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

The result was delete. Minimal debate, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Southamerican University

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

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

Article about a "virtual" (long-distance learning) university in Colombia, created in 2010 by a WP:SPA who hasn't edited since, and it's never been updated. It's certainly not a hoax, as evidenced by this article from the same year [1], but there doesn't seem to be anything on the internet regarding the university after this date, which suggests that Mr Altahona was ultimately unsuccessful in his attempts to persuade the Colombian authorities to grant his virtual university a licence, and that the university no longer exists. Mr Altahona now appears to be the head of a similar virtual education facility to teach students to high school diploma level [2]. Please note that the original web address for Southamerican University was www.southamericanuniversity.org – I have been unable to discover if this university was in any way affiliated with the similar long-distance learning facility South America University based in the US, which originally had the almost identical web address www.southamericanuniversity.com and is now located at www.sau-edu-us. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• SoWhy, J947: can either of you explain why this AfD doesn't seem to appear in any of the three deletion sorting discussions listed above, which may explain why nobody has yet taken part in the debate? Richard3120 ( talk) 04:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Richard3120: You tell us, you were the one creating the AFD with those lists already in place. I just assumed you had added them. No worries, I'll add them again. Regards So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete sure looks like the business never got off the ground, so absent some significant coverage it is just nothing to be notable. Legacypac ( talk) 23:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. As framed here, the notability of the topic seems to boil down to whether Graeme Bartlett's sources are sufficient germane to establish notability for the building. Two people say yes (Graeme and Doncram), two people say no (TheLongTone and Sionk) and I don't see a killer argument in favour of one side. Other arguments do not seem to be accompanied by much evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Weir House (Victoria University of Wellington)

Weir House (Victoria University of Wellington) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot see how this building is notable enough to merit more than a brief article in the university's page. Redirect undone by page creator. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Ah. I see that an aticle on the subject was deleted as a result of a discussion. Can't see how anyting might have changed. Speedy D? TheLongTone ( talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

keep That debate was more than ten years ago though. Now there are several references available: [3] [4](a mention) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] so I think an independent article could be written from suitable sources. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

keep" Weir House is a significant residential college at Victoria University of Wellington. Originally founded along the lines of an Oxford college, it is a significant landmark in Wellington and several books have been written on its history. To delete Weir House, without deleting articles such as Knox College, Otago or Selwyn College, Otago would be to apply two different policies on notability, and to leave Wikipedia without a significant institution within New Zealand's university history. Darren ( talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not surprised that it was possible to come up with a bunch of references; however all of them seem to be fundamentally about the university. As for the second person believing this should be kept, the argument is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, much as TheLongTone has said, the two sources in the article are not independent of the University, while the sources discovered by Graeme seem to be mentions in articles about something else. Even though it's bricks and mortar and, probably for NZ, been around for a fair time there's no evidence of a heritage listing or architectural importance. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 17:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are substantial historical facts about this residence already included in the article, and its photos show it is substantial architecturally. See Category:University and college residential buildings for many articles about substantial dormitories and other collegiate residences that have less substance. (And please spare me any complaint about "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" not being valid. We need a counter-essay to that essay, because as Wikipedia has matured in many areas, "other stuff like this exists" is indeed an increasingly valid argument.) It is not surprising and it is perfectly fine by me if there exist major sources about the university which provide coverage about this, and for those sources to be associated with the university, of course they are. A book by an alumnus would be fine in my view. And it is not as if this is a promotional article supporting some commercial venture. -- do ncr am 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

That seems to have turned every basis of Wikipedia on it's head. Are you saying Wikipedia should have articles about every building because they are 'substantial'? And if you know of an independently published book by an alumnus maybe you could share it. Sionk ( talk) 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The history book is called: Weir Tales: 75 Years of History. Here is a press release by the university about it http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0808/S00285/weir-house-celebrates-75th-anniversary.htm Darren ( talk) 12:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh puh-lease. Self -published nonsense. TheLongTone ( talk) 11:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Please include sources mentioned within this discussion in the article in order to address potential future notability concerns. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

International Research & Exchanges Board

International Research & Exchanges Board (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is in this poor state siince 2008 and tagged for notability since 2016. Time to say guud-bye. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Reasons why the organization is notable The notice at the top of the article asks for help in establishing the organization’s notability, which seems to be the main concern. Here is some information about IREX’s current and historical significance, with links to sources.

IREX was established in 1968 by the American Council of Learned Societies, the Social Science Research Council, the Ford Foundation, and the US Department of State. IREX conducted scholarly exchanges between the US and the Soviet Union to bridge geopolitical divides, until the fall of the Iron Curtain.

