interested the compiler. Every one of the tables shown is entirely unreferenced, the product of Original Research by the editor who made the charts. This is genealogical Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, with no indication of why any of the lines of descent shown being noteworthy. They have nothing to do with each other - they don't trace to the same people, they don't trace from the same people. There are no succession claims, competing or otherwise, being documented through these descents. We have have royal genealogy pages more targeted on the noteworthy issues of succession, but this specific page, which is basically 'hey, look at these interesting things I found', has no basis for notability. This argument that because some royal genealogies can be helpful, any genealogy linking any randomly chosen royals must be notable is unsupportable. Agricolae ( talk) 19:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as unreliably-sourced OR and the like. Potentially very interesting unreliably-sourced OR which someone has spent considerable time getting into the present format, but the OR and the unreliable sourcing trump the time, effort and interest any day of the week. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Delete The ancestry of the British royal family before Sophia of Hanover is not relevant for any legal matters. The article as written is clearly not encyclopedic; the ancestries listed are purely arbitrary. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I wonder how expert is the nom in the subject? It seems to me that an ancestry expert would want to fix and improve this article rather than delete it based upon what "seems to be someone's collection of whatever genealogical connections interest them". Genealogy is a growingly popular subject, and British as well as other royal ancestries have been popular subjects for a very long time. It makes no sense for Wikipedia to abandon this subject. Ancestry of Elizabeth II has been getting nearly 900 page views daily, and the nominated article gets more than 200 page views every day. If experts were to work on these articles, then they could be modernized and made more readable and more sensible, even to non-experts. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 23:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is about this specific article, rather than genealogy in particular, or the ancestries of given royals in particular. Nobody's suggesting Wikipedia "abandon this subject".
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an
00:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- My given opinion and rationale is in regard to the article under nomination. The subject of that article is the charted ancestry of the current British royal family. That is the subject that should not be abandoned. Hope that makes it clearer.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Clearer in relation to what you said, yes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- My given opinion and rationale is in regard to the article under nomination. The subject of that article is the charted ancestry of the current British royal family. That is the subject that should not be abandoned. Hope that makes it clearer.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Who knows, the nom may be more expert than you think (or they may not be, since the anonymity of Wikipedia lets anyone claim to be anything - is this really relevant?). This is not a proposal to abandon the entire subject of Wikipedia royal genealogy, just to ditch a single ill-conceived random collection of royal genealogy trivia. This one page is what we are talking about. 'Ancestry charts of the current British royal family' may be a good Category, but it is not a good topic for a page, because it isn't about anything specific, and will invariably accumulate the kind of random assortment that appears on this page, all subject to the whims of any editor that finds a particular genealogical conection to be fascinating.
Agricolae (
talk)
00:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting take, and it was interesting the first time you said it. What is so bad about an editor writing an article about a subject that fascinates them? I think we should probably be assessing the notability of this article that was split from another article five years ago that was created in 2005. No, it makes no sense to turn our backs on this article when all it needs is the help of an expert in ancestry and genealogy. Only then can we really know if any so-called "whims" were amateurish.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with an editor writing an article about a subject that fascinates them - a vast amount of the articles here have doubtless started that way. If the editor writes an article that's unsourced, unreliably-sourced, unencyclopedic and full of original research, that's where the problem arises. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Well, for starters, 'what fascinates an editor' is not the standard that Wikipedia uses as its basis for articles. More importantly, though, you are misrepresenting what I said. That someone might create an article on 'pedigrees that interest me' is a problem, but not what I was referring to. It is the content that is the problem: why does an article on 'pedigrees that interest me' include such an unfocussed collection of material? Because the topic itself is unfocussed. It is an umbrella that would encompass any genealogical tree connecting anyone to anyone, as long as it had a British royal in it. Thus its content is driven entirely by the whims of editors. This is not something an 'expert' can fix, because it's like asking an expert to fix an article entitled 'My Favorate Pedigrees' - what is and is not appropriate, what does and does not belong, is entirely subjective. An expert could fully document every tree there, and it would still be a whimsical collection of whatever trees got put there. Why is the desent of Elizabeth from Rollo the viking more noteworthy than the descent of Elizabeth from Anlaf Cuaran the viking? arbitrary. Why is this specific descent tracing Elizabeth from Rollo the viking noteworthy, while the thousands of other lines also tracing Ellizabeth from Rollo the viking are not? arbitrary. Why trace William III of England to John of Gaunt through Mary Queen of Scots rather than through Lord Darnley? arbitrary. Why not trace through Elizabeth of York and Edward IV, then to John of Gaunt, or his brother Edmund, or his brother Lionel? arbitrary. Why trace from Isaac Angelos and not any of the other Byzantine Emperors from whom Elizabeth descends? arbitrary. Why trace from the Byzantine Emperor and not the Emperor of all Hispania? arbitrary. Why does it trace Maria Henrietta of France from the Byzantine emperor though Medici, Germany and Castile rather than through France, Navarre and France, or through France, Savoy, Burgundy and Flanders to get to Brabant, also on the other side of the chart? arbitrary. Why is being cousin of Vlad the Impaler shown, but not being related to Ivan the Terrible? arbitrary. Why it traces from certain people is arbitrary, why it traces to certain people is arbitrary, why it traces through certain people is arbitrary. It's all arbitrary, and there is no fixing it because the page is about a Category of things, with no governing criteria other than that it should be a genealogical chart and that it should have something to do with the British royal family.
