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

The result was delete. Salt needs to be ordered at WP:RFPP since this meal does not ordinarily need it (meaning: I can not find enough recreations to justify creation protected) Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

DbSUPER

DbSUPER (  | 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 database, nothing has changed since the last half dozen times it's been deleted. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete and WP:SALT title Database of Super-enhancers, which this version was originally created at. The current title is already salted. Home Lander ( talk) 22:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt the title, so it cannot be re-created. Boomer Vial ^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Kathar Sanko

Kathar Sanko (  | 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 collection of short stories; after removing "references" (with explanations in edit summary) which were not reliable or independent sources, no references were left to speak of. The article author, Taniya94, has also defended a hardly notable short story by an author who has a book coming up with the publisher of the subject of this nomination; and a draft of an article about another book from this publisher, with refs mostly taken from the Facebook of the publisher and the author, is currently in the works. This same user appears to be knowledgeable about the parent company of the publisher, which is strange for a regular fan of films and books that she on the surface appears to be. Note that the draft mentioned above is of a book that comes out tomorrow (Indian timezone), so it's weirdly timed if we are talking about a random fan, but speaks to the excellent project execution skills if we are talking about someone who is on the launch team. This raises concerns about whether there is a conflict of interest here. Funny that the user also claims that she "created more than 50 articles and always tried to write it in a neutral point of view, never intended to promote someone or something". I'm saying we should probably start taking defenses of obviously non-notable products by this person with a grain of salt. –– Latreia ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

UPD: I've determined that the article author (Taniya94) runs a small sockpuppet ring. Evidence to be found here. Not her fault, most probably, just her job, and I've probably gotten her in trouble, right before a major release. Sorry. –– Latreia ( talk) 23:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete--After release it has became one of the best-selling books of this era--How much were you paid to write this statement?!Zero notability.And almost nil reviews (or even one-line mentions) in prominent Bengali dailies. Winged Blades ^Godric 06:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - There references that were in the article as of this version are what is stated by the nominator. It's a mixed bag of unreliable sources such as blogs, or directory listings or references that don't even mention the subject and confirm nothing. This looks like a case of reference bombing to make the article look well-referenced when in fact it woefully referenced. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not nearly enough coverage to establish significant notability. Could also be a COI issue with the article creator. Boomer Vial ^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Joel Bushby

Joel Bushby (  | 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 trainer and only sources are unreliable (ie. blogs) and otherwise lacking in necessary coverage for inclusion. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree with nom: vanity/promotional piece. Nothing beyond local coverage suitable for minor characters. 24.42.163.147 ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable bodybuilder. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Zaeden

Zaeden (  | 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. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. There are more than a dozen good profile pieces in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 07:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete articles on musicians must meet our more stringent requirements for musician notability, which are not met here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment – If a subject meets the main General notability guideline, it is not required for them to meet secondary notability guidelines. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is definitely enough coverage to establish notability, in this instance. Boomer Vial ^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Clearly referenced as per available sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per above.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Imperial election of 1376

Imperial election of 1376 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There are several of these kinds of pages that are formed as a series. They were all created by User:Dallyripple who split them off from the main article, Imperial election. All of these articles have the section Election of X (year), followed by a the subsections Electors and Elected. However, this series of articles does not seem to meet the WP:N criterion. Firstly, the topics of this article series are too trivial (and don't seem to have WP:RS due to that). This information has been contained in the Imperial election article ever since it was created by User:RandomCritic so it may also be WP:OR. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Here are the rest of the articles in the series. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Imperial election, 1273 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of May 22, 1400 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of August 21, 1400 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of September 20, 1410 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of October 1, 1410 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1411 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1438 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1440 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1486 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1519 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1531 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1562 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1575 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1612 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1619 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1636 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1653 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1658 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1690 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1711 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1742 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1745 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1764 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1790 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial election of 1792 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree with the assertion that any election of a Holy Roman Emperor is a trivial or non-notable event. Dallyripple ( talk) 23:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dallyripple ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep but Trout Dailyripple for creating these pages without any references. The topics are likely notable, and the wikilinks are reference enough to keep the pages until they can be improved. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment the name "Imperial election" is perfectly clear to me, but only because I've played Europa Universalis IV too much. I would support a rename proposal to include some version of "Holy Roman Empire" in the article titles. power~enwiki ( π, ν)