For more information about IREX’s role during this period, see:

• Yale Richmond, Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2004)
• David C. Engerman, Know Your Enemy: The Rise and Fall of America’s Soviet Experts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)
• Richard T. Arndt, The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (Lincoln NE: Potomac Books, 2005)
• Lucia Capodilupo, “IREX in Romania: Overview of Programs to Date and Plans for the Future,” Economy, Society, and Culture in Contemporary Romania (1984)
• There is also a brief summary of IREX’s history at https://www.irex.org/our-story

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, IREX received an influx of funding to support democratic reforms and strengthen organizations. IREX administered programs to conduct educational exchanges, strengthen civil society in developing countries, increase internet access, and provide training and support to journalists and media organizations, among other activities. See:

• M. Holt Ruffin, The Post-Soviet Handbook: A Guide to Grassroots Organizations and Internet Resources, 2nd ed. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999)
• M. Holt Ruffin and Daniel Clarke Waugh, eds., Charles E. Ziegler, ed., Civil Society in Central Asia (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999)
• Sarah E. Mendelson and John K. Glenn, eds., The Power and Limits of NGOs (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002)
• Beate Josephi, ed., Journalism Education in Countries with Limited Media Freedom (Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers, 2010)
• Jennifer Whitten-Woodring and Douglas A. Van Belle, eds., Historical Guide to World Media Freedom: A Country-by-Country Analysis (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2014)

Today, IREX conducts civil society, education, gender, governance, leadership, media, technology, and youth programs in more than 100 countries: https://www.devex.com/organizations/international-research-exchanges-board-irex-3236

For example, IREX implements the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders, a highly selective fellowship that builds the skills of 1,000 promising young leaders each year.

• For a list of news articles about the program: https://yalisummit.irex.org/in-the-news/
• For more information: http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2016/august/sen-coons-addresses-young-leaders/ & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsANB8TN9ps

IREX implements the World Smarts STEM Challenge, which was profiled in NPR and the Washington Times:

• NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/03/23/520864034/science-loving-teens-from-ghana-and-d-c-geek-out-together
• Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/16/dc-ghanian-stem-students-team-up-for-challenge/

IREX’s education and leadership work has​ ​​recently​ ​been featured in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times,​ ​and Education Week, among other outlets:

• Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2017/04/14/teachers-from-around-world-learning-how-narrow-gender-gap/5jGcCEQvdeY51WPtJVy2QM/story.html
• Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-iraqi-scholars-20160722-story.html
• Education Week: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2017/01/connecting_civil_rights_and_global_competence_for_powerful_learning.html

Recently, the Center for European Policy Analysis and Legatum Institute published reports that describe IREX’s approach to helping citizens fight fake news. IREX's approach has also been discussed in the Washington Post:

• CEPA: http://cepa.org/reports/winning-the-Information-War
• Legatum Institute: http://www.li.com/activities/publications/factual-entertainment-how-to-make-media-literacy-popular
• Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/03/31/our-biggest-mistake-in-the-fight-against-fake-news/

IREX’s work in building, overseeing, and supporting the BOTA Foundation received praise from the Financial Times. The foundation distributed $115 million in grants, cash transfers, and scholarships in Kazakhstan: https://www.ft.com/content/10d8679c-228b-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

If you still feel that the organization is not notable, could you please specify why?

There are some suggestions for improving the article on the Talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:International_Research_%26_Exchanges_Board

-- 50.58.68.98 ( talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- this source (one of those listed above) provides reasonably in-depth coverage: link. 50 years of history and some indications of significance due to its role during the Cold War. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep the IP and K.e.coffman show that there is plenty of academic sourcing out there for this to be notable. The book K.e.coffman presents is published by Oxford University Press, so it definitely meets our RS guidelines. Clear pass of WP:N here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete all. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Asia/Dubai

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

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

Article about an item in a database. The entirety of the information in this article is contained in a table row in List of tz database time zones. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 16#Europe/Luxembourg (which indicates that these should not be redirected to either the list or the articles about the cities themselves).

Consensus for this page should apply to the 249 similar pages in Category:tz database. Jc86035 ( talk) 09:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete A couple articles from this set came for up AfD some months ago and were deleted, IIRC; at the time it seemed odd that that was being done piecemeal, leaving several hundred similar stubs alone (much mis-applied reverse OTHERSTUFFEXISTS eventuated, I believe :/). These articles are merely page-size versions of the entries in List of tz database time zones, and it is difficult to imagine what additional information could be inserted here to make full article status worthwhile. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Scandium F-12

Scandium F-12 (  | 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 Turkish firearm, no reliable and independent sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. My first thought at seeing these AFDs was "almost all firearms are notable", however this does not seem to be the case here. Seems to be a copy of [11] (copyvio?). No sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete nearly an A7. Not notable enough, no notable variants, this isn't Gun-pedia. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Spasov M1936

