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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Euro-Industriepark

Euro-Industriepark (  | 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 removed with little or no rationale beyond the source being added (a start, at least) dealing with the mysterious cutting down of trees around the area. The fact that the area exists isn't in question, but that doesn't automatically confer notability in the absence of the usual requirements. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Has the nom done WP:BEFORE? FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The nom has performed a suitable amount of research, yes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm seeing a lot of results on Google News. Are they just mentions? Don't we usually keep articles on major malls or developments? Why not this one? The shopping district has a Bauhaus (company) store and other things that have gotten quite a bit of coverage. FloridaArmy ( talk) 02:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

You and I may be seeing slightly different results on Google News (pretty sure it's location-sensitive), but an awful lot of what I'm seeing in both English and German amounts to just mentions. There's plenty of "New bus routes which will serve this location" and "[Store X] will open here", but that's all pretty run-of-the-mill. I'll admit that Fox News used a shot of the McDonald's outlet there for their coverage on the McDonald's Twitter hack (the one which resulted in the anti-Trump tweet last year), but that's just a "file photo", rather than any reason beyond that. You're right that major malls get articles, but that's usually because a major mall has the relevant level of coverage to justify an article. The presence of a notable chain doesn't automatically confer notability on the location either, that's where sources need to come into the picture. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - we only keep articles on subjects that are notable. For malls that means that independent sources have given significant coverage to the mall itself, not just to companies that operate stores in the particular mall. Nothing suggests that this mall is notable.-- Rpclod ( talk) 02:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• It appears that this place is historically notable in its previous incarnation as Germany's first industrial park rather than as a modern shopping centre. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't think this shopping complex has anything very special about it, I think it is just like lots of others, but there are a few decent mentions on Google, the rest being as BigHaz as explained, just run of the mill press announcements. The article itself looks very much like a copy of that which is on the . However I think that as a place, which exists, and has some reasonable independent sources, it should be kept because it is within the basic notability requirements. Regards Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Also the title in English should be Euro Industrial Park, you are using a German title. Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- lacks notability per review of available sources. Coverage is in passing or incidental. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory of shopping centres. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. We don't keep articles about places because they exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn.) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Iqram Rifqi

Iqram Rifqi (  | 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. While this player has attracted some coverage, he's yet to make his senior debut in a fully-professional league, and such coverage as is present is relatively run of the mill stuff, as I see it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn per correction from Struway2. I had misread the source discussed there, which caused the initial PROD and eventually the AfD here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - technically the nom is correct. The subject does not currently qualify under WP:NFOOTY. However, the article indicates that the subject has been promoted to the S League parent team. As soon as the subject takes the pitch against another S League team, the subject will qualify. I recommend holding this, if that is possible, until the end of the upcoming season to see whether the subject does so. Absent an injury or other unexpected issue, the subject is likely to qualify. Another option is for an editor to userfy the article until that time.-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

There's never any objection to re-creating an article once the player involved makes the necessary appearance on the park. Considering that the 2018 season of the S-League isn't meant to start until the end of March (according to its article) and runs until October, that's potentially a very long hold-over period - and, playing devil's advocate, what's to stop the argument being made after that time of "Well, he's been in the squad, just never selected, so why don't we hold that over until the end of next season?" and so on. Userfication may work, as I can see that the article's creator seems to be a keen fan of the league and would presumably be well-placed to update and re-create anyway. That said, I note that the other non-NFOOTY-compliant articles the same user created were deleted via PROD. This is a special case for what seems to be a reason entirely unrelated to the original user or the subject. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 06:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The nom is not in fact correct. This piece, cited as ref #3 in the article, clearly shows he has played in the S.League, which is listed as fully professional per the wording of WP:NFOOTBALL. Having read that, I checked Soccerway, which confirms ten (10) appearances in that league, so have added that information to the article. Please consider WP:BEFORE. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

You're entirely correct. I misread that article as being about his appearances in the league below the S-League, rather than the S-League itself. I'll withdraw the nomination and close this one accordingly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. From the sources in the article he also seems to have garnered a reasonable amount of non-trivial coverage too. Fenix down ( talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Passes NFOOTY . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Pass WP:NFOOTBALL:They play 10 matches for Home United FC in 2017 S.League. Pinging GiantSnowman. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 12:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Dorris Francis

Dorris Francis (  | 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. While the sources present do provide information on this woman (4 is in a language I can't read and 5 didn't want to load for me, but I'm sure they're similar), this is in the vein of "human interest" coverage as I read it, the sort of "cat-up-a-tree" stuff that can show up on a slow news day and get circulated for that reason. I don't see the sort of coverage which would normally equate to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep-Extensive coverage by reliable newspapers for some time. A7 arguments do not apply when there is reliable coverage. Dorris Francis is not a OTP(One time Phenomenon) as suggested by the author the sources cover her at different times of here life, some cover her before her illness some after she was diagnosed. This is actually an aborted project of mine (Making articles on these unusual people) which I intend to get back to once a the new batch of Padma awards are given out on 26 January — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

BigHaz-I didn't contest your prod, I was planning to contest your nomination tomorrow morning when I would have got some time off, but today I see that you seem to have already read my mind  — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I know you didn't contest it (and apologies if you'd got the impression that I was accusing you of having done so - not that contesting a PROD is something to be "accused of", but you get my meaning I hope...). The contestation came from another quarter entirely, and possibly for quite another reason. As a response to your point about the coverage, I see what you mean about the coverage at different points in her life, but that can still occur with the human-interest subjects - at least in news coverage in Australia there's a genre of report which runs "You know that hero truck driver who saved the kid from the burning house? Well, now his son has been caught speeding", and so on. If she winds up included in a Padma award list, that would seem to change things from what I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete human interist stories from the news media are not the thinks notable coverage to pass GNG is made of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Coverage yes. Notable, no. She's a traffic crossing guard? 198.58.168.40 ( talk) 06:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Human interest stories become news and when they do, the subject passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a human interest piece that fails NOTNEWS. The GNG is only a guideline that is rebuttable presumption (click the WikiLink in WP:N and look at the endless talk page discussions there going back years on this subject). Whether or not this article passes the GNG is irrelevant to whether we should keep it per our guidelines. The GNG is not an absolute right for inclusion, consensus is policy and common sense must prevail. Depth of coverage does not only refer to the amount of coverage in a piece, but also the level of critical journalistic analysis. We don't have that here. This fails both points of WP:N, it is excluded by WP:NOT as routine news coverage, and it also lacks the depth of coverage we would expect under the GNG. Even if it meets the GNG, we are free to decide by consensus that it does not warrant an article because of the nature of the coverage: that has been the long established consensus at WP:N, and it must be considered here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. As it stands, this does not appear to meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. Number 5 7 13:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas)

Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas) (  | 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 subject fails WP:NGEO as it is neither populated nor historic nor a natural feature. There is routine government mention of the park but not enough to pass GNG, in my opinion. The article was de-PROD'd without a rationale so I'm sending this to AfD. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The place is populated insofar as it is a place that people go and so it passes WP:NGEO. It is part of Clinton Lake (Kansas) and so there is an obvious alternative to deletion which has not been considered as required by WP:BEFORE. And, in any case, there seems to be adequate coverage in works such as Kansas Off the Beaten Path. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I considered redirecting the article but since you de-PROD'd it for no apparent reason, I felt AfD was a better method of determining consensus rather than unilaterally moving the content. I'm sure you agree. I don't think your concept that humans could be found in the park sometimes meets GEOLAND's requirement for population. Kansas off the Beaten Path mentions Clinton Lake but not the park. It's not clear that the Wells Overlook County Park on page 21 is the same place and I don't see how that rises to pass GNG. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It is very hypocritical of Andrew to critize you here when he flat out refused to explain his reasoning for the dePROD until this was taken to AfD.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment no one has to give any reason to remove a WP:PROD, just removal is contesting enough. Providing a reason is strongly encouraged but not required.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 04:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I understand that. But multiple articles were deproded and I went to Andrew's talk page to specifically ask him why and he refused to explain.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I just popped over to the editor's talk page. It looks to me like the editor did answer your questions. But even if the editor did not that would not be a reason to delete or not delete this article in AFD. Please cease this line of discussion to avoid any possibility of WP:Wikihounding or Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Editors are strongly encouraged but not required to provide a reason for removing a PROD. It's fair to ask. It's fair to ask for more clarity when a reason is given but not understood. But bringing it up at AFD potentially as a personal attack? No, we don't do that here.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete- Parks are not geographic features, they are man-made designations. It is not a populated place. A populated place by definition is somewhere that people live. Unless you want to count some homeless guy sleeping on one of the parks benches every night, I don't how this rises to the status of populated place. There is no significant reliable source coverage for the park and therefore fails WP:GNG-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGEO, and any other notability guideline I can find.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 04:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Overland Park, Kansas. FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment if we merge, we should merge to either Lawrence, Kansas or Douglas County, Kansas. Overland Park is in Johnson County, Kansas and merging there would not make sense.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The best merge targets would be Clinton State Park or Clinton Lake (Kansas) as this is all one complex managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (but note that they are currently affected by the shutdown). Note that it should not be confused with the Wells Overlook Park, which is another park nearby. The difficulty that people are having with this, well-demonstrates Wikipedia's important role as a gazetteer, per the 5 pillars. All named geographical features should have an entry in Wikipedia so that functions like the Places button in the official Wikipedia app can work properly -- showing the features in your location. This place passes WP:NGEO for this reason. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Your argument is invalid, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Nonsense. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY link indicates that we should not present our material in the style of a Yellow Pages or other commercial directory. A gazetteer is a different concept, listing geographical names as an index. That's explicitly part of our function per WP:5 and the WMF official interfaces increasingly support this so that people accessing Wikipedia from a smart phone, can get appropriate information about their locale. For example, I create pages about places in London such as Hanging Sword Alley and these include coordinates which then enable such interfaces. Such sensible features should not be disrupted by drive-by deletionism for which there is no policy-based justification. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG.Nonsensical keep arguments. Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• It passes WP:NGEO, which is what matters for places. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I cannot but ever underestimate your ability to pick out the most ridiculous reasons and to twist the spirit of the guidelines to fit your views. Winged Blades ^Godric 13:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Indeed. I am revising my vote below. FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It does not pass NGEO. Nothing in NGEO indicates that it is applicable to parks. A park is not a natural feature nor populated place.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

"Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." FloridaArmy ( talk) 21:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails GNG and NGEO. Trouts or topic bans await. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep based on the discussion here of WP:NGEO guidelines. FloridaArmy ( talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• comment The arguments around WP:NGEO are interesting. It seems to me that there could be some clarification written toward this guideline that could apply here. Presuming that the closing admin may consider that the arguments made around the WP:NGEO issue are strictly met based on present status, I would also ask for consideration that perhaps the guideline was not written to address cases such as this--guidelines are great tools but they also can be greatly lacking in clarity at times. Therefore, I will retain my position of delete (noted above) and add to that the policy ignore all rules also points toward deletion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages as per WP:NORDIRECTORY. Fails GNG. HighKing ⁺⁺ 19:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep WP:NGEO doesn't give any clear guidance on parks (which are not populated places), I expect that a revision would allow for this to be kept (as Wikipedia does function as a gazetteer). There's no way it meets WP:GNG, but the primary (government) sources that exist should be enough to write an article. Clinton Lake (Kansas) is the redirect target. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Moves can be discussed or done boldly. Killiondude ( talk) 07:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Persijn

Persijn (  | 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 references merely lump together some persons with the same last name, none of which have their own WP entry. If the knight is notable, he could have his own article, but as an article on the family Persijn, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. P 1 9 9   ✉ 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep These is some sourcing on the family - e.g. [2] [3] [4] Up until 1282 or 1274 [5] the family controlled the lordship of Waterlands. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the article seems to pass the deletion policy regarding names and surnames.-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move to Persijn family per Icewhiz's sources. feminist ( talk) 03:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to TVB Jade. The merge !votes made no case that anything is worth merging but the history will be intact if anyone feels any merging would be of value. J04n( talk page) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

TVBJ

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

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

Unsourced and no evidence of notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to TVB Jade (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. I found passing mentions of the subject in my searches for sources. The page had been a redirect to TVB Jade between 30 March 2005 and 11 January 2018 (with several very brief periods in between where an article was restored and reverted).

  I therefore recommend restoring the redirect that has been in place for over a decade. I recommend retaining the history so that it can be used for the creation of an article about TVBJ in case any future editors find significant coverage in reliable sources.