Agricolae (
talk)
02:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following you on this, mostly because of the contradictions. For example, you keep coming down on those who want to keep this article with "This is just about this one article," when it was you who didn't argue with Smmurphy's long list of related articles, and it was you who brought up the Medicis. It seems that every part of your argument is about how this article is in disarray, which is a reason to improve, not to delete, and you don't seem to think that the notability of the subject is in question. Can you be specific about precisely which of the
14 reasons for deletion you think apply in this case? Then maybe I can put that together with the other things you've said and better understand your reasoning.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- An ancestry chart of the current British royal family is what is shown at the other articles. Hence it should be merged or renamed. We shouldn't have articles that duplicate existing topics or articles where the content does not reflect the information that a reader will be looking for at a page with that name. That name should instead redirect to a pertinent page. This article purports to show the important descents of the British royal family, but it fails to do that by instead showing their descent from Agnes of the Palatinate and Margaret of Bavaria when it should be directing readers to their descent from previous British monarchs, which is clearly relevant and important. Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following you on this, mostly because of the contradictions. For example, you keep coming down on those who want to keep this article with "This is just about this one article," when it was you who didn't argue with Smmurphy's long list of related articles, and it was you who brought up the Medicis. It seems that every part of your argument is about how this article is in disarray, which is a reason to improve, not to delete, and you don't seem to think that the notability of the subject is in question. Can you be specific about precisely which of the
14 reasons for deletion you think apply in this case? Then maybe I can put that together with the other things you've said and better understand your reasoning.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting take, and it was interesting the first time you said it. What is so bad about an editor writing an article about a subject that fascinates them? I think we should probably be assessing the notability of this article that was split from another article five years ago that was created in 2005. No, it makes no sense to turn our backs on this article when all it needs is the help of an expert in ancestry and genealogy. Only then can we really know if any so-called "whims" were amateurish.
Paine Ellsworth
put'r there
01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is about this specific article, rather than genealogy in particular, or the ancestries of given royals in particular. Nobody's suggesting Wikipedia "abandon this subject".
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an
00:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Two different conversations have gone on here. Conversation 1 is that this page should be deleted. Conversation 2 is that this page is part of a larger problem of duplication, overlap, content forking, original research, etc., among the royal genealogies on Wikipedia as a whole. There is no contradiction between these two conversations - this page is abysmal and needs deleted, the larger area needs cleaning up. I admit that the introduction of the second conversation perhaps muddied the waters, but, say what you will about the larger topic area, this proposal is still about deleting one specific article, not deleting all royal genealogy on Wikipedia, so generic arguments about royal ancestry as a whole fascinating people don't really address the question.
- I do challenge the notability of this article. Let me try an analogy, a hypothetical article 'Pictures of the British royal family' - we use pictures to illustrate articles on notable members of the royal family, but the topic itself is not independently notable. Were it to be made very specific, say 'Official portrature of Queen Elizabeth II over time', I think that would represent a defensible namespace, not only clearly defined but I have seen studies directly addressing this specific topic, but 'Pictures of the British royal family' is too nebulous, too much a catch-all topic that will invariably turn into a random collection of whatever pictures editors want to include, because to fit the topic a picture can be of anything, as long as it has a Brit royal somewhere in it. Further, you can't 'fix' 'Pictures of the British royal family' because the topic is so vague that there are no non-arbitrary criteria for excluding one and including another royal-containing picture. The same applies to 'Ancestry charts of the British royal family' - that authors have used ancestry charts to illustrate specific aspects of the British royals does not make the generic category of Brit royal ancestry charts itself a notable topic, and the result has been as would be expected, an unfixable collection of whatever. Specifically, I think the article fails: WP:DEL5, DEL8, and DEL14 (and depending on how the rule is interpreted, DEL6, in so much as the unfocussed topic invites, almost demands, WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH). Agricolae ( talk) 14:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saru Lock. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Naoki Serizawa
- Naoki Serizawa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Manga artist known mainly for Saru Lock (22 volumes), has some manga titles for Resident Evil (Biohazard/heavenly island) and Resident Evil: The Marhawa Desire, but is that enough to keep around? I looked at Resident_Evil#Comics but do not see it listed. Has been tagged for notability since 2011, and outside of Resident Evil, not much improvement on the article. JA Wikipedia isn't promising either, barely a stub there with just a short list of works. MADB isn't showing anything for his anime either, so it must be all manga artist stuff. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Saru Lock as a possible search term. Such a redirect is cheap, in this case. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 22:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - I have a vague feeling that deletion may be the wiser choice in this case, but after considerable reflection I can't come up with any defensible reason why. The only concern I can put forth is that Saru Lock may not be the most appropriate redirect target, but if so then it's easy enough for someone to change it later.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 15:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. The opinion by Seraphim System must be discounted because longstanding practice is that Wikipedias are not inherently any more notable than any other websites. Sandstein 09:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Chechen Wikipedia
- Chechen Wikipedia ( | 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 of notability. f e minist 10:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. f e minist 10:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. f e minist 10:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias ( WP:ATD-R). Per source searches, does not meet WP:N. North America 1000 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is notable, I don't think we need to establish independent notability for every foreign language edition of Wikipedia. Some of our userbox templates automatically link to foreign language wikipedia pages - I think the assumption is they share the notability of Wikipedia. Seraphim System ( talk) 03:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Tadap (1990 film)
- Tadap (1990 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)
No claims of further release and clearly fails WP:NFILM. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage. A 1990 film that was never completed. SL93 ( talk) 22:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Trapped In Static
AfDs for this article:
- Trapped In Static ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated this early last year. Closed as no consensus with no participation other than myself and the article creator. While he/she compiled some sources at the previous AfD, I haven't seen anything close to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject ( WP:NBAND/ WP:GNG). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I could not find significant coverage either; subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
User:OutlinerThis band is mentioned in the credits of the movie Preying for Mercy (as writing the music - sources have been cited before). A movie that stars the Emmy award winner Martha Byrne and directed by Bill Duke. According to n.10 article in the criteria, this band has performed music for a work or a media that is notable. —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from a unsuccessful tv pilot, no matter who else worked on it. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
India Kids
- India Kids ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Good intentions, but no evidence of actual notability. The editor has worked only on Kovind Gupta and associated topics. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mohsen Yeganeh. Kurykh ( talk) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hobab (album)
- Hobab (album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unremarkable album. Mjbmr ( talk) 03:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Deliberately not weighing in with an opinion either way, but it is important to note that the nominator here is also the article creator and had listed a large number of articles he/she had created for speedy deletion, in what may be a way of "retaliating" for other articles being deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Mohsen Yeganeh; no independent sourcing to confirm individual notability.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nom's comment: Please delete it and create whatever you want on it. Mjbmr ( talk) 06:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 TT me 18:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Action Man: X Missions – The Movie
- Action Man: X Missions – The Movie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is largely unsourced and only contains one source in the "Release" section, but it is not an official Action Man website. There is no evidence of notability and one section even states that there was a sequel to this movie which was only released in Mexico, but there are no sources backing it up at all. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Plasticity Forum
- Plasticity Forum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A promotional page on an unremarkable organisation and its event. The article is cited to the org itself or to otherwise unsuitable sources. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Checa985 with no other contributions outside of this topic. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a page on an organisation, but rather on an event that is organized internationally twice annually - in Shanghai and London in 2016 and this year two events in the US. I will link in news about more recent events. Checa985 ( talk) 18:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. This is borderline for me, but I'd say the topic barely passes the GNG threshold. It is true that Plasticity Forum hasn't received significant coverage in large news organizations, save for a trivial mention in CNN. That said, the forum did receive significant coverage in a Dallas News article, and covered numerous times by Plastics News. Although Dallas/Plastics News are certainly not as notable as CNN, nothing suggests they should not be treated as unreliable sources either. -- Dps04 ( talk) 14:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nom's comment -- the Dallas News article is not SIGCOV & is part of the pre-event publicity, as can be seen by the headline: "Earth Day Texas event in Dallas will bring together experts to tackle plastic pollution". It contains a quote by an exec, which is followed by an interview. If instead, the journalist attended the event and then wrote up a summary of the talks, then yes, that would be significant coverage. But covering how great the event will be is not significant. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Paul Eryk Atlas
- Paul Eryk Atlas ( | 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:ENT. The sourcing is pretty thin: the obligatory IMDb bio, some cruft, passing mentions and a puff piece in a local paper. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but the notability just isn't there at the moment. - Biruitorul Talk 01:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cultural appropriation. Clearly a student paper ("My first observation from the food examples will begin with pizza and spaghetti ...") that is unsuitable for Wikipedia in this form per WP:NOT#ESSAY. The redirect leaves the content in the history of the redirected page so that it any sourced and useful content can still be merged. Sandstein 09:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Culture Appropriation in Food, Clothing, & Music
- Culture Appropriation in Food, Clothing, & 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)
Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix ( talk) 01:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi! This was part of a student assignment with WikiEd. If the student expresses interest, can they have a copy of this either e-mailed to them or moved to their userspace so they can work on seeing if there's anything that could be useful to the cultural appropriation article? It looks like fashion is covered at Cultural_appropriation#Fashion, but there really isn't any sections that have content on general cultural appropriation of food or music. The content would need to be re-written to remove any WP:OR and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's WP:MoS, or course. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 12:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've contacted the student and explained the reasons for deletion, as well as asked them if they would be interested in any potential merging to the main article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 12:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge - sounds as if a judicious bit of pruning followed by a merge of whatever's left (both new and cited) to Cultural appropriation would be best here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
CicCartuja
- CicCartuja ( | 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 notabiltiy criteria -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 01:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Robin Foster
- Robin Foster ( | 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 musician -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 01:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No independent sources in article beyond one WP:LOCAL source and searches turn up only non- WP:RS (SoundCloud, Bandcamp, YouTube, Facebook, etc.). Albums have been release on minor labels, so does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Highlands, North Carolina#Tourism. Consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) J 947( c) 19:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Martin-Lipscomb Performing Arts Center
- Martin-Lipscomb Performing Arts Center ( | 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 performing arts center lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I had a similar issue recently with a golf course. Outcome was merging to it's town, so merge to Highlands, North Carolina in Tourism. Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge as above to the Highlands, North Carolina. The center lack the in-depth coverage required for notability. MB 18:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Pamposh Bhat