Spasov M1936 (  | 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 Bulgarian firearm, no reliable sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Most firearms are notable. This one, however does not seem to have reliable sources - it is sourced from non-RS (blogs, etc.) in the article and a BEFORE doesn't reveal much more. Possible copy-vio / sourced from [12] (created there a week or so before Wikipedia). Icewhiz ( talk) 11:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete same as others. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Spasov submachine gun

Spasov submachine gun (  | 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 Bulgarian firearm, no reliable sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. My first thought at seeing these AFDs was "almost all firearms are notable", however this does not seem to be the case here. Seems to be a copy of [13] (copyvio?). Sourcing is scant and doesn't seem reliable. Unable to find anything more reliable. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Almost all firearms are indeed notable, but not their variants. The Trigun is the only notable weapon out the pack. And for the most part the whole notion of "RS" has to go out the window regarding soem of these older WW2 and early cold war firearms, very little in English is going to survive to be on the internet. Gun blogs, forums, and posts by either weapon historians or owners quickly become the new bar for RS in these types of articles. The Trigun is notable enough that sooner or later someone else can do a better job of writing an article about, probably not me :) L3X1 (distænt write) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Spasov M1944 Trigun

Spasov M1944 Trigun (  | 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 Bulgarian firearm, no reliable sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. My first thought at seeing these AFDs was "almost all firearms are notable", however this does not seem to be the case here. Seems to be a copy of [14] (copyvio?). No substantive sources. If this by some means emerges from AFD, it should probably be merged with Spasov submachine gun (which also seems to be going for deletion on the same grounds). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Varshil Mehta

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

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

User appears to have just wrote an article about themselves. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. The article needs a lot of work. For example, see "Furthermore, in his next study, he showed an association between maternal early pregnancy triglyceridaemia and the subsequent risk of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, and preterm deliveries." That is a published study. It is not a source reporting about the study. Also see "An article published by him recently, showed that lipid profile in pregnant women rises during the second and third trimesters.[10]" That is referring to this article. That is not a WP:SECONDARY source reporting about the article. That and other content can be deleted. After the vanity content is deleted not much will be left. An article for Journal of Medical Research and Innovation might be notable. This article does not seem notable. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete does not meet notability [15]...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 02:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am Dr. Varshil Mehta. Thanks for your comments. If you guys feel, it can be edited and made better, do let me know. I can help, and if you want to have it deleted, You are most welcome as well. MedTime ( talk) 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

If it is deleted it most likely won't be restored to be made better. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reviewing it so minutely. Its better to have it deleted, since people do not feel like it is notable enough! Thanks a lot :) MedTime ( talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete as not satisfying notability standards. — soupvector ( talk) 03:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Definitely more neutral now (thanks to other editors), but continues to lack sufficient evidence of notability. — soupvector ( talk) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I feel, that shall be enough. Please proceed with deletion. Thanks. MedTime ( talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello guys, let me give some more details about the page 1) All the important articles have some citations which means, I can include those as secondaries. Secondary, why I feel that it is notable: I have spoken to the Dr. Jagdish Khubchani, who is also the director of World Association of Medical Editor, and in his opinion, I am the youngest person to hold a position of an Editor in Chief and Publisher of a Medical or Public health Journal. Furthermore, I have also applied for the same in Guinness World Records and Limca Book of Records. I am expecting the decision soon as well. Secondary I have represented India (Actually South Asia to be honest, but they have mentioned India in the pic) in a fully sponsored trip by Elsevier to give a speech at Bangkok. Also I was awarded with Indian's Best Young Researcher Award by Grabs Charitable Trust. I have also published many articles which are from good source, At an age of 25 years, I feel that it is quite notable especially from India. Also, since I have made the article, which is a problem as well, I declared the COI from the beginning. Furthermore, I has also requested every one to edit it by placing the editing request. Also, i requested JJMC89 to review it before publishing, which he saw it later. If you guys still feel that it is not notable, I have already mentioned that please go ahead and delete it without even wasting a second. Thank you every one for your time and have a great week ahead. I accept the decision may what ever it is! Thank you everyone and stay blessed :) MedTime ( talk) 15:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Dr. Jagdish Khubchani is not a source and what Khubchani said needs to be sourced. Many articles are reviewed by people who make mistakes before they were added to articlespace.