  Cunard ( talk) 06:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge (along with TVB Jade) into TVB or do as Cunard suggests. (Cunard, why is your name red-linked? You have been on WP forever.)-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge to TVBJade. FloridaArmy ( talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Restore Redirect to TVB Jade; not independently notable. There's nothing worth merging here, so a redirect would be the best outcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Battle Carnival

Battle Carnival (  | 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 video game with bad sourcing. I tried to find some sources (in both English and Russian) and came across this and this, but I'm not sure of their reliability (and it wouldn't be enough to indicate notability anyway). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I also found these two sources. I would say that does get close towards notoriety. I do have another worry, and that's WP:COI, due to the creator only having one edit. Lee Vilenski( talk) 10:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Lee Vilenski: The user has only made edits relating to this game on Commons. Also, I just checked WP:VG/RS and the MMOS.com source is unreliable, so that takes one out of the picture. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Anarchyte:, so most likely COI? Could just be a big fan, but irregardless. the MMOs.com article does indeed look promotional, what about the MMOCulture.com? That looks like a decent reference to me. Lee Vilenski( talk) 10:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't bet on it, to be honest. It looks very WP:SPS-y. I've only seen one author ("cinderboy"/Robert Chen) and I can't see any "about us" pages or any background information on the site, besides that it's been up since 2009 (© 2009 - 2017 MMO Culture). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - can't find any significant coverage in independent sources to support an article (though I can't read Russian, so I may have missed something). Ajpolino ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I note that the Russian Wikipedia has a substantial article with more references. Do they have a similar notability guideline as here? Ifnord ( talk) 01:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Ifnord: The article on that Wikipedia is also up for deletion. Perhaps it's because of a language barrier, but none of the sources are mentioned on WP:VG/RS, so I wouldn't bet on them being reliable. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, especially given the Russian AfD as noted above. Ifnord ( talk) 16:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. None of the keep !votes provide any policy-based reasons to keep, i.e. sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Al Aali Shopping Complex

Al Aali Shopping Complex (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A quick search brings up very little in coverage. Even the article acknowledged it is not the biggest or best. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, no evidence of notability. Mall size of 52,000m2 is well below expected size of a notable mall. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep, since it is mall, its web pages on it are mostly review websites. Note there are also other malls from Bahrain that have pages that have similar self references. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 19:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I have not seen those, and if there were as poorly sourced as this should also be removed. ANd reviews are not enough, there has to be in depth coverage to show it is notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Still one of the biggest malls in the country, its ranks about 4th or 5th in term of size and visitors count, I can't think of any valid reason of why the article should be deleted ! Alawadhi3000 ( talk) 10:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the article contains no independent references, let alone authoritative references, that would demonstrate notability. The mere fact that something exists does not make it notable.-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Further discussion can continue on the article's talk page, if desired. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

SM Rookies

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

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

Literally just a list of trainees with questionable notability who have either moved on to debut in a group or are still training. Abdotorg ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Agreed, no significant coverage of members that aren't already a part of existing groups. No singles or shows that have charted well. Trainees are essentially non-notable by definition - they haven't debuted. Unless they make some notable news outside their musical trainee status, they probably shouldn't be listed here. Evaders99 ( talk) 20:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I disagree. This article might be alternatively used as a reference. Maybe at this point there is already no importance for the coverage of the current trainees listed, and the members who are now part of the groups Red Velvet and NCT occasionally references to their pre-debut activities as "SM Rookies." The project once had a large significance, but after NCT's debut, the project was not much given attention. Dominichikaru ( talk) 13:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg ( talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge to S.M. Entertainment. Though most of the information doesn't even belong here or the label article in the first place, but the group's or individual singer's articles. "Pre-debut" has become a pretty terrible neologism in K-pop beyond its dictionary definition and is really just a marketing ploy ( Kard released several singles since 2016 and just "debuted" this past July? Suuure...). The trainee system is a peculiar scheme in South Korean and Japan that is worth noting, but anything beyond a simple list falls into an indiscriminate fan-factoid mess. ℯ xplicit 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Rather than deleting the article, merging this to S.M. Entertainment would be a great idea. However, put all the names of the current trainees there with a reference, then delete them once they made their debut. 1.230.125.232 ( talk) 00:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 15:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Student Christian Movement of Canada

Student Christian Movement of Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Minimal notability asserted, no sourcing found whatsoever, article is full of crap. Was kept in 2008 via a deluge of totally invalid arguments such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:PROBLEM, none of which actually addressed notability. The article is still very much unchanged from its 2008 status, and no more notability or sourcing has been uncovered Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 06:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Paul foord ( talk) 08:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Paul foord ( talk) 08:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - this is a well-written and informative article that does have many references. Vorbee ( talk) 09:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Vorbee: "Well written and informative" is not a reason to keep. I could write a well-written and informative article about my cat, and that doesn't make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• TenPoundHammer can you speak to the sources cited in the article? The books appear to discuss to this subject and aspects of its long history dating to the 1920s. If we determined that it wasn't independently notable wouldn't a merge to the parent organization be the best outcome? FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

When you say "the parent organization", do you mean the World Student Christian Federation? Vorbee ( talk) 11:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes. A broader topic. FloridaArmy ( talk) 12:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to World Student Christian Federation#National Student Christian Movements. I'm not seeing enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, beyond what's in the article. Just a couple of books and some hits based on thesis papers - but no indepth coverage of the organization in independent sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep SCM was a very significant movement. As involved in liberal Christianity, I have little time for it personally, but that is my POV. This is certainly an article that we need. If it has unreliable content, it should be corrected, not deleted. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep very substantially covered in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. The sources discuss its evolution, history and influence. FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

You must be seeing something different than I am. Can you show me one reliable source that covers the organization in depth? I'm not sure that a brief mention in a Catholic Register article is enough.[ [6]] The current sourcing is quite poor - I just marked a dead link. I can't read the thesis papers but if the group was notable you'd expect to see more media coverage, especially having been around since 1921, according to the Register. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Lots of sources do. here for example the group is discussed in some detail on multiple pages. FloridaArmy ( talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The source in the article you describe as a brief mention says:

"SCM has a large contingent of members of the United Church and the Anglican Church, but there are also many members of Catholics, Mennonites, Coptic Christians and others.