• Please withdraw this frivolous nomination TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect back to Imperial election, from where they were all removed. DrKay ( talk) 07:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• I agree with Icewhiz that new structure is better. It's probably should be linked to Imperial election, but independent article for each election allows more information to be added. All these elections in one article make it unreadable. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 14:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• I stand by my pithy !vote above: this might be the worst AfD nomination I have ever seen on Wikipedia, so I don't think it deserves more comment on the substance that that. Just responding to DrKay: I think this format is better. Its what we follow for papal conclaves, and the overwhelming majority of them almost as horrible as these articles. Its a good format because it allows others to improve them more easily than if they were in a larger article (its how I started improving the conclave series). TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ TonyBallioni I totally agree here. Is there another forum that people might use if they have problems with a page? It seems like people are impatient to use a talk page on the topic and so think the only option to get anyone talking about a page is to submit things for deletion. Is there any accountability process for users who abuse this process? Egaoblai ( talk) 21:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. AfD is the wrong forum - this is really a question of whether to merge back into Imperial election from where these were all removed (cut and paste). I think the new organization is better - citations should be improved in the sub-articles as well as in Imperial election. I think Dailyripple should've posted on the parent article's talk-page prior to branching all of these off, and should've added references. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, discuss on the talk page. Both the previous structure (all in one page) and the current structure (lots of pages) are possible models for the organisation of this content. At the very least, the page titles need to exist as redirects (perfectly valid link targets). The idea that there could be a problem with WP:N or WP:RS is fairly laughable. — Kusma ( t· c) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep all Election of a Holy Roman emperor can't be not notable event. Articles will need improvement and references, but no doubt it's a notable event in history. For a while they all can be tagged as stub. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, similarly notable events as papal elections. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 08:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The election of the Holy Roman Emperor was a major event in Europe and often influenced other events. The 1519 election for example had major influence on relations between European states including the power struggles between Charles V and France. It also had an impact on the Reformation as Charles V's handling of Luther was shaped by the fact he did not want to alienate the Elector of Saxony. However, I agree the articles as they stand need work. Dunarc ( talk) 19:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Agree with all above. The idea that the election of a Holy Roman Emperor could somehow be non-notable is ludicrous. These were major, world-altering events. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as a series of notable, referenced events. The pages do need improvement, and ideally wouldn't be vaguely named "Imperial election" but rather something closer to what they were. "Holy Roman Emperor election"? -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 08:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above clearly notable events . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- These are all substantive articles. Some of the elections had foregone conclusions, but they were nevertheless important events. At CFD, there has been a question over the limited amount of content in earlier periods. Here is some of that content. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• KAP03, why are you adding more articles to this AfD that has no chance of closing as delete? You should withdraw this rather than adding more articles. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting Govindaharihari's WP:WAX comment, there seems to be consensus that this is a relatively routine crime with little lasting significance, and therefore more of a news item.  Sandstein  21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein

Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein (  | 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 insane man drives over a person. Aden's mother Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said her son also was Muslim and, like the victim, was Somali.She confirms he was a Muslim not a christian and it is not a hate crime. [1] , [2]This article is violation of General notablity guildline and notnews guildline routine everyday murder or accident by an insane person does not deserve an article. Girdlast888 ( talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Girdlast888 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NCRIME If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable - the outcome of the investigation/trial (sane/insane, hate/no-hate, etc.) - has little to do with notability. What makes an event notable - is coverage. In this case - we have copious coverage from around the 2014 event itself (in top-notch sources - including NYT for instance). We also have WP:LASTING coverage various news outlets - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Books - [10] [11] [12]. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  Not that it should be relevant to the outcome, but per ABC news in Oct 2016 - [13] The driver of the SUV, Ahmed H. Aden, 34, a Somali Christian truck driver, later pleaded guilty to murder. - nom is incorrect in stating insanity and Muslim faith of the attack. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  His Muslim faith is claimed by his mother and I think that is reliable and mentioned in multiple sources. Aden's mother, Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said her son also was Muslim and, like the victim, was Somali. [14], [15] , [16] Aden's mother, Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said through an interpreter that her Somali son is Muslim [17], [18] I am not well versed with Wikipedia policies as I am new but an ordinary murder is not notable thousands of such murders including those mentioned in leading newspapers daily and which are covered in the media. Girdlast888 ( talk) 23:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  His mother apparently said this close to the incident. Later sources dot repeat this claim. People can convert. In any event the perp's faith is irrelevant to notability. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Note - the mother of a suspect is usually not considered a RS, and is typically viewed as highly biased in favor of the suspect. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Icewhiz I have no comment on notability yet but please do not try to use namedrops and passing mentions as proof of "lasting coverage". Literally, all those sources briefly mention the incident and are about another more notable subject or incident. Of course, there was coverage soon after the killing -- that fits nicely into WP:NOTNEWS. Regardless, I am sure this article will be kept because enough editors will take your listing here at face value rather than actually evaluate their lack of depth. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This case does not seem to pass our notability guidelines. It is not even clear if it was a hate crime. If it was, one should think about creating a more general page, i.e. Anti-Muslim violence in the United states. That might be valid page. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete Considering that the claims that the perpetrator of the crime was Muslim and not Chrisitan according to his own family members, most of the categorizing is flawed, and reflects the fact this was a rushed to assumption news story advanced to back a particular narrative, one that proved false and we should not continue to advance in a reliable encyclopedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Sorry but the misleading "coverage" listed here, as well as the immediate and short-lived news surrounding this subject does not convince me. The notability criteria for events specifies that reports -- even if they are widespread -- on their own are not enough to establish notability. Historical and/or societal significance are indicators. Some editors may argue that those cannot be established with a recent news event and I can argue that the article shouldn't be created in the first place if notability is that questionable. I wish the criteria for events could be applied more accurately for terrorism-related AFDs but for now I will worry about this individual incident and hope editors come to the proper conclusion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 06:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep Substantive coverage that has continued for years meets WP:NCRIME. Article is in need of expansion, updating. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC) see new iVote below. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note coverage of politicization of this case: Kansas GOP Criticized for Controversial ISIS-Themed Flier. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- This is about the killing of one Somali American by another. It seems to have been suspected as a hate-crime, but this seems doubtful. The issues are whether the conversion to Christianity was genuine and the culprit's vanity. It sounds as if this was a case that attracted much press attention; if so, it should be kept as a notorious case. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NCRIME and the coverage is all news reports, i.e. WP:PRIMARY. This does not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete per WP:BLP for both the victim and the perpetrator; the event itself is not notable as of now and this appears to a sad but routine thing. Jytdog ( talk) 22:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Invalid deletion rationale: BLP does not protect convicted murderers, or their dead victims. (Also, Deliberately ramming an SUV into a pedestrian is not "routine.") E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep there is plenty of similar stuff kept and well supported on this wiki. Govindaharihari ( talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• So keep because other stuff that doesn't belong already exists? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, better than delete, WP:I don't like it 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

*Delete I came back to source, expand the brief, confusing article, and found that a more careful look at sources changed my opinion. After the brief flurry of coverage caused by the impression that a murder-by-vehicle-ramming by a perp with anti-Islam bumper-stickers on his vehicle who deliberately ran over Muslim must be an anti-Muslim hate crime, there really has been very little coverage. Presumably because it turned out not to be a hate crime. Fails WP:NCRIME. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep with apologies to editors whose patience I am trying, I have been trying to get this right. Because the coverage was international at the time of this vehicle-ramming attack; because it was a deliberate attack on persons leaving a Muslim house of prayer by a perp whose anti-Islam views were written all over his SUV (whether perp was Christian or Muslim;) an dbecause of ongoing coverage like this reported 2017 article 3 Years, 5 Horrific Hate-Crime Killings In The Kansas City Area, this murder-by-vehicle meets WP:NCRIME. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