You added sources that you authored or co-authored such as this article. That is the original article. You would need to find a source reporting about it to show WP:WEIGHT that it should be added. You would not add the original article. You would add the source reporting about it. See Edzard Ernst for an article with many independent sources. To show an article is notable there must be many independent sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Like this? https://lemire.me/blog/2017/04/07/science-and-technology-links-april-7th-2017/ It is reporting my salt article. There are many like this reporting the original articles. MedTime ( talk) 16:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

That looks like a blog and may not be a reliable source. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Okay, how about the original articles citing my articles? Not only for this but for all other pages as well? In case I edit some other page, do I need to add the secondary source or the original source? In research articles, we generally cite the original articles since they deserve the credit. Thanks. MedTime ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

 Note: Just to be clear, I did not review (any version of) this article. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

yup, I never said that you did. I just said that I requested you to review and you saw later (In your talk page, it showed that that it has been posted already on net). MedTime ( talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable enough. Also appears like there's conflict of interest involved. Vignyana ^talk 15:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

If the discussion is done, can we now delete this page? I had placed db author, but it was revoked by some one. It is now wasting every one's time. Thanks. Hopefully, one day, every one will together write an article about me. I wont ever write any biography for sure from now onwards here but will write at some other places where they accept it. ;) MedTime ( talk) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks @ QuackGuru for all the editions and every one who tried to improve it. I was angry earlier, but now I am really happy, that people here are really great and they atleast care to help here. Starting with Dr. james, I saw his profile and he is a master piece. Still he cared to see the article and special thanks to Quackguru. Thanks. I will save all your edits and will use at some other place where I have to show case myself. :) MedTime ( talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

In case you do become notable in the future, editors can start with this version. I did a quick cleanup. There still needs to be reliable independent sources to show that you are notable. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, Indeed. I really wish they use your edits in future. Thanks :). How can we delete this page now?

It usually takes about 10 days. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Umm okay.. Can I make it blank at least? Otherwise, the tag of deletion does not look good. MedTime ( talk) 16:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The article is neutral now. Others have edited it. It is too late for a tag. I recommend you take some time off from this and focus on other things. It could be deleted sooner if there is WP:SNOWBALL delete votes. You may be able to delete your picture from Wikipedia commons while you still can. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Done Done and Done. Thanks. Adios every one. MedTime ( talk) 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Promotional CV, no reliable source coverage to suggest that he qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Created by the person himself, thus violating WP:AB and WP:COI. GSS ( talk| c| em) 17:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. As bad as any company advertising their products. Jytdog ( talk) 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Update. If you click here you will notice it also says "homepage". If you click on homepage it leads to here. Everipedia does not know they are using the page for his homepage. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: all the non-LinkedIn-type sources I can find are this, this, this and this. They are all merely indexes of studies that he has either presided over or taken part in. There's no independent coverage which suggests that his work has had a significant impact on his field of medicine and I can find few reliable peer-reviews. The autobiographical nature of the article is so severe that a substantial rewrite is needed to remove [[WP:PROMO|promotional material to comply with the neutrality policy. DrStrauss talk 09:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete clearly promotional fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and case of WP:TOOSOON .Subject is 26 year old and upcoming. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Post-Parlo

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

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

not notable. A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, concur with nom, non-notable record label. Stikkyy t/ c 18:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Aguyintobooks remember to always include a thoughtful rationale. I whole-heartedly agree: there is no secondary coverage whatsoever; however, an inclusionist may vote keep just because of the lack of a policy-based rationale. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes of course, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH proably applies, it fails that too. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  07:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete I had to muse on this one. Indie record labels are difficult to suss the notability of sometimes, and Post-Parlo produced Home Volume IV, and Home Volume IV, which are notable albums. The bands they had signed to them are not particularly notable with the Western Keys, The Fall on Deaf Ears, and Actionslacks producing at most one album with the band (and largely being non-notable). menaechmi ( talk) 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Adele Scheele

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

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

I doubt this person meets WP:GNG also given the subject matter of her work WP:PROF does not seem relevant. A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Clearly PROMO. "Career coach" is not notable per se. Art has no RS and was created by a short-lived SPA acct (7 total edits) about 9 years ago. Purpose seems to be to steer readers to her coaching business website. Agricola44 ( talk) 14:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Total lack of secondary sources and no claims for inherent notability. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Having a syndicated column and spinning it into three books sounds like the sort of thing that could plausibly be notable. But our article is heavily promotional and fails to make the case for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability. Web searches found only more promotion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a junk PR article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 08:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete: I must concur with the concerns that this is merely a puff piece. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clear promo piece not notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Mythica

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

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

Unreleased game. only relevance is a copyright dispute which was quickly resolved with limited coverage. Fails WP:GNG A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Received detailed, significant coverage from many reliable sources per consensus at WP:VG/S. To claim the coverage was limited, or limited by events, is incorrect. Coverage includes:

Announcement/Game Previews Coverage

1. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/mythica-e3-2003-preshow-report/1100-6027474/
2. http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/05/16/e3-2003-mythica
3. http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/04/25/mythica-announced

Retrospectives/Famous Cancelled Game Coverage

1. https://www.engadget.com/2011/07/19/the-game-archaeologist-and-the-what-ifs-mythica/
2. http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/04/02/missing-in-action-the-lost-games-of-the-pc-part-2?page=3

Lawsuit

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56023-2004May25.html
2. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/mythic-entertainment-sues-microsoft/1100-6086024/
3. https://www.law360.com/articles/645