Since the Second Vatican Council published Unitatis Redintegratio (the Decree on Ecumenism) in 1964, ecumenism has grown to become common practice throughout Christian denominations.

Esther Townshend, an Anglican who works as the Toronto coordinator for SCM Canada, said ecumenical work has always felt natural to her.

“I do see it among the clergy and the chaplains who’ve supported SCM over the years,” said Townshend, 26. “They’ve worked hard to promote dialogue and find ways to work across denominational boundaries and that’s made it possible for it to seem so natural to our generation.”

SCM Canada, founded in 1921 as an affiliate of World Student Christian Federation, is a youth-led network that calls together Canadian Christian young people to take action for social justice and activism.

“The social teachings of Jesus that we focus on are things that are found in every wing of the Church for sure,” said Peter Haresnape, who self-identifies as Anglo-Catholic and national coordinator of SCM. “It’s really the idea that the teachings of Jesus should lead us to influence the world in a positive, concrete kind of way. Catholic social teaching is very much aligned with these values.”

Although this is first time SCM’s Toronto delegation is part of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, it is not their first collaboration with the Catholic community.

Faith Connections, a young adult ministry run by Fontbonne Ministries and the Sisters of St. Joseph Toronto, joined forces with SCM last year.

Faith Connections director Vanessa Nicholas-Schmidt said the partnership began with an open mic night in March called “Jesus, Justice and Me.” This Lenten season, they are working to collaborate on another event dedicated to eco-justice.

SCM and Faith Connections also worked together on organizing Alpha Canada programs throughout the Greater Toronto Area. Alpha Canada is a youth ministry program for Christians to share and discuss faith teachings in a fellowship environment."

Is that a brief mention? FloridaArmy ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It is, since that source is mostly about the parent organization SCM, not the subject of this article. And the Catholic Register, while a nice clean looking web site, isn't nearly as notable as the similarly named National Catholic Register. I did acknowledge the couple of books and thesis papers in my merge vote above, but it's just not enough, especially for a group that's been around so long. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Which part of the quoted portion isn't about SCM Canada? I dont see any mention of the parent organization, just diacussion of SCM Canada, its history, and evolution. FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I thought SCM was the parent, and then they shifted to talk about SCM Canada. There's also a Student Christian Movement of Great Britain On this news article we're discussing, which is the best source for notability we together could come up with, the caption doesn't even mention SCM Canada, calling it instead Christian Student Unity Canada. I looked some more and don't see enough coverage. In any case, this article doesn't meet my guidelines for notability. Perhaps a closing admin will disagree. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not the best source jist one of many. The Eugene Forsey book also gives substantial coverage to the subject. FloridaArmy ( talk) 03:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I can't read the whole Forsey book but from the Google excerpts I can see, the book confirms he was indeed a member. But since I can't tell how much in depth info there is about the group, I'll refer to WP:INHERITED which essentially says that just because he's member, doesn't make the group notable. What I'd like to see is more independent coverage, where the group is the focus, rather than just being mentioned in a member's biography. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I always want to barf when I see the Wiki used to do God's work. 198.58.161.137 ( talk) 07:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply

There's no place for this sentiment here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

.....or for barfing. Carrite ( talk) 15:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to World Student Christian Federation#National Student Christian Movements; not independently notable. Lacks WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article; the exerpt above is from a piece that's based on an interview; therefore, it's not suitable for establishing notability. Mostly unsourced WP:ADVOCACY and not suitable for inclusion in this form. Anything useful (which is not much) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

No, it's an article that quotes multiple people. FloridaArmy ( talk) 02:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - SCM was an significant movement. The article needs to get in shape, but AfD is not a clean-up service and the refernces available so far are good. BabbaQ ( talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Meets GNG. A commenter in the 2008 debate (which resoundingly closed KEEP) also mentions the book A Short History of the Student Christian Movement in Canada, by Margaret Beatie. Carrite ( talk) 15:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh, there's a shit-ton of sources for this organization on Newspapers.com when you switch over to Canadian papers. For example, HERE is coverage from the Winnipeg Tribune about the group's 1931 conference, substantial coverage. Easy GNG pass. Carrite ( talk) 15:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

And THIS is substantial coverage from the same paper on the SCM's 1933 campaign in favor of a National Day of Prayer called for by its international governing body. Carrite ( talk) 15:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Then there's is ANOTHER piece dedicated to covering the group's 1948 annual conference. Carrite ( talk) 15:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Carrite's sources. feminist ( talk) 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Eric Edwards (actor, born 1966)

Eric Edwards (actor, born 1966) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable actor; coverage (at least online) appears to be lacking, and his roles appear to be mostly small roles that don't meet WP:ENT. It's possible that some offline coverage exists; if they do, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep really short stub article right now, but it seems the actor has 65 acting credits to his name on IMDB. The common name makes online search difficult.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

This could be a quantity over quality case: he does seem to have plenty of roles, but most of those appear to be bit or at best supporting. And even with disambiguations, I really couldn't find much about him, so despite his common name, that might not be a factor in looking for sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 03:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Perhaps. But "quality" is not a measure for achieving notability.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lots of roles do not add to notability if they are all bit parts. No evidence that his roles have ever risen to the level of being significant. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. IMDB is not a credible source; one can pay to have inclusion. A film student could conceivably have dozens of roles in films that will never be seen outside of that particular school. Ifnord ( talk) 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Sankar Induchoodan

Sankar Induchoodan (  | 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 searches and a lack of sourcing in the article, this guy fails WP:GNG, he also clearly fails WP:NACTOR as he has only had one minor role in a film. WP:TOOSOON — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 05:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non notable actor with only an insignificant role in a regional film. Fails WP:NACTOR Hagennos ( talk) 03:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Ontario Association of Landscape Architects

Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (  | 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 could not find anything that could be described as significant coverage. Mattg82 ( talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment it's tough to find sources. I did discover that they were founded in 1968. 198.58.168.40 ( talk) 08:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:A7 and WP:G11. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Skyparksecure

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

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

Dubiously sourced marketing speak article that does not WP:NCORP. !dave 22:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. No reliable sources and appears promotional. Tacyarg ( talk) 02:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as A7 / G11; completely nn and promo 'cruft. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• delete does not meet notability requirements. promotional artspam. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 06:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude ( talk) 06:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