*Floating an idea Clearly, the brief flurry of coverage was generated by the assumption that this was a hate crime. We seem to run this drill a lot. For example, we have Killing of Nabra Hassanen. They cannot be merged to our List of Islamophobic incidents. Which makes me wonder whether we could use a List of crimes initially mistaken for hate crimes. Not merely as a redirect target, but because these allegations tend to resurface, so providing a few facts about incidents that have attracted media attention before turning out not to be hate crimes might be useful. opinions? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Perp was convicted for murder here. I do not see sources for this alleged mistaken classification -- those cĺaiming this here are claiming this from stuff the perp's mother said close to the event - and while RS reported what the mother said, she is not RS. Regardless this does not affect notability which per NCRIME is determined by coverage. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per TheGracefulSlick. Such news coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and we can't have stand-alone articles based on this. Störm (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Seraphim (American Band)

Seraphim (American 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 been been unreferences since its creation and I do not see anything that indicates notability. ★Trekker ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NBAND ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 22:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No claim to notability. My searches don't show that they don't meet notability criteria. Since their greatest claim to fame is their YouTube channel, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unsourced article from SPA editor. Searches find social media and trivial/promotional coverage in minor blogs and user submitted websites. A bit hard to vet because of a Tiawanese group with the same name (BTW, their notability is dubious as well, although a bit better coverage than this one.) ShelbyMarion ( talk) 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sable Winters

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

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

No reliable sources. Doesn't meet notability requirements
– Vmavanti ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:MUSICBIO ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet notability criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Santa Claus Saves the Earth

Santa Claus Saves the Earth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns. The only references are database-like entries at GameFAQ, and a very bizarre Youtube video. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm gonna start a discussion at Village pump soon, to make it so that all video games that were officially released on a console are notable for their own articles. Okay, so I get the concern for "non-notability" that the content is not verifiable. But I don't care how many references you have; the fact that Santa Claus Saves the Earth is a video game for the GBA and PS1 IS true and will forever be true. The name of the game will never change, and the gameplay will always be the same. Console games are constant, never-changing, and absolute. They should be treated like geographical locations. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 18:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Plus if you're gonna delete this one, why don't you start a rampage and delete all 2,000 or whatever of the other video game articles with only 1 reference. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 18:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh, but wait, there are NEWS SOURCES THAT MENTION THE GAME: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Santa+Claus+Saves+the+Earth%22&tbm=nws CASE CLOSED ANYWAY!!! Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 18:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think there's a rule that all console games are notable, and I don't think there should be. I also don't think a Vice article that says when people occasionally make lists of "holiday video games" this somehow ends up being included, simply for the lack of options. and only describes game as thoroughly broken and cheaply produced suggests that it's notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

That suggestion would be a massive violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia isn't a listing of all console games, just like it's not a listing of all PC games. If you want that, go to Mobygames. You are misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Please let WT:VG know when you're about to start that discussion. I think a lot of us are very interested. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Look more closely. I saw SIX news sources that mention the game. The game can't be unnotable by Wikipedia's current standards. It'd have to be a huge coincidence:

• https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w7mwn/video-games-also-have-holiday-classics-127
• http://emorywheel.com/spyro-the-dragon-a-classic-masterpiece/
• https://www.wired.com/2007/12/santas-top-five/
• http://www.gram.pl/artykul/2013/12/24/grinch-ebenezer-scrooge-gry-wideo-czy-branza-nie-lubi-swiat.shtml
• https://www.delfi.lt/mokslas/technologijos/verslas-is-lietuvos-pasieke-pavydetina-vartotoju-skaiciu.d?id=63603032
• https://www.guiltybit.com/los-10-peores-juegos-psx/

Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The only conceivable reason to keep would be that it was so bad that it received egregiously bad reviews and achieved notoriety - but this doesn't seem to be the case ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable video game. Articles listed are not significant mentions in reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You people are serious? This is a GAME! A GAME! And not only is it a game, but it's also a console game, a notoriously bad game (yes it is!), it was reviewed by Caddicarus who's like somewhere next to AVGN in fame, 6 news sources, and it's not even a franchise game like most bad games. It's an ORIGINAL pile of shit, and not just a pile of shit named after a TV show. Yes, it needs a Wikipedia article. Think about how much more useful it would be to have this article than to delete it. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