This is but a small, quick sampling. There's more, but already easily enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted under G11 by Alex Shih. ( non-admin closure) ToThAc ( talk) 17:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hanne & Co

Hanne & Co (  | 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 real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Run-of-the-mill business. Edwardx ( talk) 11:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete the firm is old but not very large and no tradition of producing significant lawyers or judges. Legal aid work is pretty run of the mill non-notable stuff. Legacypac ( talk) 19:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. essentially an advertisement. This could have been handled by G11. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. OK, it seems like the topic is notable, as the claim and evidence to that effect provided by Hzh has not been contested. As noted by others FANCRUFT is an essay and is more importantly not garnering consensus support among participants. That leaves the question of a merger with the main article open as well as concerns about the quality of the current article writeup (I see the tables and the presence of original research have been mentioned); I defer these to the article talkpage for further discussion as neither needs an AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Game of Thrones title sequence

Game of Thrones title sequence (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Pretty much all fancruft unfortunately, especially tables, no notibility outside topic of Game of Thrones. Having an Emmy does not make this notable, otherwise every title sequence that has got the award deserves an article. Ted Edwards 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment The title sequence does seem to be well-covered, however. A simple Google search brought up numerous — very recent at that — articles about it. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 19:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Some examples [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and so on. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. A ton of filler content and unnecessary tables. This is better suited for a wiki. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and WP:FANCRUFT -- Whats new? ^(talk) 08:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Possibly Merge to Game of Thrones; though I'm not sure any content needs to be added. Argument as per above; WP:FANCRUFT. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Game of Thrones Brocicle ( talk) 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Yes, the Emmy award does suggests that it has individual notability, and the title sequence has received widespread non-trivial media coverage, also parodied and adapted ( [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] in addition to some already given above and many more). These two facts should qualified the article under notability criteria - there is no specific notability guideline for title sequence, although winning a major award and having non-trivial coverage in reliable sources are the usual notability criteria for articles on various media such as music, TV, film and other related subjects, see e.g. WP:NMEDIA, WP:NMUSIC, etc. The article however needs more sources, and it could be trimmed, but these are different issues not relevant here because the notability criteria have been satisfied. Whether other title sequences that won award also have their own articles or not is also irrelevant (there is for example one for The Simpsons), the notability of each article is judged on its own. It should be noted that WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and not Wikipedia policy or guideline, and reason for deletion should be discussed in reference to WP:DEL-REASON or WP:NOT. Hzh ( talk) 10:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Hzh: But once you remove all the tables, descriptions etc., it will have so little infomation it could easily be put on Game of Thrones. And Emmys do not equal notabilty; to my knowledge this is the only article on a title sequence. Ted E

dwards 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

You certainly don't want to merge it into the Game of Thrones main article, the article is already around the size of article where splitting should be considered, see WP:SIZE. The size of this article in any case is not a valid reason for deletion. I'll give the link for The Simpsons again - The Simpsons opening sequence, see also Opening and closing sequences of The Prisoner and The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence. There are also title sequence articles for films - e.g. James Bond, Star Wars. You determine the notability of individual article according the criteria as recommended by the guidelines (as already mentioned, the Game of Thrones title sequence qualifies with the award won, and good coverage), and not whether it is a title sequence or not. Hzh ( talk) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Could do with losing the tables I guess but Game of Thrones is already long and I believe there is enough out there to support a separate article.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 18:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - well sourced, sigcov ensures it should be kept. Editors such as myself may not like the obsessive detail of some of the tables, but any of us who have any such concerns can trim down the article and/or use any other available discussion mechanisms. That the nom does not like "especially tables" is no argument for an AfD process. XavierItzm ( talk) 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ XavierItzm: All I was saying was the tables are the bit I dislike the most, but the not the only thing I dislike. I dislike the "rules" for the sequence and the over detailed description of the sequence. Once you get rid of those, you're left with a stub, that could easily be included on Game of Thrones. Ted Edwards 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete unjustified content fork. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

This article is standard for WP:SPINOFF articles. The title sequence article is typical of articles that are subtopic of any main article, where you'd put a summary of the content in the main article so as not to create excessive bulk of a subtopic in the main article that would skew the importance of the subtopic to the main article. Hzh ( talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Hzh:Maybe it is me, but I'm not following your argument. This is a spinoff article, and seems appropriate for one - its length would be too long to include in the main article, and there is a decent summary in the main article. Could you perhaps re-word what you are trying to say? Benthatsme ( talk) 19:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you are saying what I said - this article is appropriate as a spinoff article, its length would be too long for the main article, and there is a summary in the main article. Hzh ( talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – For the reasons laid out by Hzh. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 23:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nominator suggests it is not notable, and that it qualifies as WP:FANCRUFT. While I agree that winning an Emmy does not alone make this topic notable, the many many secondary sources in the article and referenced above certainly ensures the topic clears the notability bar. Whether or not it is fancruft is immaterial. The fancruft essay (not a policy document) explains many common problems with articles that are written by 'fans' of a topic. Even if I were to grant the fact that in this article there are too many tables and too much detail (which I am not convinced of), then that is problem best addressed by edits and on the talk page, not by deletion. Benthatsme ( talk) 23:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - @ Benthatsme: The main problem with the tables is that they serve no encylopediac purpose at all; they are completely unnecessary. The only table I would want kept, should this discussion not end in my favour, would be the table of awards. Ted Edwards 21:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