- Pamposh Bhat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unknown activist Uncletomwood ( talk) 07:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- She isn't "unknown." A Gbooks search does reveal some passing mentions in reputable publications. I agree that we can't find evidence of her meeting GNG and or AUTHOR in English. Maybe someone can in Hindi -- though her article in Hindi Wikipedia is a one-line unreferenced stub. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Has plenty of reliable sources regarding her notability but the problem is they aren't in English. But a lack of sources in English isn't a reason to delete a notable subject.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the verifiability bar isn't met. — Spaceman Spiff 03:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Alumni of santragachi kedarnath institution
- Alumni of santragachi kedarnath institution ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of seemingly non-notable people linked to an educational establishment. At best, the articles need to be created first to show notability for the persons, and THEN such a list can be created - not the other way round. PROD was removed, and none of the speedy cats seem to fit, so discussion it is. Mabalu ( talk) 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not enough notable alumni that have wikipedia articles at present (only one in the current list) so a list is not needed Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge - The
Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (For Boys) does not have an alumni section so merging seems a sensible option.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
09:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think just mention the notable alumni in the school article and delete. No merger process or redirect necessary. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 01:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment- The institute is located in India, would anyone mind sorting it into the India related discussion. I am not sure how to do it. Thank you. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 09:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge only one article in a very short, unreferenced list of redlinks. When a referenced list gets too big for that article, then it's worth thinking about a split. Uncle Roy ( talk) 09:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge the sole blue-linked entry, Jatu Lahiri, to Santragachi Kedarnath Institution, which presently has no mention of Jatu Lahiri.North America 1000 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Upon consideration, delete, the entry denoted in my !vote above is not verified, and some searches (e.g. [22]) are not providing much to properly verify. North America 1000 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge and redirect/Merge and delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Merge and redirect/Merge and delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- the blue linked article contains one sentence and does not speak about the connection to the institution, so there's nothing to merge. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, only one of those names has an article and even then is questionable whether they even qualify under WP:BLP. Ajf773 ( talk) 02:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh ( talk) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The Darrell Schweitzer Megapack
AfDs for this article:
- The Darrell Schweitzer Megapack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage per WP:BK. SL93 ( talk) 23:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. As before, I would argue that Wildside Press is a reputable publisher in the science fiction, fantasy and horror fields and the author is a notable figure in the speculative fiction field who has won and been nominated for major awards. But of course, I would say that. I created the article. BPK ( talk) 00:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Darrell Schweitzer#Other short story collections. Fails all elements of WP:NBOOK. The article sources provide no significant critical commentary. Searching finds nothing helpful. That the author is notable, has won awards, etc. is not enough to satisfy criteria #5 of WP:NBOOK. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
RUiN
- RUiN ( | 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:GNG. The game has not yes been released, the producing company does not currently have a wp page, and no evidence of notability during the production phase of the game development. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, as it does not seem to meet the GNG at this time. I have found three articles in RSs about the game ( Kotaku, PC Gamer, Gamestar.de), though - with just a few more (which may very well happen as development progresses and the game gets closer to launch) it should meet the GNG.-- IDV talk 08:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
International Pro Wrestling: United Kingdom
- International Pro Wrestling: United Kingdom ( | 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 wrestling promotion, relies primarily on a single primary reference. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Local/regional wrestling promotion with no sources and no search results. No significant reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The promotion is small, but recieved attention form reliable sources. [23] [24] -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as largely unsourced spam; the article lists one citation and it's to the org itself. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Saori Yumiba
- Saori Yumiba ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable voice actor. Mei Karuma in Ace Attorney is a supporting role, Kyouka in Engage Planet Kiss Drum is supporting, and Miyuki in Present is also supporting. Not much to go on for now so it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article. ANN shows no news articles. BTVA confirms no roles so it is useless as a reference. Being a Keira Knightley voice-over doesn't show notability either. JA Wikipedia also has no biography and is just a credits list. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The Japanese Wikipedia does have a few sources, though. Have you checked those out?-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 14:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- They appear to be film cast announcements. I've added them to the article. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete - Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I was unable to find enough significant coverage about her. However, if anyone can confirm that she has had more main roles, I'm willing tor reconsider my !vote. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 11:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Onion Creek (band)
- Onion Creek (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)
This article has no external sources and has been around for a very long time. A quick check through Google shows no information about the band except through Wikipedia mirrors of the page in question. The band may have existed but they are obviously not notable due to the lack of external sources. One Salient Oversight ( talk) 03:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 10. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 03:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage for this subject; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 21:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete unreferenced and no credible claim to meeting WP:BAND. LibStar ( talk) 13:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Willits Town Center
- Willits Town Center ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
undefined neighborhood--the article is just a business directory DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This "neighborhood" is really a commercial development. I find this to be disguised promotional article. Sources are mostly primary or not significant coverage. Fails GNG. MB 02:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Your local beige big-box power center is not a 'neighborhood'. Nate • ( chatter) 03:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen
- List of Knight's Cross recipients 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list article that contains two entries that are actual articles; the rest are redirects to a list. Per recent discussion ( Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the redirected subject would be considered notable in the future and the list is not needed.