An article is either notable or it isn't, there's no sliding scale that says an unimportant, cool, original, or whatever you think the article is makes it get a free pass. You should read the WP:GNG and get an idea of what is allowed on Wikipedia or not. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh, so Clyde, South Carolina is notable. Bullshit. If geographical locations get inherent notability, console games should too. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you really need to slow down and read up some on how WP:AFD works, arguments to avoid in the discussions, etc. You're throwing out invalid arguments faster than anyone can keep up at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that you spend more time finding suitable references for this article, that you spend less time worrying about other content (particularly other content which has different notability criteria by community consensus) and that you stop spending any time having a temper tantrum about this proposed deletion. Nick ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Why you're comparing geographical locations with video games is beyond me. You're saying WP:WHATABOUTX?!, while we're discussing Santa Claus Saves the Earth. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Failure of the WP:GNG, most sources are not reliable sources, or are passing/short mentions in listicle articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just because it exists, does not make it notable. Of the sources listed above:

  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w7mwn/video-games-also-have-holiday-classics-127 - a two paragraph summary of the game, and the article itself is not focused on the game

  http://emorywheel.com/spyro-the-dragon-a-classic-masterpiece/ - It's mentioned in one throwaway sentence

  https://www.wired.com/2007/12/santas-top-five/ - Same with the VICE article, a very short "hey this game exists"

  http://www.gram.pl/artykul/2013/12/24/grinch-ebenezer-scrooge-gry-wideo-czy-branza-nie-lubi-swiat.shtml - It's noted as a game featuring Santa Claus in one sentence

  https://www.delfi.lt/mokslas/technologijos/verslas-is-lietuvos-pasieke-pavydetina-vartotoju-skaiciu.d?id=63603032 - This focuses on the developer of the game, not the game itself

  https://www.guiltybit.com/los-10-peores-juegos-psx/ - Again one sentence.

While the game was mentioned in these articles, it's not covered significantly "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." These are all trivial mentions of the game. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails our general inclusion criteria and the video game notability guideline. The subject of the article is not the subject of significant coverage in the sources given. I've looked for other sources and can't find any myself. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This looks like a SNOW situation. No significant coverage, no clear notability. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Kevin Muirhead

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

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

Despite the article's (unsourced) claims of the subject having played senior football, I can find no evidence to back this up from statistical sources such as Soccerbase and Neil Brown. Therefore he fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played or managed in a fully professional league, and WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Jellyman ( talk) 18:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment – It looks like a previous version of the same article was deleted in 2008. Jellyman ( talk) 18:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not seem to be any evidence he played senior matches. The Queens Park figures at least must be wrong - if any goalie had scored 10 in 11 appearances they would be in every football reference book! Dunarc ( talk) 23:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 13:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Since the first AfD in 2009 this issue arose for not playing in fully professional league and upto now he has not, clear failing of WP:NFOOTBALL; in addition, there is no substantial coverage about the rest of his life thus, failing basic WP:GNG  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 04:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Misformed nomination, identical to the one nominated just a few moments before. Per The Bushranger below, no prejudice against immediate renomination if it was, in fact, intended to be nominated. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ ( talk) 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Borderline_(2002_film)

Borderline_(2002_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)

{{{text}}} Geejayen ( talk) 18:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 21. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Dhwani (band)

Dhwani (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 had multiple people edit-warring over a speedy tag, so I'm bringing the discussion here. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, although this clearly meets speedy deletion criteria ( WP:A7). Unless I'm mistaken, @ Creativejon's IP sock puppetry and repeated blanking of speedy deletion tags shouldn't mean that the discussion gets moved to AfD -- it should still go through CSD. cnzx ( talk) 20:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I declined a CSD A7 on this because there is a Times of India source, Indian topics get less online coverage generally than UK / US ones, and it seemed to be a nationally famous group. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree with @Cnzx that this is A7 stuff. Certainly fails WP:NMUSIC. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. They have a Facebook page and a YouTube channel, but don't appear to be signed: looking at their website, they're a wedding/function band. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 22:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep A quick Google search shows what Ritchie333 states. The problem is that our default search may not sufficient. Try the following: Dhwani band -"Dhwani Pandya" -"Dhwani Sutra". I found two news sources not already listed in the article: [19] [20]. Bands don't need to be signed to have an article. They have to show some notability. This is the minimal requirement in my estimation. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  To be accurate, that second source you list isn't about the band, but rather about the band's former lead vocalist. I'm on the fence. Personally I have always viewed criterion #1 in WP:BAND (the significant coverage) as a criterion that shouldn't stand alone but should be combined with one of the others. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  Also, isn't the first source unrelated to the band in the Wiki article? cnzx ( talk)