You hit the nail on the head. The issue is of form, not of nature. The page should probably edited and trimmed down. But not obliterated! The idea is to try and improve the Wikipedia, not to nuke it from orbit. XavierItzm ( talk) 16:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not interested in completely obliterating this work on this article. I feel that the necessary detail could be added to the Game of Thrones article, without the section being too long. Ted Edwards 22:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

If you want to merge this page into another article, then why start the deletion process? Separately, tables are not a problem, per se. They are often a much more natural way to present information than in text form. You seem to object to the tables, not the information within, which is confusing me. In any case, as I said before, that topic really belongs on the talk page for the article. Benthatsme ( talk) 05:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

If I merge the articles, it's effectively a page delete, hence the discussion here. Also, I definitely object to the "info" in the table, it is completely pointless and unencyclopediac. It would be better just to say that the title sequence includes the cast and crew (perhaps obviously) and shows on a map some locations in the fictional world, changing depending on the episode. Ted Edwards 13:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - An impressive piece of Original Research. Pure in-universe fan cruft, not an encyclopedic topic or treatment. Wrong wiki. Carrite ( talk) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Numerically, there are more delete !votes than keep !votes, however, arguments like "poorly written" and "unsourced" can be addressed by editing and thus hold little weight. dsprc mentioned a couple of sources, after which the discussion is split between people arguing that those are enough to establish notability and those who disagree. So Why 06:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Kennadi Brink

Kennadi Brink (  | 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 person. Some articles from WP:PW are deleted because of the copy-pasting issues from fanmade wiki sites, and this is no exception. Nickag989 ^talk 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989 ^talk 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• I believe the nominator meant to say speedy delete, see here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Poorly written article on a person that is yet to become noteworthy. Maybe in a few years, but someone's jumped the gun here. 6SyXx6 ( talk) 05:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Salt. Unsourced, all OR, no better than first article that was deleted a few months ago. Agricola44 ( talk) 03:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete there are not any valid references to prove his identify to meet Wikipedia′s notability lows Mr.ref ( talk) 14:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notability is established by external sources and is independent of references (or lack thereof) used in-article. Cunard raised similar point in last nom and provided examples of coverage. Article could use work but, subject is notable. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] (Also: Wikia is CC-BY-SA; thus, content is re-usable so long as properly attributed in summary or on article Talk.)--  dsprc  ^[talk] 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

All of these sources show how she wanted to become an athlete, and it's far from meeting WP:GNG. Nickag989 ^talk 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Broad-range of sources cover subject for years, at-length and in-detail. Thus, subject is notable per GNG. Further, it appears they are an athlete–not wanting–and according to sources, a professional athlete at that. --  dsprc  ^[talk] 16:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'd say the sources presented edges out to her being notable. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actresses, that is what professional wrestlers are. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Based on what? I just checked the entertainers section on notability guidelines (which actors and wrestlers are part of) where would it say that these sources which are notable and reliable are not enough? ★Trekker ( talk) 07:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The sources Nikki311 ( talk · contribs) found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennadi Brink from the Miami Herald and New Times Broward-Palm Beach provide significant coverage of Kennadi Brink, allowing her to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The additional sources found by Dsprc ( talk · contribs) further establish notability. This article notes that Jessika Heiser wrestles under the Kennadi Brink name.

  Cunard ( talk) 07:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 02:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:GNG; sources presented at this AfD and the one prior are interviews and / or passing mentions, and are not sufficient for notability. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Radmin

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

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

Article is mostly promotional in context and seems to be written mostly for promotional purposes. Contains very little to none in any relevant or encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 17:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete Waaaay too promotional in tone and presentation. TH1980 ( talk) 02:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: There is nothing notable about the product. Too promotional, as per nomination. RetiredDuke 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Geroyche

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

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

Fails music band notability standards. Little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and no indication of any standout qualities that would warrant passing the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 17:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete (per nom). Almost a speedy A7, but after 12 years we can wait another couple of days to delete this. — Kusma ( t· c) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete no coverage. Power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

K's Holdings Corporation

K's Holdings Corporation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails depth of coverage for corporate notability standards. The nearest thing to significant coverage is a mere business index in Forbes which confers no notability. Nothing more than directory entry-type sources are available. DrStrauss talk 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 14:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and HighKing. No significant coverage, and no indication of notability in the article. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 02:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A number of possible sources were presented here, but other editors did not feel they satisfied WP:ORGDEPTH.