BA Merchant Services

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

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

It is a routine practice for corporations to create holding companies like this one to temporarily "own" assets being transferred in a merger or purpose. These holding companies should pass a higher bar to demonstrate independently notable, and in this case this lack of notability is borne out in the absence of independent reliable sources on this entity. bd2412 T 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I believe the relevant policy is the WP:CORPDEPTH one. This article has few sources and I can't see many more on a Google search, it would seem to me that the coverage in independent sources does not reach the standard needed by the policy. Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 23:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I disagree that holding companies cannot be notable, but this one doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I initially found this and this which are in-depth, but according to the company website, this is a different company altogether. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know that I would characterize that one as a temporary holding company at all - it appears to be more of a going concern. If an article on that company is made, this title can redirect there. bd2412 T 20:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That is exactly what I was thinking. However, I cannot locate anything on BA Merchant Services other than to verify it existed at one point. I stated to work on a draft of the other company but not sure that redirecting BA Merchant Services to the new company would be appropriate being that they are in fact two separate companies and doing so could confuse readers. That's just my opinion though. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Ok, that definitely makes sense. bd2412 T 00:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted for failure to have achieved notability at this time. Opinions of editors with newly created accounts are discounted due to their likely lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (all keep votes other than the article creator come from accounts created within the past few weeks). bd2412 T 19:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Non è mai Passato

Non è mai Passato (  | 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 plethora of references provide no evidence of notability (they're functionally equivalent to IMDB, apart from a couple of refs which don't apply to the film). This is unsurprising because it's a short low budget film that hasn't been released yet. Requests for the author to read and comprehend WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NFILM have gone nowhere. The film may or may not achieve notability after release, but it hasn't yet ( WP:NFF). ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The film is present on IMDb, MUBI, Allocine, Port.hu, AllMovie, FilmAffinity, TV Time, Orange SA, Adoro Cinema, FilmTV ( Mondadori), Senscritique, CinemaItaliano, CSFD, Filmstarts, Letteboxd, Trailer Addict etc. Moreover the film is also present in the Corriere della Sera and other local/regional newspapers. Giovannix94 ( talk) 23:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  Those are all listings, not reliable sources covering them in-depth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  Is a list of trusted sites except IMDb which can be modified by users only after approval. Giovannix94 ( talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what you think a "trusted" site is but it's not WP:COVERAGE and if it's like iMDb, it's certainly not a reliable. A list /= a valid source to establish notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The principal photography of the film is confirmed by reliable sources, in addition there is also the trailer of the film that proves the reliability and the release in 2018 ( WP:NFF). Alexandros8998 ( talk) 12:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The sources provided in the article are independent of each other (there are also national newspapers), this proves the reliability of the film. ( WP:N and WP:NFILM) Lester Joice ( talk) 12:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:TOOSOON applies here. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Film respects WP:NFILM. Kenny34568 ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The Keep !voters all have few edits, and at least some appear to have an undeclared conflict of interest. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 06:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  They are unfounded accusations, having few changes does not mean anything, but since you put it on this floor and you play evidently dirty,I have verified that for a long time you are eliminating numerous pages that meet the requirements,including this film, an administrator has already told you that he meets the requirements (not accepting your quick deletion). You are doing everything to eliminate it again. Giovannix94 ( talk) 10:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: It passes WP:NFILM. This movie is present in national newspapers and has reliable sources. Ciccio.santini ( talk) 09:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I vote for the keep, the film fully meets the requirements. '"Xargov'" 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Well, first off whether Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum or not is of no relevance to the question of whether we can have an article discussing this. We have plenty of articles on even bogus things and the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia relevant to this are WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS not "this (possibly) didn't happen". Apparently as-is it's not clear if the article topic merits being its own page or whether this will change in the future, so going for "no consensus". I don't see much discussion on the NOTNEWS point, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Russian interference in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum on exiting the European Union

Russian interference in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum on exiting the European Union (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is entirely based on rumors and political speculation. Not encyclopedic until something concrete emerges. — JFG ^talk 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep- I think this is as much of a hoax as a lot of the other Russian interference garbage out there. However, given the *article is sourced and this has gotten media coverage, its a legitimate topic. Of course guidelines in WP:FRINGE must be followed.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article appears reasonable and sourced, no applicable criteria given for deletion. Artw ( talk) 04:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per JFG. No reliable sources have claimed that Russia interfered. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 05:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, notable issue, and many reliable sources, including US Senate report, multiple published academic articles, numerous journalist sources. Wik idea 07:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete or *Merge There really is not all that much here, sure its sourced, but there is just not that much of a story. Really this is too minor to be anything more then a side show to the Brexit page. And it is not a US senate report, it was by one parties members. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• delete sourced speculation and suspicions are still just speculation and suspicion. There are a lot of people here who need to learn that, in the short term, news reports are not reliable sources by our standards. Mangoe ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge. This stuff might be worth a mention at Foreign electoral intervention, but there’s not enough yet for a full standalone article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep This story is only beginning to come to light and should be given more time to see what develops. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but rename to Russian interference in Brexit or Brexit and Russia. Informally speaking, there is no doubts that Russian interference to influence Brexit had indeed occur, and the only question is about the scale of the operations. But regardless, the subject/controversy was widely covered in reliable sources (see here and Google search). It was also covered in Russian language sources. Just a few examples: comments by informed people immediately after the Brexit, a denial by Putin (making an official comment shows significance/notability of the subject), and the recent UK inquiry. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Agree with the nomination that this is speculation. This is alleged Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. Based at the moment on rumours, rather than any clear evidence yet. The US Senate minority report suggested that Russia may have influenced the Brexit campaign. There are many things which may have happened during the Brexit campaign, but we don't know them yet. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 02:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 03:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Life Fitness

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

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

Artspam. Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG or notability guideline for coprporations. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep- Its not spam, its a brand of exercise equipment that has been around for a long time. Here's a few more sources (there are already some reliable sources in the article): [7] [8] [9]-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 08:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 08:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 08:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - In addition to the references supplied above by Rusf10, There is this from the LA Times that says it has become the "largest manufacture of computerized fitness equipment" (although the reference is from 1991), an Orange Coast Magazine article from 1991, and more in-depth history from this book. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Rusf10 ( talk) 23:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of hiking trails in Maryland

List of hiking trails in Maryland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Should be deleted as WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is just a collection of non-notable trails, many of which are not even a mile in length. Not a single one of them has an article. Rusf10 ( talk) 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Here is a selection of sources. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

1. Hiking Maryland: A Guide for Hikers & Photographers
2. 50 Hikes in Maryland
3. Hiking Maryland and Delaware
4. Hike Maryland: A Guide to the Scenic Trails of the Free State
5. Hiking, Cycling, and Canoeing in Maryland: A Family Guide
6. Circuit Hikes in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
7. Best Easy Day Hikes Baltimore
8. Doggin' Maryland: The 100 Best Places to Hike With Your Dog in the Free State
9. Best Hikes Near Baltimore
10. Appalachian Trail Guide to Maryland and Northern Virginia

• Keep but limit to the articles that are in the relevant category: Category:Hiking trails in Maryland, which has a number of notable and cited articles instead of the current indiscriminate and unsourced list. I will be making this change shortly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I guess I could support that, those in the category actually seem to be notable.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I've updated the list article per WP:CLNT as discussed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, I will withdraw the nomination.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Tropical marine climate

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

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

Overly specific topic. The exact term returns only 198 hits, and only false positives on Google Books. I was unable to find any sources covering this exact term. If anything is salvageable, merge to Tropical climate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Tropical climate as that article is not too large for merging Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] don't look like false positives to me. Nor does its use by the CIA World Factbook, the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, weather forecasters on Kwajalein, or the weather service of the Cayman Islands. Most of the 500+ Google Scholar hits on the exact phrase look, on a first perusal, to be about the topic of this page. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Important topic that could be expanded. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC). reply
• Keep - Needs to be expanded, not deleted. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 00:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Clearly (based on the references above, some of which I hope XOR'easter will add to the article, please) a notable climate term, worthy of a page in its own right. Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  I've started the process of sourcing and cleanup. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ TenPoundHammer: Where are you getting "198 hits"? – dlthewave ☎ 02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Dlthewave: Entering the exact term "Tropical marine climate" on Google. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 06:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ TenPoundHammer: That's odd, I got 11,600 hits for that search. – dlthewave ☎ 13:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Discussed in details in academic book Principles of Geography and per XOR'easter's additional sources. There are also sources right in the article. And this is nomination on false premise from the beginning. Number of google hits is not what shows notability. I just hope there will be solution to this wasting of people's time soon – Ammarpad ( talk) 03:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Recognized and universally used climatic division, Scholar is your friend. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Ammarpad and Elmidae Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep we should not delete articles about official climate designations, nothing could be more encyclopedic. Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Google hits do not establish notability, and I have absolutely no idea where 198 hits came from. I strangely get more than dlthewave when omitting the term wikipedia in my search. 35,300. Some sources have been found above, confirm the 'notability' of this climate (???). !dave 09:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude ( talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

WebIT.pk

WebIT.pk (  | 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:NCORP. Article claims the company has customers in the single thousands. I could find no sources on the company. It is possible there are Pakistani sources I am unable to locate, if these can be found to support notability, then wonderful. As is, it does not appear to be a notable organization. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete promotional page on a non-notable ORG. Likely a paid work. The same user previous tried to create this page several times at this title and at WEBIT.PK but failed. couldn't found any coverage in RS. I suggest the title to be salted when and if deleted. -- Saqib ( talk) 03:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete no references in the article and no independent references found. Claims like "The company is known for its advertising on TV and in the newspapers." suggest it's not notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Big Northern Setup

Big Northern Setup (  | 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:NCYCLING cannot find proof that team has met notability criteria. This reads like a PR release. Rogermx ( talk) 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Rattlesnake (album)

This is a well established album and band in the indie music scene. Most things cited on the band wiki. Not sure the album needs a wiki, but it is well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffbaker80 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Rattlesnake (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)

WP:NALBUM. Self-published. Only notability appears to be "IMA Awards" which themselves were deleted at AfD as mainly a PR exercise. The band itself The Dirty Clergy looks borderline. In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. Album is already featured more extensively on The Dirty Clergy anyway. = paul2520 ( talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Unani Medical Colleges in India

List of Unani Medical Colleges in India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE/ WP:DIRECTORY - This is just a list of not particularly important information, with barely any context. An article on " Unani Medical Colleges in India" could be an option but the list page is just a directory and needs to go. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC) AFD request NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete As NeilN writes, it is both indiscriminate and a directory in terms of WP. I cannot see any saving grace. It needs putting out of its misery. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Please note that is not my comment; it is the IP's. I only assisted them with opening this AFD. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I agree with NielN. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:DIRECTORY Bythebooklibrary ( talk) 17:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 ( talk) 01:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:Indiscriminate and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

DAGames

DAGames (  | 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 am unable to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Google search just comes up with places his music can be found. ... discospinster _talk 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Karthi - Rajath Untitled film

Karthi - Rajath Untitled film (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The film has received some coverage in reliable sources; however, it seems too soon at best for it to have an article considering it doesn't even have a title yet. There's not even any indication that it has started principal photography either. I would not be opposed to draftifying considering the article subject will definitely be notable once it's released, it just seems too soon for it to have an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - hardly any concrete info out - as per other films, wait till the title is out. Editor 2050 ( talk) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Could not find anything which will make this film notable. It even does not have a name as of date. Fails WP:NFILM and also is a case of WP:TOOSOON

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd.

Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd. (  | 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:NCORP. MT Train ^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train ^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Could not find anything notable on search Hagennos ( talk) 06:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Piranha: Wolf In The Water

Piranha: Wolf In The Water (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Could not find anything to suggest this is a notable film. Mattg82 ( talk) 14:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete due to lack of notability, as I am not able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It does not even appear that the Killer Instincts series is notable either (otherwise I would have suggested mentioning this particular film in a series article). Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet WP:NFILM. MarnetteD| Talk 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Additional discussion regarding the article and its content can continue on its talk page if desired. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Zulfi Hoxha

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

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

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

non notable TeeVeeed ( talk) 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not notable and contains WP:OR and trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek ( talk) 14:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Article needs improvement, however subject is covered in depth for his allegedly senior role in IS. Assessing WP:SOLDIER for IS is difficult (though he allegedly is in a senior role and possibly the top American officer), however subject has in-depth coverage meeting GNG, e.g.: A New American Leader Rises in ISIS, Atlantic, Is Zulfi Hoxha – or Abu Hamza al-Amriki – ISIS’ new American leader?, Al-Arabiya, The ISIS 'Senior Commander' Who Grew Up on the Jersey Shore, NBC Phili, ISIS Video Shows New Weapons, ‘American’ Urging Attacks in U.S., NBC. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete (AFD nominating editor) Non notable BLP one instance of alledged notariety based on mention in one Atlantic arcticle. (all other news refs are based on this one recent article). The main character involved in the FBI investigation who was sentenced to prison is not even mentioned. Guy allegeddly joined isis and appeared in propaganda video. At the very most merge with another article or stubify. TeeVeeed ( talk) 16:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nope - Also Covered in May 2017, well before the Atlantic article in 2018 - see - NBC, Newsweek. Propaganda exponents may be quite notable (e.g. Iva Toguri D'Aquino or William Joyce), and in any event it would seem that openly broadcasting your identity would seem to preclude most BLP concerns. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm-good job searching with his other name but this is still the alleged one and only propaganda video incident. Do we have articles for every actor in every commercial for instance? I had an article deleted about a local figue who appeared on 3 seasons of the NJ Housewives and had multiple years worth of news mentions for example. The fact that he is "allegedly" notorius for "alledgedly" one thing still makes me say that this is a non notable BLP, but again I would agree with a merge to another topic or stubification. The use of "alledged" in all articles/sources affects this as well. TeeVeeed ( talk) 16:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Per multiple source (including the Atlantic and subsequent reporting - which is basing these on US government statements) - he is allegedly a senior commander in IS, and a major recruiter. This is well beyond "appearing in one video" (he actually seems to have allegedly appeared in several). Icewhiz ( talk) 17:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

User:TeeVeeed You can't vote twice you already voted when you proposed it for deletion.-- Shrike ( talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Struck duplicate !vote from the nominator; the nomination itself is considered as the delete !vote. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I added a May 2017 story about him from La Stampa to the article. After reading La Stampa and The Atlantic, I confess to being genuinely shocked. Margate City, New Jersey is, after all, the tamest beach town in the entire world. More to the point, this is WP:SIGCOV of a notable jihadi. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Another subject written about because of the news; we get it, terrorism sells papers/earns subscribers but editors are supposed to know better and be above that. Of course, I predict a few editors will automatically !vote keep regardless of the policies we must apply to such an individual because of their emotions on this topic. Regardless, this is yet another case of a BLP being fueled by speculation and the same ol' rehashed story that shows no indication of encyclopedic value. Go figure. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Also Note Hoxha's connection with the culprits in the 2015 Boston beheading plot, detailed in The Atlantic article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Yes noted. I would be in favor of merging this guy to that article. They alledgedly recruited him and sponsored his trip overseas to join isis, but he really has not done anything except alledgedly appear in propaganda. Also yes emotions, and no real notability here. TeeVeeed ( talk) 19:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep The sources in the article and those identified and / or added by Icewhiz and E.M.Gregory all establish notability. Alansohn ( talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No-that link doesn't even work haha. TeeVeeed ( talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• This is upsetting and I am just going to go ahead and say that I have a COI here and every other LOCAL editor here does too if they really think about it for a minute. I am not editing this topic from this point on. TeeVeeed ( talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• User:TeeVeeed, It is exceedingly bad form not only to WP:BLUDGEON the process as you are doing, but to delete well-sourced, relevant information from the page as you did here: [19]. The source was an article in La Stampa, translated and republished by the BBC, it was linked to Proquest - which is paywalled. I hate paywalls too. But a paywall is no excuse for deleting a source and accuse an fellow editor of OR. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, obviously notable subject.-- Zoupan 01:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete The coverage is shallow and passing. Not every person appearing in a propaganda video is worth having a seperate article on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• WP:HEY, there is INDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV in articles in The Atlantic, The Star-Ledger and The Philadelphia Inquirer now on the page, a quick gNews search brings up more reported coverage with journalists digging up the details of his childhood and young adult years. This in addition to his connection with the 2015 Boston beheading plot and the international coverage of his jihad videos in May 2017. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• More manipulation of the sources. There is no connection to the Boston plot. The Boston plotters helped fund his trip to Syria; Hoxha in no way, however, participated in their plan. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• The "connection" is that the plotters were in contact with Hohxa to the extent that, according to the article in The Atlantic, they raised money to fund his travel to Syria via Turkey, helped make the arrangements, and he accepted the money they raised and the arrangements for travel and contacting ISIS. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• That accurately summarizes what I just said with more words, yes. You can't make the claim This in addition to his connection with the 2015 Boston beheading plot when he never planned, funded, participated, or (to the best of our knowledge) even knew about the plot. The most you can accurately say is he knew the plotters for an unrelated reason which equates to absolutely nothing notability-wise. But, please, push another narrative that doesn't represent the sources faithfully. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete:- All of this article's sources are based on a single article of The Atlantic. Some of the top newspaper are yet to publish his story, editor could hold NYT as example. I know and agree that he got deepth coverage from media. But think once, if his story turned false tommorrow then it will hardly have any notability. So, I think the topic needs further confirmation and verification. Until then, it doesn't deserve a separete article. Bests Ominictionary ( talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Fact check Ominictionary is mistaken. There was a round of international coverage in May 2017 - 8 months before The Atlantic ran its story. Also note the INDEPTH stories in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the The Star-Ledger and other media that were inspired by the story in The Atlantic to dig into Hoxha's childhood and youth. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON / WP:NOTNEWS. This is based on the story in the Atlantic and local coverage, also driven by Atlantic. Such as: [20], with routine soundbites from his coworker (yes, he was weird) and his mum (we are very upset). I would argue that domestic “terrorist” James Alex Fields is more notable than this guy, but Fields does not have a stand-alone article. When it comes to Hoxha, no apparent lasting significance just yet. There’s no suitable redirect target so it’s a “delete” for me. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• K.E.coffman fails to mention extensive coverage of his video appearances in the spring/summer of 2017, in European media in several languages. Also, the coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the The Star-Ledger, and local papers researched and verified the sort of biographical facts (birth, family, schools attended, and work history) that makd a subject pass WP:ANYBIO. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• ISIS releases a lot of videos and they get covered. I don’t see a need for a bio in this case. Yes, the subject exists, but he’s not encyclopedically relevant just yet. I don’t see in-depth, significant coverage here, hence my “delete” vote. Hope this clarifies my position. K.e.coffman ( talk)

• Keep: When your sources are worldwide and multilingual and include among others
  • The Atlantic
  •The Star Ledger
  • NBC 10 Philly
  • NBC News proper
  • Newsweek
  • BBC
  • La Stampa, and the
  • Philadelphia Inquirer,
  to say that something is "not notable" is untenable. Meets WP:GNG. XavierItzm ( talk) 12:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 03:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Orascom Development

Orascom Development (  | 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 Egyptian company. I have declined CSD; it was nominated as "G11 - pure advertising" but I disagree that this would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopaedic. It also just scrapes across the A7 bar, in my view, with the description of their operations in the Middle East. Nonetheless, it does not seem to me to meet the GNG or anything at NORG. GoldenRing ( talk) 12:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I guess. The article is abysmally sourced, but Google News turns up multiple examples of decent coverage that look like the company meets WP:CORP. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep for the same reasons as above: it is a well-known business. Dormskirk ( talk) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude ( talk) 06:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Carson Beebe

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

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

Fighter career does not meet WP:NMMA. Last fight was 2 years ago. CASSIOPEIA ( talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nominator. PRehse ( talk) 13:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment, i have removed this afd from the women's afd list as Beebe is a fella. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. With no top tier fights, and no fights at all in nearly 3 years, he's nowhere close to meeting WP:NMMA. Papaursa ( talk) 15:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 03:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Angela Rivera-Parr

Angela Rivera-Parr (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As per norm. Random career as a fighter. Does not meet WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX and WP:NKICK. Only has 2 MMA professional fights and loss both of them. 4 fights in Kickboxing, loss 3 and draw 1. Boxing career was in local event with 2 wins over 5 fights. CASSIOPEIA ( talk) 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 13:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse ( talk) 13:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nominator. PRehse ( talk) 13:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Angie Parr fought Julie Kitchen for the World Muaythai Council which meet WP:KICK standards. See Sources [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Dwanyewest ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

So she did - struck my Delete vote. PRehse ( talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep She meets WP:NKICK. Papaursa ( talk) 15:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson ( talk) 20:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per A10. ( non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaundryPizza03 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Urdu songs recorded by Kumar Sanu

Totally useless and weak article with just one song mention and no reference. মাখামাখি ( talk) 11:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Urdu songs recorded by Kumar Sanu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) মাখামাখি ( talk) 11:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 18. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedied There was already a discography for the singer in existence anyway. Deb ( talk) 12:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by me, and moved to Future Transport Helicopter ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Heavy Transport Helicopter

Heavy Transport Helicopter (  | 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 admit to not being an aviation specialist, but it basically looks like this project never materialized and never generated much attention. I found periodic mentions of it through the years, but nothing particularly in-depth. No mention on the Airbus website.

This is complicated by the fact that "Heavy Transport Helicopter" is also a generic descriptor, but even adding Eurocopter or Airbus (now the owners of Eurocopter) to the search produced little of value.

I'm happy to withdraw if more knowledgeable parties have sources I wouldn't have thought to check. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Augh, I just realized the German article has a couple of decently in-depth sources ( [27], [28], [29]). I'm genuinely upset with myself because usually interlanguage links are the first thing I check to poach sources from. Also, it looks like in German the terminology was "Future Transport Helicopter", which also hampered some of my other Googling. Chiswick Chap, would you consider changing your delete vote so this can be withdrawn? And also, would anyone object if I moved this to "Future Transport Helicopter" in order to free up "heavy transport helicopter" to be an article about the general type of helicopter? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• DeleteKeep, nom seems to be right that this never went anywhere, but happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.Happy to go along with nom's changes above, including a move to "Future Transport Helicopter". The article's title could certainly find a use on the broader topic of heavy transport helicopters (there are American and Russian ones, and maybe a Chinese one in the pipeline), but this article isn't that. Best start over. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Indecisive although a broader European solution failed and the programme stalled, the text has some historical value. It is now part of the narrative of Germany's renewal plans for its heavy helicopter fleet. In a few years they will replace their CH-53's with some 60-120 heavy helicopters - most likely of an existing design. Here's an article from 2017 about the HTH-programme: ^[1] MoRsE ( talk) 23:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

::Hmmmm. I'm not sure that one source is enough for a standalone article. Would it be better off merged somewhere? A section in Eurocopter, or European Defense Agency? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Milenko Miljković

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

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

Promotional article about an individual who doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable, run-of-the-mill businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Abdullah bin Saad

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

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

Abdullah bin Saad is the seventh son of Saad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. I do not believe Abdullah meets WP:PERSON and he doesn't inherit notability from his father WP:INVALIDBIO. As far as I can tell, he has no official position in Saudi Arabia, and there is nothing in his professionally-writen article that suggests notability. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Keep in mind that if you are searching for sources online they may be in Arabic and not English. For example on Argaam's Akhbaar24 he has a tag [30] which shows he was in articles way back in 2012. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A press release, pure and simple. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 14:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Eliad Bar

Eliad Bar (  | 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 this copyright statement on commons [31] - this is an autobiography - and I'll note that the same user created this on 5 different language Wikipedias (en, he, no, pl, sv, zh) - so the cross wiki count is insignificant in this case. This is an art teacher that teaches at the local high school. He has perhaps coverage in local papers - nothing else. He has exhibited in local galleries. BEFORE shows very little sourcing on him. There is a lifeguard, with the same name, who I believe (based on the photographs/age and no connection implied here - or in the pieces on the lifeguard - they are both from the same area in Israel, but this is not an uncommon name) is a different individual who was in the news in 2017 - [32] [33] (the lifeguard isn't notable, nor would this event make the artist notable if it were the same individual) Icewhiz ( talk) 07:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Whats interesting is if you look at the gallery images he has uploaded, he is piping his user name to his real name, in addition to clearly stating own work, see [34]. The user in question has also not edited any pages other than this one. - Galatz ^Talk 12:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As you might see on his DodaRuti commons talk-page they had some "issues" regarding copyright of several uploaded images - that were apparently resolved, on the commons, by declaring to be the creator - e.g. post to User_talk:Mbch331, or post to User_talk:Natuur12. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete Lacks sources to establish notability. Vanity page. 198.58.168.40 ( talk) 00:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to publish autobiographies. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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