  Um... the only source cited in the article is all about the band. What are you referring to? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 06:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  Sorry for the confusion -- I was talking about the two you linked above. cnzx ( talk) 20:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Walter Görlitz: the first source you mention is about a small college festival which happens to share a name with the band. The only musicians mentioned are "singer-songwriter Mohit Chauhan, folk fusion band Lagori and an EDM party with top DJs", and the similarity in name appears to be coincidence. The second source is about the singer and only mentions the band as a project with which he used to be involved - so would fail WP:INHERITED even if he had his own Wikipedia article as a solo artiste. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Misformed nomination. No prejudice against immediate renomination if it was, in fact, intended to be nominated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Borderline_(2002_film)

Borderline_(2002_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)

{{{text}}} Geejayen ( talk) 19:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Veritas Varsity Private School

Veritas Varsity Private School (  | 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 school went online only as of 2011 per its Facebook page. The website is down and there is no 3rd party evidence that the school even exists. Billhpike ( talk) 17:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete While I do disagree with the nominator's claim that the school doesn't exist, I am only finding insignificant independent articles, which fails WP:GNG. EMachine03 ( talk) 18:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I found several links to this school by another name: Veritas Varsity Virtual School. The address turns up a satellite view of a (nice) private residence. My belief is that this is a homeschooling cooperative. The headmaster (and founder) is a real estate operator who ran for Waco school board in 2010 [21]. With no coverage but lists, I'd say delete this SPA written and SPA-edited article. Rhadow ( talk) 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NSCHOOL ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete From photographs posted on the Facebook page, it appears there may have been four students in 2010, then it went "virtual" in May 2011. The blog has stories of another trip later in 2011, then nothing. This school may have failed. In any case, not notable. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this school appears to exist only in someone's imagination. May have been an 'intended' project when the page was created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to a lack of third-party coverage. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I've looked and it just seemed at one time this entity marketed themselves as a "virtual school" but I can't find evidence it actually operated. -- Oakshade ( talk) 06:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Larisa Muzikante

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

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

Asserts significance, but non notable. Cannot find RS to show meeting GNG. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Being a relative of someone with a red link falls far from meeting GNG: and I can't find anything to back up the claim about her sports prowess, but even if RS's can be found for this, it probably belongs at Riga United FC#Riga United Ladies team rather than in a standalone article ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete If I've ever seen a case of completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY then this is it, so many red flags here! Govvy ( talk) 09:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 13:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - notability is not inherited, and even if it was at the age of 15 the subject of the article fails WP:TOOSOON so horribly and also comes up well short when it comes to WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro ( talk) 16:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable footballer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

CipherShed

CipherShed (  | 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 software. Project did not have any release post the preview release Project has been apparently abandoned since 2016 Hagennos ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. cnzx ( talk) 20:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable Dbsseven ( talk) 22:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG -- I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The ONLY independent source that appears reliable that provides some coverage of the subject I could find: link. Coverage from PC Magazine but appears to just be a listing written by the developer (?), not independent coverage. Even though the project appears to have been abandoned, if significant coverage in reliable sources can be found I have no problem keeping this article ( notability is not temporary). Jujutacular ( talk) 14:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Roida Rzayeva

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

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

Nicely presented WP:RESUME of a young associate professor who does not appear in SCOPUS, written by three accounts with only one other article between them. No indication of passing WP:PROF, all references appear to be to her own work. Guy ( Help!) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Nothing significant showing on Google: Wikipedia is not Linkedin ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ ( talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Only three GS citations to her work so fails WP:Prof#C1. I can't see anything else. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC). reply
• Delete. Grad students often have about this much output on publications. No secondary references are included in the article as only the subject's own publications were used as references for the Selected Publications section. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not a notable academic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Spencer Ebba

Spencer Ebba (  | 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 individual, orphaned article. Fails WP:CELEBRITY Jon Kolbert ( talk) 16:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete doesn't meet WP:CELEBRITY. The "references" are largely arbitrary links with no clear relation to the subject or any material in the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Energy products