As an aside, while I think Soman's comments were a little edgy, claiming that they rose to the level of infringing WP:CIVIL seems a little over-sensitive. So, I'm going to take one , cut it in half, and distribute the pieces evenly :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Tehreek Labaik Pakistan

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. No coverage found. Greenbörg (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Do you google before initiating an AfD? There is plenty of coverage of the organization. Just have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZ2dgz0pwk -- Soman ( talk) 10:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Inadequate notability. George Custer's Sabre ( talk) 08:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The subject fails WP:GNG without any doubt. The only information found has been in the form of user-uploaded Youtube videos and a few blog posts. Those don't even come close to passing WP:IRS, nor are they sufficient to support notability on their own, nor have they even been sustained enough to support notability if (in theory) blogs and user videos were suddenly accepted as valid sources. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• I'm I the only one that googles in the AfD process? see [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] -- Soman ( talk) 18:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• First and foremost, you need to keep the Wikipedia:Civility in mind because both of your comments above were decidedly uncivil. Even if you find the views of others strange or poorly thought-out, the policy still stands.

Secondly, the links you've provided still don't establish notability because only a few of them are actually about the subject. Those which are about the subject are tied to two separate protests against the religious affairs ministry, and those protests (as also established in the sources you provided) also included other groups - thus there is no specific coverage focusing on the subject itself, Tehreek Labaik Pakistan. Additionally, the majority of the links you just posted only mention the subject in passing, in most cases only a single time.

It's good that you're viewing even the comments of other editors with a skeptical eye on an AfD, but there are two problems here. The first is that you misunderstood the view of myself (I can't speak for GorgeCustersSabre): the issue isn't that I didn't search on Google, but that I did search and didn't find any information about the group itself. There were protests which occurred and weren't about Tehreek Labaik Pakistan itself, but rather were a part of wider anti-religious affairs ministry protests including multiple religious groups, not just this one. Now, that still doesn't mean my view is right, but it does mean that you have a significant misunderstanding of another editor's (my) view. You could have avoided that simply by asking me why I wrote what I did instead of jumping to conclusions.

The second problem is that neither of your comments have been polite, and that's definitely a cause for concern. The first impression I got is that you're either a fan of the article's subject pushing hard for its inclusion, thus indicating that your objectivity is compromised; or that your general manner of dealing with disagreement is to question the competence of anyone who disagrees with you, thus indicating that your temperament precludes a serious discussion.

That impression might be wrong, but it's reasonable as a first impression. You should give some serious consideration to future responses, and perform your own due diligence in the way of not jumping to conclusions about what other editors are doing. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• My point was not to be uncivil, but I did question the rationale of both the original AfD nomination as well as your 'delete' vote. As a reminder, the nominator stated No coverage found, a statement that could only be true in case WP:BEFORE had not been conducted. The same editor had issued a number of other Pakistan-related AfDs in the recent past which similar arguments. You wrote "The only information found has been in the form of user-uploaded Youtube videos and a few blog posts", a statement that is clearly incorrect as the organization is covered in various large media in Pakistan such as Dawn, Jang, Mashriq, Tribune, Nation, etc.. I'm sorry if the way I worded your comment hurt your feelings, but at the same time you'd need to recognize that your initial comment turned out to be factually incorrect. As per whether coverage is sufficient to consider an organization as notable, there is no clearcut line (as is often manifested in AfD debates), but it must be noted that some of the links to large media outlets presented above do deal with the organization as the main focus of the respective articles (such as [63] and [64]) -- Soman ( talk) 15:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH, specifically there isn't sufficient depth of coverage to make it "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization".-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 21:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Tower Hamlets Mediation Service

Tower Hamlets Mediation Service (  | 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 enough references to prove notability. Unlikely to become notable in the future, as it ceased to exist on or before 5 February 2016 (according to its entry on the Charity Commission's website, number 1060643).

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/RemovedCharityMain.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1060643&SubsidiaryNumber=0

-- BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 04:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• support Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 12:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Entities like this are usually far below encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - only passing mentions in any reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:ORG. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 01:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Mianwali Development Trust

Mianwali Development Trust (  | 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 found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Only very minor mentions in reliable sources, does not have significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:ORG. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 02:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of law schools in Pakistan. Merge already performed, can be verified from its history. Note the page was moved to a new title while this AFD was pending; both have been redirected. postdlf ( talk) 14:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Pakistani universities that offer LLB courses

List of Pakistani universities that offer LLB courses (  | 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 purpose served. Fails guidelines. Greenbörg (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 08:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep.Merge. Meets WP:CSC criteria. should however probably be renamed to List of Pakistani universities with authorized LLB programs. A Guy into Books ( talk) 09:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to List of law schools in Pakistan, which already appears to fulfil the purpose of this list. Mar4d ( talk) 12:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree, if only to use the more natural title. A Guy into Books ( talk) 12:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• unsure why this is being relisted, I already merged it. A Guy into Books ( talk) 20:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Syrian Professional Players

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

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

Seems to be non-notable. The English language references talk about the sportsmen and what they are doing, they do not support the article for the organisation. There is no corresponding non-English language. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The English-language references bear no resemblance to the content they supposedly support. Power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Sekolah Kebangsaan Sempang

Sekolah Kebangsaan Sempang (  | 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 elementary school. Could not find more than a passing mention in a news article discussing flooded places. Hardly anything worth salvaging. To whoever is searching for sources: please do make sure that they are about this school in the Malaysian state of Melaka/Malacca, as there are other similarly named schools. HyperGaruda ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Small primary school with no special claim to fame. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and elementary schools aren't inherently notable. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 02:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, entirely promotional with no rescuable content DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Dean Hohl

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

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx ( talk) 18:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Leading Concepts, Inc. has no coverage outside of self-generated promotional/contacts forums; thus, no WP:SIGCOV.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Al Ain Foundation for Social Welfare

Al Ain Foundation for Social Welfare (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Same article was created at arWP and was deleted as not being notable. Concerns were raised there about the contributors edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

PakTribune

PakTribune (  | 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 not a newspaper. though several books cited news articles published by this news portal website [65] however the newswebsite itself has not been subject of coverage in RS. nor this news portal is among the highest traffic news sites in Pakistan.. ranking 21,700 in Pakistan therefore i consider it failing to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). a similar example is The News Tribe which ranks 2,600 in Pakistan and despite being in the G'books it was deleted as well. Saqib ( talk) 09:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as no coverage in WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep I've added a friendly search suggestions on the talk page. Coverage should surface.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 01:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

You need to give reason why the page should be kept and provide RS. -- Saqib ( talk) 05:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete fails WP:RS and doesn't have enough traffic or notability to have their own article. Excelse ( talk) 05:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Urdu Mehfil

Urdu Mehfil (  | 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 found. Fails notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Vinveli Payana Kurippugal(VPK)

Vinveli Payana Kurippugal(VPK) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable movie KDS4444 ( talk) 12:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - can't find any independent coverage myself Spiderone 10:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

modified searches:

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: விண்வெளி பயணக் குறிப்புகள்

• Keep per multiple existing independent sources [66] Per WP:SEP and WP:HANDLE and they need to be used, not deleted for lack of someone else not doing it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Youth Plugged

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

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

We don't have article because it is a website. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete- No sources or citations to prove any notability or significant coverage by independent published sources Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthamender ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete Newly launched website and lacks notability to have their own article. Excelse ( talk) 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Triza

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

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

Fails general notability with minimal secondary coverage. Blackguard 01:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 02:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 02:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm seeing social media profiles and a few passing mentions (e.g., "produced by Triza"), but nothing in-depth that would suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  gongshow   talk  02:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

• Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Opera Magna

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

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

Prod reason given by KGirlTrucker81 was "No indication of notability, fails NMUSIC and GNG following a Google search." I concur with this assessment. Only provided reference is a press release for their latest tour, and I found nothing better. Prod removed by author without explanation. Author has since improved formatting, but not the sourcing. -- Finngall ^talk 04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall ^talk 05:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall ^talk 05:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

David R Newton

David R Newton (  | 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. Article tagged for notability and orphan since Nov 2015 when article was created by SPA Paula Newton. Article has one reliable source (Science Museum) and one doubtful (Art UK). Search for sources finds only 16 plausible hits on Internet, blogs etc excluded, notability cannot be established. Exhibiting "with" famous artists does not confer inherited notability either. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable artist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I do not consider that one mural located in a science museum meets NCREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  17:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

John Riddell (news)

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

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

Local newsperson, admittedly of a sizable city, and although the name seems to be fairly common (so it's possible I'm overlooking something that indicates he's received something other than very local coverage, I'm... just not seeing much to indicate that he's received anything other than extremely local coverage. Crated by a fairly obvious COI account besides. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable to a scale beyond local level. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- an unremarkable TV announcer. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Kierzek ( talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  17:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Italki

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

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Why all the relists? It's pretty easy to see it's a poorly referenced WP:CORPSPAM article. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- agree with the above: just corporate spam on a private company with no indications of notability or significance. Please delete it already :-). K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Lillian Axe (Lillian Axe Album)

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

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The article does not indicate why the album is notable. The one reference does not help. A Google search is hampered by the name of the album being the same as the band, but I couldn't find any indication that this is considered a notable album, indeed the article on the band indicates that the album was not a commercial success. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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