The article was created by the same editor who created about 500 articles on the members of the Waffen-SS, and the cross caterigorisation of "Knight's Cross winner by [X] category" strikes me as excessive. The list was created in 2008, at a time when the Knight's Cross recipients were presumed by default to be notable. This has changed recently, so both the many individual articles created by the editor in question, along with the lists, are no longer encyclopedically relevant. For recent AfDs on comparative lists, please see:
- AfD: List of Knight's Cross recipients of the 22nd SS Division
- AfD: List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft
Comparative lists by X category do not exist for highly decorated Allied personnel of WW2. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether or not the Knight's Cross confers notability, there's no real reason to segregate by unit, especially for so few recipients. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessarily specific and arbitrarily divided. -- Joshualouie711 talk 17:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Rupali Dash
- Rupali Dash ( | 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 advertorial-like page for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Article sourced to directory listings and other non independent sources. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete article states she is active in tons of things, but not even one thing that she has done. The prestigious awards are dubious too. Blatant advertisement. Maybe she uses this article as her visiting card. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Pavan Kushwaha
AfDs for this article:
- Pavan Kushwaha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined a speedy deletion of this puff-piece article, on grounds that there are in fact a couple of usable references showing coverage in reliable sources (for example reference 2, to Entrepreneur Magazine).
The question remains if these are sufficient to cross the general notability guideline. Thought I'd bring it here for wider review. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Euryalus ( talk) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete even though mentioned in couple of RS, fails notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Chasing criminals in Poland in the Middle Ages
- Chasing criminals in Poland in the Middle Ages ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do like historical articles, but this one seems basically too much of a mess to warrant anything but a WP:TNT. It seems a poor translation of pl:Ściganie przestępców w Polsce w okresie średniowiecza. I am not sure if the underlying topic is notable, and anyway in the current form it may be better to move it back to user sandbox, as the low quality of writing make it IMHO hardly helpful (I could only figure out what it is about after reading the original Polish article). To summarize: I am not sure if this topic is notable, and the text is so hard to understand it fails our prose quality requirements for mainspace. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Yeah. Seems like one of those helpless cases where purging and restarting from scratch is the best solution. Renata ( talk) 11:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per above, WP:TNT seems like the best way to go. The enthusiasm from an editor to translate the article into English is admirable but I too don't think the topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Maybe merge into one of the History of Poland in the Middle Ages articles? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment An historical duty of commoners to pursue criminals can certainly be a notable topic. See, e.g.,
Hue and cry and
Posse comitatus. Whether this article is a fair presentation of the Polish sources is beyond my linguistic ability and there may be a better term that could be used for the article's title.
24.151.10.165 (
talk)
16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to cover a related topic in a more readable and properly sourced fashion at Fugitive peasants. Since the article we discuss here is not using inline (or online) citations, there is nothing I could rescue from it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Janet Hudson Schroeder
- Janet Hudson Schroeder ( | 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 meet WP:GNG. Unable to locate significant, independent coverage despite winning of awards. She won 8th place at a WPJA contest in 2007-- just a captioned photo for coverage. Only sources in article are subject's web pages. WP:Gale search through my library was unavailing. Was DeProDed by article creator. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete zero coverage. I could only find coverage for a namesake who is the Toledo city spokesperson. LibStar ( talk) 07:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plaxo. Also, Alexf505, seeing as nobody here has access to Special:ReadMind, remember to put in a deletion rationale in the future Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Cameron Ring
- Cameron Ring ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alexf505 ( talk) 04:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Weak deleteRedirect to Plaxo - He certainly gets mentioned in a number of articles (e.g. Forbes, Bloomberg, Business Insider, and other smaller sites), but always in passing as "Cameron Ring, co-founder of -insert companies-". I'm not convinced there's enough here to pass WP:GNG or perhaps more importantly, to maintain an article about him. Maybe someone else can find better sources? Ajpolino ( talk) 05:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - He is indeed mentioned quite a bit - Plaxo and aftermath (including a person who claimed to be a co-founder and murdered someone - who Plaxo (Cameron included) claimed was not a co-founder). But I don't see an in-depth piece about him - it is all him and his co-founder together, and in relation to whatever enterprise they are doing at the moment. A good source or two would convince me to change my vote. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
Ajpolino and
Icewhiz: it seems to me that this is a likely enough search term that it shouldn't be a redlink. Any suggestions for a good redirect target for this one?
VQuakr (
talk)
00:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
VQuakr: The companies he co-founded have quite a bit of coverage. It seems like he's currently involved in
Honor, Inc., so I'd vote for that? Alternatively, he might be best associated with
Plaxo, so that might be another good location. Thoughts?
Ajpolino (
talk)
01:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Plaxo is the more significant at the moment. Honor might be borderline for GNG. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
VQuakr: The companies he co-founded have quite a bit of coverage. It seems like he's currently involved in
Honor, Inc., so I'd vote for that? Alternatively, he might be best associated with
Plaxo, so that might be another good location. Thoughts?
Ajpolino (
talk)
01:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
Ajpolino and
Icewhiz: it seems to me that this is a likely enough search term that it shouldn't be a redlink. Any suggestions for a good redirect target for this one?
VQuakr (
talk)
00:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Plaxo. This seems the best option discussed so far; I agree with the other !voters that there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing available at this time to form the basis of an article. VQuakr ( talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - if you can include a trout for the nominator in your official close summary, it'll make my week. VQuakr ( talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Crisis of faith
- Crisis of faith ( | 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 term is likely notable, but this article suffers from major OR/essay issues. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it almost certainly is an essay-like OR piece. It has been my experience that such articles are better off getting WP:TNTed, and hopefully someone will recreate it with proper footnotes and references. Ping User:Staszek Lem who brought it to my attention. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete and redirect to Spiritual crisis per nom. Based on Google search it looks like this term is somewhat common in Christian circles? I don't think there's anything in there that would improve Spiritual crisis (which badly needs a cleanup with inline refs). Ajpolino ( talk) 05:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete WP:TNT. Article history shows it was created as an unreferenced blugb, then someone added more blurb about doubts and temptations. And this resulted is something still incomprehensible without faith in wikipedians :-) who wrote that. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: when I searched for Crisis of faith I found this source, it also use the term "religious crisis", this term is used by a bunch of sources. I agree that the citations are incomplete and that it seems to be an OR. But maybe there is some material for an article. I would recommend the deletion of any unsourced or poorly sourced content and start again with reliable sources. Even if left us with a stub article. In my opinion it's better have a well sourced stub than an OR filled article that could give the readers wrong information about the subject. Rupert Loup ( talk) 08:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Julia Conley
- Julia Conley ( | 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 model lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 03:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Watches.com
- Watches.com ( | 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 of sustained coverage in independent sources. There's a few news articles here about the earlier activities of the founders, and one Adweek blog post that doesn't fully support any claims to notability. There's a warmed-over press release over at HuffPo. [25]. It all looks like a puff piece about a company that few have shown an interest in. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Coverage is too small, mostly passing/press releases/unreliable, to make this pass Wikipedia:Notability (companies) or Wikipedia:Notability (websites) , IMHO. WP:CORPSPAM. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- too promotional to be worth keeping. This content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Leicester Pro Wrestling
- Leicester Pro Wrestling ( | 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 wrestling promotion. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete fails WP:GNG. no decent coverage including nothing in gnews. LibStar ( talk) 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Seoman Snowlock
- Seoman Snowlock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn character unreferenced for 7 years Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 02:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ryan McKay
- Ryan McKay ( | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NHOCKEY #4.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- What award has he won that satisfies NHOCKEY #4?
Joeykai (
talk)
19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking either the first or second one listed is fairly notable although neither is enumerated in the guide.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
00:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Right, so he fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai ( talk) 04:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was thinking either the first or second one listed is fairly notable although neither is enumerated in the guide.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
00:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- What award has he won that satisfies NHOCKEY #4?
Joeykai (
talk)
19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- This guy is not as bad as a lot of delete notifications. He fails WP:NHOCKEY, so I'd give it a reluctant Delete with the caveat that we may be getting into excessive delete territory. There is a lot of junk that comes through and the ice hockey subject should be regularly purged of such. I'm not sure if it makes sense to go after these articles, but so far I'm willing to keep the Delete. BTW, should we consider that Dave Peterson Award for deletion? It's completely out of date, and appears to be a fairly low level award, Bill McKenna ( talk) 23:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, there've only been as many hockey-related deletion discussions as there've been because Dolovis for years openly defied notability guidelines and community consensus to plump up his article creation count into the top 50, and we're reaping the consequences of not shutting him down a lot earlier than it eventually took. Joeykai and others have nominated nearly 200 of these NN subjects in the last year or so, and that's just the tip of the iceberg; my own estimate is that there are over a thousand such articles and redirects. Ravenswing 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: No significant coverage and fails WP:NHOCKEY. SL93 ( talk) 22:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Only coverage was for USHL awards, and that does not fulfill NHOCKEY. 18abruce ( talk) 13:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: per above and WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT. Ravenswing 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The schools of thought on strategy formulation
- The schools of thought on strategy formulation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not independently notable ( WP:GNG). If appropriate, content can be merged to Henry Mintzberg / strategic management. Brianga ( talk) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This may be worth a muchmuch shorter summary on the author's main article. But currently is just a vaguely promotional book report. The book itself may be notable ...maybe... It's got a lot of citations on scholar, but apparently this guy is not even the sole author of it, and it's not clear why this fairly arbitrary classification system needs singled out. I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but all I see is promotionalism through undue (if otherwise fairly neutral) attention. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
List of Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge episodes
- List of Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I realize that I created this article, but I did so for the specific reason of questioning its inclusion. The details on this list were formerly included on the parent article, Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge, but I came to the conclusion that the information here was extremely lengthy, and quite possibly not in cooperation of WP:IINFO since it really didn't contribute to the actual understanding of the article. Since that deletion though, there have been three separate reversions by IP-only editors who have never made any other edits before or since, and a fourth by User:TrogWoolley who has barely made any edits to actual articles (see edit history here). Their arguments seem to be "every other article has episodes, so this one should too." I find that extremely vague and broad, and have seen many other articles about TV shows that have not had an episode guide.
I'd love to hear feedback from other editors as to whether or not this is in violation of WP:IINFO or not. Thanks. SanAnMan ( talk) 18:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment it's excessive, but not more excessive than coverage of other TV shows. Power~enwiki ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as excessive fancruft. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
List of social clubs in Pakistan
- List of social clubs in Pakistan ( | 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:NOTDIR. Only a couple of list entries have articles and they are questionable whether they fit the proper criteria of a social club Ajf773 ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:DIR cited to primary sources. Excessive. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Permutation (policy debate)
- Permutation (policy debate) ( | 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 topic is incredibly specific and fails WP:GNG because any possible source is not independent from the subject. The GNG says that a topic must have received coverage from sources that are independent from the subject. There are plenty of websites and a couple books that discuss permutations in policy debate, but all of those websites and books are related to policy debate and therefore are not independent. The reason I didn't PROD this is that I want to get a consensus that my interpretation of the word "independent" is legitimate in this case. WP:INDEPENDENT discusses independence mostly as a form of protection against self-promotion or financial benefit, but in my AfD experience I've seen independence as pertaining to sources that don't solely cover policy debate or high school/college debate in general, and common sense certainly leads to that conclusion. Some of the information in this article would work well with a merger into the Policy debate article too, especially seeing as that article doesn't even include the word "permutation". I want to reiterate that I think this article is a pretty good deletion candidate, but I felt it necessary to check consensus concerning the independence of all available sources. For the record, the only source I could find that was independent in the sense I discussed above is what looks to be a memoir, link here. Icebob99 ( talk) 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete the term is jargon. The article is advice for high-school students participating in debate club. Power~enwiki ( talk) 02:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as part of a how-to for competing in this style of debating. I'm not sure there's much chance of non-specialist sources covering such a specialised term, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the "independence" of the sources is an issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
IRENA Renewable Energy Learning Partnership
- IRENA Renewable Energy Learning Partnership ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this website. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 ( talk) 01:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete:A WP:SPA article by User:IrelpTeam about a website. I am finding nothing beyond a page on the parent organisation's site and some routine listings. (A merge to the International Renewable Energy Agency article was previously proposed and abandoned.) No evidence of attained notability in its own right, whether by WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 05:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 16:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ngân Hàng Công Thương
- Ngân Hàng Công Thương ( | 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 notability criteria -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 01:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment A winner of the Volleyball Vietnam League is notable. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- not per WP:ORG, which is the guideline for sports clubs and teams. if you find sources, which give a better depth of coverage, and are of a more regional, as opposed to local nature, then it will meet the criterion. if you can do that, i will withdraw. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 23:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - the team will participate in a 2017 Asian Women's Club Volleyball Championship, the highest level of women's club volleyball in Asia. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
ArtFacts.Net
- ArtFacts.Net ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-promotion. Notability is not given as the Alexa rank is just around 220,000. The main content of the website can only be accessed via a paywall. The business model is not mentioned. They claim to to do an artist ranking but in order to get a better ranking artists are encouraged to buy a membership ( http://www.artfacts.net/purchase/artist) to "actively promote their career". Bouba20k ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- The argument of Bouba20k is not inexplicable. On Wikipedia are similar company entries such as for artnet working in the same field with same relevance as ArtFacts.Net. Furthermore in english wiki many artist entries are linked to Artfacts.net which is self-evidently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerie 10243 ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In the Germany-related deletion discussion Marek Claassen founder of Artfacts identified himself as being the author of these articles Galerie 10243. Comparing himself with artnet, a company with a much higher Alexa Rank shows the authors exaggerated opinion on himself. After knowing that he himself wrote the article it's imaginable that the links on the artist pages were also created by the company themself -- Bouba20k ( talk) 17:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Probably keep, but with a sharp eye: WP:COI may be of concern here and at the related article, and lest they be tended as press releases, there are reliable sources that may be added such as [26]. 2601:188:180:11F0:41E8:3E22:766:8808 ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: See Yogev, Tamar; Grund, Thomas (2012). "Network Dynamics and Market Structure: The Case of Art Fairs". Sociological Focus. 45 (1): 30.
doi:
10.1080/00380237.2012.630846.
The availability of these rankings and the richness of the data make Artfacts.Net the largest and most reliable data source currently available.
That certainly shows the website's notability. -- CorrectHorseBatteryStaple ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It seems to have enough industry-specific information that it may be notable as a reference in the art world, I see no reason to delete at this time. Power~enwiki ( talk) 07:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete None of the sources or references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources either fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. The source posted above by the anon IPV6 address is to a blog post. Blog posts are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The source posted above by User:CorrectHorseBatteryStaple appears to be a research paper. I have no idea if the authors are experts in their fields or reliable. The quote provided appears to be a mention in passing and a little tangential to the topic being researched. It is not an in-depth look at the company. As such, it does not establish notability. -- HighKing ++ 16:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Eh, seems notable enough in its own field. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- too promotional to be worth keeping. Notability is marginal at best; sources do not meet WP:AUD / WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for unremarkable businesses. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numbers wise, the !votes are equal, but all the delete !votes came in before David Eppstein's work on the article, which was enough to change one delete !voter's vote. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
James Mannon
- James Mannon ( | 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 references. No evidence of notability supplied, none found. Maproom ( talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete.I did a search and all I found about him were a couple press releases. I did not find any evidence that he meets WP:NPROF or the general notability guidelines. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)- Changing to Keep per work and sources found by David Eppstein. Good job; I didn't find that stuff. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A google search shows this article, Facebook, Linked in etc and very little else besides some press releases. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, Fails NPROF, GNG. South Nashua ( talk) 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete He is just not hitting WP:NPROF. I tried also to find some notability via references and found none. Gtstricky Talk or C 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't appear to make the cut for WP:PROF. Alansohn ( talk) 02:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I have significantly expanded the article (to stub length from sub-stub) and added more sources and more details of his career. His books have attracted both academic reviews and mainstream newspaper attention. (I'm not counting his two recent self-published books, which don't count for much but also shouldn't take away from any notability of the earlier work.) I think he passes
WP:AUTHOR. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I found
this source which gives him a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C5 as well (he held a named chair prior to his retirement). —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Question. Does DePauw University really qualify as a "major institution of higher education and research" for C5? It's got a fairly small enrollment (2300). Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I found
this source which gives him a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C5 as well (he held a named chair prior to his retirement). —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple published books with decent library holdings. Here's a sample review:
- The performance ethic. Futurist, Mar 01, 1992; Vol. 26, No. 2, p. 58-59 Reviews the book `American Gridmark: Why You've Always Suspected That Measuring Up Doe... more
- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Named chair would clinch WP:PROF. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of new sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 11:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: For evaluation of new sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 11:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. meets several different parts of WP:PROF, and meets WP:AUTHOR. It should have been closed as keep after David E's comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - meets wp:prof and wp:author. Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
SkeptiCamp
- SkeptiCamp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically a part of the promotional network around Monterey County Skeptics (now deleted). From the article, it looks like the main point is to insert an inappropriate video of a particular presentation. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Skepticamp is not part of a promotional network around Monterey County Skeptics. Its was created by a guy in Colorado, and has spread around the country (and in several other countries), so if it is referenced by some group in California, that would be why. But it is certainly not confined to there. Rjmail ( talk) 23:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree the overly large video from the Monterey Skepticamp should be removed, but to say the "main point" of this article is to insert that video is at best confusing. For one thing, this article originally dates from 2012, long before any of that Monterey Skeptics material was added to Wikipedia. There have been over 118 skepticamps since the first one in 2007, so there are lots of better sources and other material that can be added to improve the article. I've passed along some of those to Rjmail and will try to help improve the article myself. -- Krelnik ( talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Of the six sources in the article, four are either written or co-written by the founder of the movement. One is local coverage for a single event in Monterey. The sixth mentions the subject only in passing. Indeed, the sum total of what appears in that source is repeated in the article's first sentence. There's not enough here to sustain an article. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not completely convinced as to the independence and substance of several of the sources that have since been added to the article, but there's enough good new sourcing for me to withdraw my earlier recommendation.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with that. A good number of the sources are, as you say, indeed passing mentions, or perhaps not entirely independent, particularly the ones specifically dedicated to skepticism. However, there is just enough for me to be inclined to keep the article. Mz7 ( talk) 22:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Since the initial comments, four more sources including The Gazette (Colorado Springs), Winnipeg Free Press and Scientific American have been added. Other work has been done on the article as well.-- Krelnik ( talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Commencement of Australian skepticamps added & sourced under sub heading Outside the United States. The page is no longer promotional for skepticamp in general or Monterey County Skepticamp in particular. 8==8 Boneso ( talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added two more sources today, from newspapers in Toronto, Canada and Nashua, New Hampshire. -- Krelnik ( talk) 02:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – Right, given the international scope of these conferences, along with coverage in a Scientific American blog (a nationally read source), and combined with nontrivial local coverage ( [27] [28] [29]), I'm inclined to say this is notable under the guidelines at WP:ORG. I've edited the article to remove any direct mention of the Monterey County Skeptics beyond just that a SkeptiCamp has been held in Seaside, California, where they were located. That video has since also been removed (replaced with {{ Commons}}). Mz7 ( talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NDreams. (non-admin closure) f e minist 06:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Venus Redemption
- Venus Redemption ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Video game project started a decade ago, received minor coverage at the time, barely enough to warrant an article even back then. It has had essentially no additional coverage in nearly a decade, causing additional notability concerns per the WP:SUSTAINED section of WP:GNG. The project also seems to have been dropped years ago, and the company's main article ( nDreams) makes no mention of it. Indications are this project will never be completed nor will it receive more coverage in WP:RSes. — Torchiest talk edits 19:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge – I had originally created the article, thinking something was actually going to become of it, and eventually completely forgot about it as no information came about. The last bit of information was several years ago. I'd say move what can be moved to the nDreams article. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.