Energy products (  | 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 vague term for 'products that give the consumer a burst of energy', possibly a WP:NEO. No substantial content that can't be found on the Energy Drinks page. Created by what was likely a COI account and repeatedly edited to include different editors' product of choice. References are only lists of how much caffeine some energy drinks and gums contain. LynxTufts ( talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Definitely a WP:NEO. I expected this article to be about equipment used in the Energy technology sector. Indeed, all Google searches point in that direction, too. This page fails to justify the inclusion of sweets/candy as so-called energy products. It adds absolutely nothing to what is already contained in Energy drinks or in List of energy drinks. I feel that a redirect to either page would not be helpful, and would simply confuse many users. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Sliesarenko Serhii Volodymyrovych

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

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

This is the 5th time this article has been created (and each time deleted). Normally I would allow a bit of time to fix an article, before AFDing, but this has been created in one form or another since the 4th of November 2017, and no attempt has been made to fix the issues that got it deleted the last time (or 3). Not notable and probably promotional. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. @ Slatersteven: is there any particular reason this wasn't tagged for CSD instead of AfD? cnzx ( talk) 20:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I just dislike speedy deletion (even in blatant cases like this as I like to discus any issue. I am still getting my patrolling legs Slatersteven ( talk) 21:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a promotional article on a plastic surgeon. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete and possibly salt. This is blatant promotion against WP:PROMO. Once you removed the puffery and unsourced claims, what will remain is stub of non notable professor – Ammarpad ( talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Stereoside

Stereoside (  | 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 and no reason was given. non-notable band. One song reached No. 48 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart meaning No. 148 overall (in 2010) http://www.billboard.com/music/stereoside/chart-history/heatseekers-albums/song/664601 . That certainly did not garner any media for the band and they fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Per 1st nomination, the main argument for keep was based this subject having a track appear for one week at #48 on the Billboard Heatseeker chart. It is not an important source for gauging a recording’s accomplishment. The chart exists primarily for the benefit of retailer’s to track new or previously unsuccessful artists and their relative position to actually charting on Billboard’s top 100, based on sales or airplay. As low of a placement as #48 is not much of an accomplishment; it could simply reflect pre-orders, and when such a release disappears after one week, that is usually the case. (FWIW, Walter Görlitz ( talk), it’s doesn’t even translate into #148, as there may be non-qualifying “heatseeking” artist in the top 200 who chart higher.) In fact, #48 is so dubious in importance that in the years since this subject’s appearance, Billboard has stopped tracking anything beyond #25. Otherwise, my google search finds the subject covered in minor music media and blogs, trivial promotional, but nothing significant that distinguishes the band from run-of-the-mill existence. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable for stand alone article as pointed out above. Trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek ( talk) 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Philip Goring

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

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

Other than a single blurb in a 2014 Raw Story article about his 2007 documentary, I can find zero about this person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete not enough coverage to show him as a notable filmmaker. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notability not established. Szzuk ( talk) 18:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Boston College's EagleMUNC

Boston College's EagleMUNC (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This seems to be an article on one specific model UN conference, this seems unjustifiably narrow in coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. No secondary coverage, and none would be expected. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Not even a merge into Boston College is warranted. The links would be fine at Model United Nations, but nothing else is worth keeping. South Nashua ( talk) 15:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 03:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

National Model United Nations

National Model United Nations (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom; no secondary references in article and none found. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No redirect target suggested in the discussion. Any subsequent redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

European International Model United Nations

European International Model United Nations (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete not notable. No opinion on creating a redirect. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

North American Model United Nations (NAMUN)

North American Model United Nations (NAMUN) (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Any subsequent redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Haarlem Model United Nations Organisation

Haarlem Model United Nations Organisation (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• redirect to Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete insufficient notability. Natureium ( talk) 02:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No redirect target suggested in the discussion.  Sandstein  21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Haarlem Model United Nations

Haarlem Model United Nations (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• redirect to Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No redirect target suggested in the discussion.  Sandstein  21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

William & Mary High School Model United Nations Conference

William & Mary High School Model United Nations Conference (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. I specifically don't support a redirect to College of William & Mary; if there's a better target I'm neutral. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete notability. we don't need an article for all of these. Natureium ( talk) 02:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not redirect. From titles they look like redirect material but reading both articles will show otherwise.  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 01:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No redirect target suggested.  Sandstein  21:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Nazarbayev University Model United Nations

Nazarbayev University Model United Nations (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to university page. Störm (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect after deletion per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. No need to redirect to a sub-string. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Almost nothing about it in RS; looks like promotion. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Kuwait International Model United Nations (KIMUN)

Kuwait International Model United Nations (KIMUN) (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; this is even less notable than most of these conferences. power~enwiki ( π, ν)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  21:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

JHUMUNC

JHUMUNC (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per GNG. Only sourced are from inside John Hopkins. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: article is under CSDA7 at the moment, but I think it will be declined. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete - fails notability. Natureium ( talk) 16:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is long past time we made a minimum requirement that all articles have at least one listed source to even be created. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Best Delegate

Best Delegate (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per GNG. Had to sort through many instances of the phrase being used, and it is a general distinction among model UNs and other such contests. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete the topic is a website about Model UN conferences. WP:NWEB is not met. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, next to no information at all can be found about the subject of the article in question.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 03:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Model Congress. Now we're just waiting for Model United States Senate Armed Services Committee.  Sandstein  21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Model United States Senate

Model United States Senate (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No mentions in RS L3X1 (distænt write) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Model Congress this is about a concept, not any individual event. It seems sufficiently different from Model UN that a merge isn't appropriate. Model Congress is basically the same concept, and seems a reasonable merge target. There's enough coverage to show that multiple events of this type exist. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Model Congress, per power~enwiki. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 08:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge Per above, a merge with Model Congress is acceptable as the US Senate is a part of the US Congress.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

DHA Phase VIII

DHA Phase VIII (  | 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 coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to DHA Karachi. Störm (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Merge: This stub (see WP:STUB) has one source, and there's no significant coverage about the topic. maybe this article could be cleaned up and added to one of the articles listed at DHA under the organizations heading. Grapefruit17 ( talk) 22:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Neroon Kot Model United Nations

Neroon Kot Model United Nations (  | 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 coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No mentions in RS L3X1 (distænt write) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is little if any evidence that these various local conferences are ever notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hyderabad Model United Nations

Hyderabad Model United Nations (  | 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 coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:GNG per nom. Capitals00 ( talk) 17:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG Adamgerber80 ( talk) 18:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. I can find a few sources for MUN conferences in Hyderabad, but none for this specific event. I suspect that this event would meet the inclusion criteria if we could find non-English sources, but as it stands the subject of the article does not meet our definition of notable. -- Ajraddatz ( talk) 21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete insufficient notability. Natureium ( talk) 02:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete More or less the same as the above, article does not pass general notability criteria for events.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 05:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Zaitoon Group

Zaitoon 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)

Not much coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Easily fails WP:ORG. No extensive coverage in independent sources. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Author has admitted on my talk page that the guy is not notable. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Nandikolla Gopala Rao

Nandikolla Gopala Rao (  | 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)

Quite possibly notable but no evidence of any sort is offered. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment I consider the rationale to be lame and unconvincing. Page author did title as Last name, First, which was why very little was coming up. Will move. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • RHaworth Would you please move the page to it's proper title Gopala Rao Nandikolla? Thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Ridiculous - far more hits for "Nandikolla Gopala Rao". — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 20:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment The justification you offer is not a satisfactory rationale for deletion -- notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article. However, after a quick search, I'm leaning towards deletion and a merge/redirect to blurb within a more general article. cnzx ( talk) 23:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete The (missing) deletion rationale should be: lack of notability based on there being no reliable sources in the article, and none to be found online. 198.58.171.47 ( talk) 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Taillard

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

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

Near-certain autobiography with some sockpuppetry concerns. SCOPUS gives an h-index of 1, which is an abject fail of WP:PROF. Sources rarely reach the level of even a proper namecheck, in some cases just being lists of people who did a thing. Bluntly, this is spam. Guy ( Help!) 13:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

• Delete. An academic CV with some odd highlights (he wanted to be a body piercer?), but not especially distinguished. -- Calton | Talk 16:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply