Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 20 August	22 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Catalfamo[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article. First, it contains peacock language, such as "internationally recognized film director" in the voice of Wikipedia. Second, the references are not reliable independent sources (and are not in-line), and a Google search shows no in-depth coverage. The first can be cured, but not the second. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the article to address the promotional langauge and the lack of in-line references. Mduvekot (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mduvekot (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solareclipse17 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Minor ( 2016 film). COI? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Young Canadian filmmaker. I'm seeing incidental mentions in connection with his 10 minute student film and with his Kickstarter funded (?) feature debut, but nothing obviously counting to GNG. If the article on the film is retained, merge biographical information there. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalfamo is an active figure in english-speaking Canadian cinema. He has achieved success at an early age and continue's to make films that push traditional boundaries for both audiences and his contemporary's. His credentials can be found in references and links to other credible wikipedia pages. Can we reach a consensus to keep the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solareclipse17 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I ran searches, but found no usable sources that are not already in article, plus that kickstarter campaign - it's just not enough. Yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no media coverage for him (or the film) that I can find to demonstrate notability. WP:TOOSOON TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc is doing the laundry with the socks. The remaining opinions lean towards deletion, especially considering that the delete camp apparently went more in-depth with the analysis of the sources. So delete it is Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Bhageria[edit]

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

While the startup itself may be notable, none of the sources cited mention the founder in any capacity other than in passing. Suggest protecting page after deleting as this is the third nomination, and if successful, the third deletion. WP:NOTE PureRED (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Added significantly more sources for credibility of the subject Applegeeks (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Applegeeks 21 August 2017~~[reply]

Note from their other contribs, it is highly likely that this user is a sock. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biography developed by 2 WP:SPA accounts. Judging from the February AfD discussion, the previous instance (by blocked sockpuppet account Mark Banter) appears to have had different references from this version, which avoids material about his self-published book, but its content and references relate almost entirely to a start-up company with which the subject was associated, for which WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I did also find this India West article which has a brief paragraph about the subject, who is among 11 Indian American students to obtain a KPCB Fellowship, but I am not seeng enough to demonstrate WP:ANYBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Improve: As requested by User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU, I added more information, new sections, and more sources for the notability of the subject. I believe that if this article is further imporved, this subject meets notability guidelines. Biker1932 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Biker1932 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Strong delete or speedy delete per G4: No better improvements and no sign of passing WP:ANYBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: This subject should be seen through the lens of WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH. The startup in question seems to meet these guidelines based on the multitude of independent third party sources provided about the company. Thus this organization is notable, especially since it was acquired and since the founders were still in college (a very rare proceeding to be sure). According to the articles, the subject seems to have been an important figure in the company and thus WP:NOTINHERITED applies to show notability of the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KindleReader (talk • contribs) — KindleReader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organization-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Snow Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG. The sources include significant coverage (18+ articles) in reliable (like Forbes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Mother Nature Network) third-party secondary sources. All of them seem to be independent of the subject. Thus the subject should be presumed for a standalone article. Additionally, a Google search shows the subject profiled in a variety of publications like Forbes, NBC, TechCrunch, Business Insider, BBC, Philly.com, NewsIndiaTime, HuffPost, Mother Nature Network, and Technical.ly. Some of these are listed as sources on the article. Additionally, the article should not be deleted per WP:G4 since it is substantially different than the previous deleted versions (as mentioned before). GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — GSF 323 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Neither the fact that the article was created by an apparent SPA account (and a previous version by another such account), nor the fact that completely different articles with the same title were deleted, are reasons to delete this article. There are plenty of WP:RS covering Bhageria now — possibly the previous deletions were merely a case of WP:TOOSOON — and thus no reason not to keep the article. It could certainly stand to be improved, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't find it suspicious that immediately after the article was created by a new account, a second new account swooped in to defend its existence and add sources? I realize that doesn't change the notability of the subject, but's it's still bizarre and seems a little sockpuppety considering the history. AND now two of the "Keep" comments have been marked as users who are otherwise virtually inactive.PureRED (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note about socking I have started an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All confirmed so I have struck their !votes. SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not exceeding my boundaries here since I'm new, but I'm not sure why I'm being investigated to be a sockpuppet for BurritoSlayer or Mark Banter. I'm not related to them in any way. The reason I added the sources earlier is because I had just read this forbes article about entrepreneurship by the subject and looked him up on Wikipedia to get more info. I thought he should have a page and so added more sources. I know I'm just a newb at Wikipedia and haven't made too many edits yet (still learning!) but as GrammerFascist has mentioned, the fact that I'm new (or that others are) to this community doesn't change the notability of this subject for this particular article. Maybe in the past he didn't have the notability, but it seeems like now he does. Not sure why it matters if the creator of the article was a SPA? This subject clearly has notable sources and thus it shouldn't matter that the creator is just starting out on Wikipedia. Applegeeks (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Applegeeks: You are not exceeding any boundaries here, and welcome to Wikipedia! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is run of the mill stuff that dorsnt meet the notability guidelines and behaviorally this is a match to the BuritoSlayer sock farm: the accounts here are CU confirmed to one another just not the master because of webhosts. That makes it likely eligible for deletion under G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All three Don't Delete !votes are from the same IP. Hmm... -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yehia Abugabal[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Created by an SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent, reliable sources give meaningful, in-depth coverage to him. DrStrauss talk 19:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: Thereis independent, reliable sources give meaningful, in-depth coverage to him, this is an Egyptian Public Figure who have been recognized by Forbes.
Don't Delete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOLy7D_SPZM&list=PL3B8A2663363C4402 and https://www.facebook.com/dw.shababtalk/videos/1732565757047018/ his story was recently covered by the Deutche Welle tv channel, i believe this is a reliable source! what kind of sources are you looking for?
Don't Delete: i see that this article covers 1- Significant coverage : Yehia Abugabal have been featured in German Tv channel Deutche Welle, Forbes magazine, Forbes Middle East magazine, Arabian Business magazine , and middle eastern news outlets as Cairoscene, Dotmasr network, Youm7 network, CBC and others... 2- Reliable sources and 3-Independent sources ...i think we can all agree that Forbes magazine, Deutche Welle, and Forbes Middle East are well known internationally for being reliable, this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and the text must be approved by an editor before it is printed and being Independent from the subject of the article. they have done their heavy search and fact checking to give him this recognition as one of top 30 under 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.205.154.215 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. I ran a proquest anews archive search and got exactly 1 hit, a reference to the Forbes 30-under-30 list he was on. It's just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jibin George Sebastian[edit]

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

No clear demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Nominator has placed the tag without going in deep to the references placed. Independent and in-depth coverage is seen in Deccan Chronicle , Huffington Post, Malayala Manorama, Media One TV, The Times of India Malayalam and lot more including News24, Indian Express , Mathrubhumi . Moreover, there are number of radio interviews from Hit 96.7 and an interview in 94.3 Club FM - club fm interview, which was not referenced as it was seen in youtube. What more you need to prove the notability nominator ? . BetterSmile:D (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 04:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are merely links to WP pages, where are the specific links to independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources? YouTube is not enough. Edwardx (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Are you really blind ? or acting blind, The references are all from reliable top news papers and top radio stations and the articles in all those are in depth and in detail, many are interviews.. There is no youtube link as reference Mr. Nominator. BetterSmile:D (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 04:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The specific links are pretty obviously in our article. Whether or not they demonstrate notability can be argued, but it can't be claimed that they haven't been provided. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep : Article , Malayali composer Jibin George Sebastian’s composition for the English film Unbridled has musicians from all over the world chipping in as seen in page reference is a reliable source Deccan Chronicle is India's leading national news paper. Article ,Artists Are Everywhere in Huffington Post written by well known author Traci is a reliable source reference seen in the article. Radio interview HOLLYWOOD MUSIC DIRECTOR JIBIN GEORGE SEBASTIAN ON RADIOACTIVE in Hit FM radio is a reliable source. Article Interview with Music director Jibin Sebastian in Malayala Manorama is a reliable source. Article , Tracking a youthful beat is a reliable source. All the mentioned above articles are from top news papers / radio and I found many other reliable articles as well. All the above gives in depth coverage to the person or talks only about him or his achievements. So I feel it passes notability very well. 137.97.10.237 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've semi-protected this page owing to block evasion by IPs above, the 137 is as obvious as it gets and I've struck the comment. —SpacemanSpiff 15:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The source http://news24hours.in/2016/09/10/a-hollywood-movie-song-composed-by-jibin-utilized-musicians-and-studios-from-5-countries/ doesn't appear to meet our requirement for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - actually News 24 hours doesn't seem to have a reputation for anything. The http://www.siliconindia.com/profiles/Jibin-George-Sebastian-bXLJU1eT.html is a self-penned profile of Jibin George Sebastian. The http://epaper.newindianexpress.com/1288213/The-New-Indian-Express-Kochi/20072017#page/19/2 article has a single mention of his name. About the only genuine coverage seems to be in the Deccan Chronicle. That's really not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:GNG. And the fact that the entire article was concocted by a blocked sockpuppet linked to a paid editing farm (see User talk:Bettersmiley #Blocked) doesn't inspire confidence in the chances of finding any better sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per RexxS above and created by a sockpuppet in the violation of Wikimedia Terms of Use. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, although he did write a song Sometimes I Can't Relate for a real film, Unbridled (film), it a minor film and is too slender a thread to support notability all by itself. I just tagged Sometimes I Can't Relate for notability, but it should probably be merged into the film's page. Teh other song linked from page is also at AfD, and looks marginal at best. Ir may simply be WP:TOOSOON for a bio page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Foden[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can easily be restored if he makes a senior appearance for club or country. Number 5 7 08:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. He fails NFOOTBALL for now. South Nashua (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. TOOSOON, but Nominated TOOSOON. Fails NFOOTBALL currently but WP:CRYSTAL coverage suggests it probably won't be long. Recreate if and when per 57ClubOranje^T 05:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Radio-frequency engineering#Radio electronics. WP:ATD says redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio equipment[edit]

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

Overly vague, untouched since 2009. Was tagged for deletion way back in 2004 but kept,although not a single thing has been done to it since. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Radio-frequency engineering#Radio electronics where equipment is enumerated. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe. As written, this is just a dictionary definition of a term, not an encyclopedia article about a topic. The redirect target, although not a lot better, at least contains an actual list of specific types of equipment used in radio. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dump it altogether It is only definitional in one particular usage (a U.S. government regulation) Rhadow (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Our Ferals[edit]

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

The organization certainly exists, but has received no significant, in-depth coverage. Local newspaper coverage is routine rather than in-depth; there are hundreds of thousands of local nonprofits with similar levels of routine coverage. Prod declined by article creator. Neutrality^talk 21:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be a small non profit but it has coverage in RS and multiple mentions therein, including in depth coverage, if not then add to North & East, Richmond, California.Wikigirl97 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passes RS, I don't think it's met WP:NONPROFIT. Opening sentence is also confusing: what does it mean when a dog or cat opens, and why do they only spay or neuter cats and dogs that opened in 2012? South Nashua (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although titled as a foundation, Wikipedia is actually a charity, and we are not in the business of hosting other charities. This does not appear to have anything more than local notability. There are literally hundreds of such local organizations, and thus is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment wikipedia has no size limits and this org is notable, there's room for hundreds of organizations as there already are hundreds of such articles.Wikigirl97 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a worthy organization that neuters feral cats in Richmond, California. Notability is strictly local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just because it is local does not mean it does not have multiple reliable sources.Wikigirl97 (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But has no in-depth coverage, as required by WP:SIGCOV. Neutrality^talk 00:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SBK Films Corporation[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass our notability guidelines for companies. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saptagiri LLB[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable film or TV series. I'm concerned that the person who has created this page may be using Wikipedia for advertising. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable film that is yet to be released anyway Spiderone 10:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Celluloid Cinematic Creations[edit]

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

This company does not appear to pass our general notability guidelines. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films considered the worst[edit]

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

I have no idea why this is needed when we already have List of films considered the worst and animated films are eligible for inclusion there. Some of the entries here are unreferenced. Those that are validly referenced as "the worst" can be added to the other article. I see no point to having this as a separate article. It seems like an indiscriminate list despite having some inclusion criteria at the top. DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one for which we'd want to see WP:LISTN satisfied; if what constitutes the worst animated films hasn't been separately discussed, as the nominator said there is no compelling reason to give these separate treatment from the overall "worst" films. postdlf (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List seems only to exist so that the animation crufters can clog up their own article with their own hated films. Beyond a doubt subjective and basically sourced with the tired '(X Film) + "negative review"' lazy sourcing that doesn't help this article by any means. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Mrschimpf here. Elliot321 (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Redirecting this page to List of films considered the worst. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- List of films considered the worst contains precisely two animated films. It seems hard to justify a "list of" for the topic redirecting there. bd2412 T 03:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All of the references are just bad reviews, which essentially makes this WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the synthesis were cleaned up, the article itself would be redundant to List of films considered the worst. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm open to a good argument as to why this should have a separate article, but right now I can't see a reason to split animated movies from List of films considered the worst.LM2000 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While, right now, this is an much redundant article, with most of the content copy-pasted from the "Critical reception" sections of the articles about those movies, themselves, that can be fixed: replace forty percent or so of the reviews (since professional reviews do still have a, but only, fairly visible influence on animated films and such) with sources from 'noteworthy' (by the guidelines) animation sites and otherwise relevant suchthings, make new quotes and citations from those sources together and, finally, with the movies listed in the article, should we have to make a full list, which also includes: The Christmas Tree, Sir Billi, Happily N'Ever After, Freddie as F.R.O.7, Bolívar, el Héroe and so forth. YetAnotherAutist 19:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would we do that? The questions are why would we list the worst animated films separately from a list of worst films overall, and how what films to include in the worst animated film list are picked. Can you show sources that discuss the worst animated films specifically, instead of just animated films that happen to be poorly reviewed? postdlf (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No objective inclusion criteria. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Delete this page to List of films considered the worst and it's also not very objective to build it up from bad reviews.--ClrView (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and undefined inclusion criteria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paymix Ltd.[edit]

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

Non-notable organization with a grand total of zero Google News hits. All the sources in the article currently are either primary sources or directory listings that are not reliable. Clear failure of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. The subject company exists, but the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSF 323 (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Golberstein[edit]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leahgolberstein (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; new sources have popped up during the discussion. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

View, Inc.[edit]

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

Blatant WP:PROMO. About 3 of the 18 sources fail WP:GNG as well. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Permanent protection, View is one of the promising smart glass manufacturer covered by reliable news sources, raised nearly $500 million and has a wide coverage and notable publications. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, notability requires multiple source which it has. The page has been a point of edit war between two groups, who want to claim on the technology and to be as mentioned the founders of the technology. A few example of sources and coverage it has, Forbes (written by forbes staff), CNET, San Jose Mercury News, Fox Business, Silicon Valley Business Journal, Forbes, Fortune, theguardian, phys.org, techcrunch, businessinsider. Over 90 articles on Highbeam (Soladigm previous name of the company).

Only reason, it was marked for deletion as it wasn't referenced properly. Here are the list of patents that view has on Justia. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC) ~~— Note to closing admin: Sundartripathi (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.~~ [reply]

I have to inform you, Sundartripathi, that DeniseJZ has accused you of having a close connection with View. For this reason, I have tagged your comment. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Scratch that. The user in question is abusing their Talk page while blocked anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, jd22292, I declare I have no connection with View. I was the one who has blocked sock puppets of both DeniseJZ and View. Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeniseJZ/Archive. I have removed the promo content and also added competitor section to stay neutral. When you attack a sock farm, you will be most likely to accused by them. The only goal of DeniseJZ socks, was not to mention that Paul Nguyen has made an exit in 2009 (he also says this on his linkedin), his work failed, by only google anyone can find the details about the history. Found Nguyen's exit info and technology failure on Bizjournals and the Wall Street Journal, I hope this make sense. Also, previous AFD can be reviewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soladigm. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Plenty of sourcing to meet CORPDEPT appears to exist, per the examples listed by Sundartripathi, the sources already in the article, and those highlighted in the past AFD. Not sure WP:BEFORE was followed here. -- ferret (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep there has been some blatant gaming going on probably related to the ongoing litigation between the founder and the company. Some of the content was not supported by the sources. But I have fixed it pretty much and it seems keepable. No telling if the company is going to survive or not; we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Opted for redirect (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 17:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Alabama (by channel number)[edit]

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

Please do not edit this AfD, I am in the process of bundling more articles into it. DrStrauss talk 17:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Remedy Action Request System[edit]

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

The content of the page is outdated and inaccurate, the external links and references are outdated and not working, and the concept itself is not significant enough to warrant an article. Wattssw (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a product brochure or a software manual. No encyclopedically relevant prose and no indications of notability or significance. One source listed, which is to its own web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh, my, is Remedy still around? I used it 20 years ago. It was a popular enough system that it seems like it should be notable, but my own searching (admittedly, not very extensive) failed to come up with anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irnes[edit]

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

Completely irrelevant encyclopedia entry. Has no references to the topic (two refs to completely different names) and nothing to support it exists. Almost every other name article has supporting instances of use and notable bearers. This article's creator/creators (dubious it was really more than one person, but different accounts) added so many language categories, but no examples from those languages and their wikis are equally void. JesseRafe (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD: A11. Obviously invented. Whispe ring 01:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted - per WP:MADEUP. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- no references for the existence of that name combination. Wikimalte (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Litter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and couldn't find independent or any WP:RS that covers article. Zazzysa (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they all rely on quotations from company sources, are press releases or company announcements, or rely on company-produced material. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting invention, but there is no evidence the company that makes it is notable. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katsura Tadaakira[edit]

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

A7 speedy declined. Fails WP:NPERSON. DrStrauss talk 15:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources available to show this meets any notabiltiy guideline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed second United Kingdom European Union membership / final deal referendum[edit]

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

It's not yet developed to be an independent article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has been "proposed". This is all crystal ball gazing and at best, can be covered in the main Brexit article. But I don't think even that is needed. Suck it up, snowflakes, we're leaving the EU. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (a) The article that is now United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 was created on 14 November 2012 under the title Brexit. It was retitled to Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union on 20 January 2014. That referendum did not become a certainty until 17 December 2015, almost two years later, when the necessary legislation was enacted. While I am aware of the principle of the WP:WHATABOUTX, these cases seem so exactly parallel that we should surely treat them both the same way:
- UKIP policy is to overturn the 1975 referendum with a new one to legitimate Brexit - they won't win, but they might get the Tories to introduce one.
- Lib Dem policy is to overturn the 2016 referendum with a new one to legitimate the withdrawal of Article 50 - they won't win, but they might get Labour to introduce one.

(b) The referendum under discussion would be the third UK referendum, following both 1975 and 2016, so the current article is poorly titled. It would be better titled something like Proposals for UK to remain in or rejoin the EU. Matt's talk 20:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question of why we need this article at all. It is one short paragraph and says nothing that couldn't be in other articles. If there is a referendum called, certainly it would deserve an article (with a better title) but until then, any discussions about the need or format for a referendum are just part of the wider Brexit process covered in other articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comment there is no need for this article. And the title is far too awkward to be worthwhile as a redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic should be covered at Brexit, but I can't see the justfication in a separate article yet. The article on the 2016 referendum should not have been created until it was called (WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL etc), so I don't think its existence can be used to justify this one. Number 5 7 11:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Franzel[edit]

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

As per WP:SUSTAINED, the sources only cover her time in the "Big Brother House" which lasted roughly 60 days. She hasn't attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. She also fails WP:1E, which is for people who are only notable for one event. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nicole Franzel appeared on two seasons of Big Brother (as a contestant), including winning the eighteenth season. I for one see this as two separate events, so WP:1E does not appear to be an applicable guideline for deletion. Furthermore, if the consensus is to delete Nicole Franzel's entry, that would mean several other winners of Big Brother would have to be deleted as well, and perhaps several entries of Sole Survivors of Survivor, and other reality tv show winners due solely to a broad definition of [WP:1E] as a qualifier for deletion. I know some winners have been deleted in the past, but I think in this case notability has been reached. JaxisMaximus (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big Brother 18 (U.S.). There's no consensus to keep all reality-show winners, though ones with multiple secondary references generally are kept. Right now, there's basically nothing in the article other than TV show plot summaries. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:1E does not apply, Big Brother 16 and Big Brother 18 are separate events. She's a reality show winner with a significant enough place in media with good sources. "60 days" is also just plain factually incorrect as she's been in the house for a total of over 150 days. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Agila Social and Economic Carnival , delete the rest. So Why 08:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agila Social and Economic Carnival[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING. Coverage of the event is poor although I found one reliable source which looked like an announcement. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are non-notable subjects/topics created by a single purpose account whose edits has been disruptive and made in bad faith:

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of four pages are nominated for deletion in this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the main nomination of the carnival, which passes GNG as the subject of multiple pieces of substantial, independently coverage in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the other three sub-nominations, two of which should be separate from the main nomination. None seem to fulfill GNG requrements. Carrite (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the article on the carnival should be kept, these are the sort of content that we need on Wikipedia. Idoma is a major ethnic group and from the references online, this is thier biggest social event. Darreg (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The carnival per Carrite. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other 3 should be deleted, they fail the GNG. Perhaps those 3 should be split off into a single AfD for clarity? L3X1 (distænt write)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I suspect there's been some canvassing going on. There's a number of users with very limited editing history arguing to keep this, but none have put forth any policy-based reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Takeoff (rapper)[edit]

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

All the information in the article is from Migos. A separate article is unnecessary. Unlike other member Quavo, his solo projects aren't notable so far. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't be deleted, as all members of the Migos are relevant at this point in time and it is necessary they have their own pages. The article just needs major improvement. For example, the information in the Offset is mostly from Migos as well so I don't know how that page isn't nominated for deletion. Bapreme (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Offset and Quavo have their own articles is because their solo careers are notable, aside from Migos. Offset was featured as himself in "No Complaints" and other songs which charted in multiple countries. Takeoff did release a solo song and was featured in multiple guest appearances such as Calvin Harris' "Holiday", but the question at hand is figuring out if Takeoff's solo career did truly take off to make his solo career notable aside from Migos. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. Even if his solo career isn't as notable as the other two, he is still very much relevant, first of all for being a member of the Migos, obviously. The article at the moment indeed doesn't say much about him personally, but there's always room for improvement. It's not like he's the weak link of the group; prior to Migos' sudden fame due to Bad and Boujee, it was mostly Quavo and Takeoff making a name for the Migos due to Offset being in jail. So the article should not be deleted, but it should be edited to include more information about Takeoff specifically.--TeoTB (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that due to recent controversy with the "Everyday Struggle" interview at the BET awards, among other things, he's even more relevant. People have even more reasons to read a wikipedia page about him now, it should stay.--TeoTB (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable and the article needs to stay. Blsupr (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should stay. But should be improved. There’s a lot of confusion going on about his name (His mothers Facebook page states that it is ‘KIRSNICK’, not Kirshnik. Unlike Quavo and Offset, Takeoffs solo career isn’t as notable as the other two, but he is still relevant as a member of Migos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.226.89 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON; hasn't yet got any notability independent from being a member of Migos Spiderone 20:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hall (effects artist)[edit]

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

Won an Annie but as part of a large team - most of whom have had articles deleted at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the usual suspects: WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The Annies aren't high-profile awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There exists almost nothing on the internet about this visual effects artist. There actually exists more information about Jason Michael Hall, also a visual effects artist: [1]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of E-Commerce[edit]

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

From what I can make out, this is a Fulfilled by Amazon training program in India. It borders on G11, but was neutral enough that I thought it best to take it here. It is excluded by WP:N on two grounds: the article is written to promote the subject, thus failing WP:NOT and it fails the general guideline by not having substantial coverage in sources as understood by WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the sourcing found during searches were either non-reliable sourcing or discussing the much larger concept of e-commerce in India. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on a private business that does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Note all of the external links in the body. Wikipedia is a not a sales brochure or replacement for a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a promotional page on a non-notable business. Elliot321 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Kimani[edit]

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

I could not find multiple independent secondary sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther Tosin Adekeye Darreg (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established. There are several secondary sources that authenticate the notability of the subject

Pastorflex (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete in the first nomination, apparently nothing has changed about her from a notability POV. Since I love to tell stories, I will go through each section of the article. Early life, nothing special, just a normal bsc holder in mass communication. The career section is basically about her being a radio host, tv personality and pr person. As an OAP and tv person, she doesn't meet any of our specific guidelines for such field. She is basically not up there yet. Has not even worked for mainstream radio and tv stations for a long period of time. Just one of the nn hundreds of OAPs in Lagos. Radio and TV is one of my strong interests so I know a notable person without even opening any reference (this is just to emphasis that systematic bias isn't an issue here at all). As a pr person, all I can say is that this article looks like a tool to further that aspect of her career because it is almost non-existent (from a notability POV though).

Then it says she established "Estol Props Media", while a reliable source exist for stating this, it is just a promotional initiative and doesn't confer notability of any sort. Then there is the "KimaniOffair", where she interviews celebrities on Twitter, but her interviews haven't received coverage enough to confer notability, this is just an attempt to develop her brand, not an encyclopedic info.

In the awards section, all the accolades she was nominated for are non-notable awards, I would have considered them slightly if she actually won any, and there was a reliable source that said she won at least one of them, but she didn't win any of them, it was all non-notable nominations. I believe all WP biographies should normally have a field they represent, Kimani is clearly not-notable as an OAP or a television personality, the ultimate purpose of this article when I read it is to improve her brand on digital media. That shouldn't belong on WP. Also, this article is not considerably different from a previous AFD deleted article, infact the article creator participated in the AFD, so G4 should probably apply. My vote remains Delete.Darreg (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Probable COI editor started this article. Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an overly promotional article on an nn subject. Likely a paid creation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Marshall (effects artist)[edit]

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

Won an Annie, but only as part of a team (most of the rest of the team's articles have already been found not notable at AfD). Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 18:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While winning an award like the Technical Achievement Award or Annie indicates significant recognition for a major accomplishment, as is the VES award, the Annie and VES were awarded to a team, not him individually. The biggest problem is that there simply aren't enough sources to build an article from. Even the most rudimentary facts about the subject are missing. Beyond the fact that the subject was a member of teams that won notable awards we have nothing. I don't really see any alternatives; a mention in a hypothetical List of winners of Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Scientific and Technical Awards perhaps, even though it would be a rather long list with over 50 awardees per year. Mduvekot (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halon Entertainment[edit]

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

Recreation of article that was previously speedily deleted under G11 (see User_talk:Acroterion#recreation_of_Halon_Entertainment) Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING as promotional and lacks significant covergae in independent, reliable sources. Peripheral mentions in awn.com, announcements of speaking engagements at an industry conference. Sourced to press releases via prnewswire and cryengine.com for example. Editors with a genuine interest in the topic ought to write Postvisualization instead of using Wikipedia to promote a business. Mduvekot (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, entirely promotional fails WP:SPIP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja K. Doshi[edit]

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

Article subject is in my opinion a non-notable actress who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NART. Currently only one film from 2017 is attributed to her, so the article is a possible case for WP:TOOSOON. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON as has just made her debut in an unreleased film that has no article. She does have a leading role so may well be notable after further projects. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly to soon; does not meet WP:NACTOR and for lack of significant coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Rusnak[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched, and found zero notability, at least, nothing found under this name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gangarampur. Two delete !votes and two redirect !votes with the first two not arguing against a redirect. So Why 06:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baadmor Bazaar[edit]

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

Article for a local grocery store. Essentially no sources at all, other than a URL "grocery stores in gangarampur". No claim of notability or unique features. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gangarampur. I understand that this is a newly created article, and that the original author is working on expanding it - and that's fine. My suggestion would be to redirect for now while that work takes place in the draft or userspace. It's a heavy lift to get a shopping area to qualify as notable, but it's not impossible. With what we have, plus what I can find, there isn't a credible case for notability, or the sourcing to suggest that a case could be made. Happy to be proven wrong though, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I support a redirect. The users created quite a few articles on locations in the city, and I redirected them to the main article, and those redirects were reverted, and the page restored. After promised improvements were not made, I considered nominating for deletion at my second option. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and doesn't have many sources a all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSF 323 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today is this editor's first day.
I also looked for this topic at Google images, which can be useful to see what the topic looks like, but I found no images. Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable plus only a single reference. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly unsourced. It seems to be a public market, not a "grocery store", but I can't find that it's a notable one, at least not in English-language searches. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability is not established based on the discussion. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Budman[edit]

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

It's hard to understand. Is he writer, engineer or interpreter? From what I see the notability is quite edgy. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is all three. A polymath. In order of importance: writer, engineer and interpreter. Who was Michelangelo? Painter, sculptor or scientist? I know, I know. Budman is not Michelangelo, so I can remove the references to anything other than the writer. User:RightOnTarget— User:RightOnTarget (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was immediately considered for deletion the date the first and incomplete draft was created, and before the article was even submitted. The second comment had to do with the ambiguity: who is Mark? A writer or inventor or interpreter? Why being a polymath is a subject for deletion? Yet I removed the mentioning of the interpreting and can remove the mentioning of the inventor if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightOnTarget (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only possible claim of notability I see is WP:NAUTHOR and he clearly doesn't meet that guideline. The only news-style coverage I find of him is trivial mentions of him in the context of his books, and none of them appear to be notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly has references to interviews with Mark. How can multiple interviews be clearly labeled as "trivial mentions of him in the context of his books?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightOnTarget (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure about meeting WP:AUTHOR but probably meets WP:BASIC, see these articles I found that talk both about his writing and one of his patents: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Regards So Why 09:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 11:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Nice try SoWhy, but those are all fleeting mentions. No in-depth coverage and many are basically repeats of each other. There is a false assumption on Wikipedia that a plethora of fleeting mentions = notability. It doesn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep . It looks like théâtre de l'absurde. Everyone is ignoring the facts and repeats the same general arguments about triviality at large. Yes, the following is true "There is a false assumption on Wikipedia that a plethora of fleeting mentions = notability." But because a generality is true, it doesn't mean that this particular case falls under this generality. Did anyone read the multiple interviews with Mark in the article? An interview with an author is not casual mentions.

Some additional information:

On WP:BASIC: (NY Times among them):

[8] [9] [10]

On WP:NAUTHOR [11] [12] [13]

(User RightonTarget) 22 August 2017 (UTC), edited on 24 August 2017

Delete all of the mentions above provided by SoWhy are mainly from one local paper, which per WP:N only counts as one source. Those from other papers are virtually identical in both content and layout, meaning that they aren't intellectually independent from one another. As such, we don't have coverage in sourcing as would be expected under the general guideline in N or under a subject specific guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you do a search with Google WP:AUTHOR probably meets WP:BASIC IMHO but article could be improved. --ClrView (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adda52rummy[edit]

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

Non notable website. Paid editing as disclosed by the editor on the talk page. 2 reliable sources both of which are press releases. The other references are either from unreliable websites or are just random information taken as a means for expanding the article and are already available at Adda52 and Anuj Gupta. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 09:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as coverage of the subject company is severely limited beyond press releases.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only trivial mentions, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. We already have Adda52, so anything significant could be added there. Edwardx (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I also just sent Adda52 to AfD as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above Spiderone 10:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Gupta[edit]

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

Non notable entrepreneur. Possible undisclosed paid editing - The editor has created articles for the company and has even disclosed to paid editing for other articles including for a product of the company at Talk:Adda52rummy. Most of the references are about the company and not about the person. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No independent notability, most of the coverage is about Adda52. FITINDIA 10:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per Fitindia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - As a creator of this page, it is my opinion: Initially I created this page and 'deleted' mentioning 'not notable'. Then the content modified with reliable independent source which talks about the subject. Then Second time I uploaded this article and wiki admin reviewed and accepted that the article meets to be encyclopedic. Now, one admin feels it is not encyclopedic. I am confused. I have given sufficient independent sources. For any entrepreneur, mostly the third party sources will talk about the entrepreneur's company only. I feel it may applicable to all entrepreneur in the world. So, other editors and admins may once look into references, sources. I always welcome such experienced editors suggestions. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the accusation if I am not interpreting the edit history correctly, but it appears that you removed a speedy deletion tag despite being the article creator. You then replaced it with a tag that says it was recently created through AfC which it wasn't. [14] --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage - fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - User:CNMall41, Hi, You are right. I too mentioned the same. Initially, the page flagged for CSD. But, in that banner it was mentioned that you can remove this and put 'advert' tag so other editors can improve. That is why, I removed and added 'advert' tag. I did based on the guideline given in that CSD banner. After that it was deleted. Then, I collected sufficient references and the I developed article through 'Draft' section. After that I moved to mainspace by saying '(Uyarafath moved page Draft:Anuj Gupta to Anuj Gupta: I am the creator of this encyclopedic content. I finished editing. Others please improve and review it.) (undo)' [15]. After that, some Wiki admin only reviewed the content. Now, you guys saying it should be deleted? What is wrong with my side? please clarify. It is my humble request, if the article didn't meet Wiki guidelines, you can delete. But, one Wiki admin/moderator reviewed and accepted and others now flagging for deleting. It is totally confusing me. Thank you. Uyarafath (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as I normally have patience with COI editing but I don't think I have much left here. You did not submit the page for review. You moved the page yourself so saying that someone "reviewed the content" is false. In fact, an administrator removed the AfC tag - they did not review or approve it - as the page did NOT go through AfC. This is a far cry from being "reviewed and accepted." The purpose of AfC is for an independent review. If you create it and then move it to and from AfC, this is the same as if you moved it to the mainspace without review. It also gives the appearance of circumventing the process. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:CNMall41, This is where you guys confusing me. I moved from draft to mainspace. After that, as you said, one admin User:Dodger67 mentioned "This article did not go through AFC review". Then after I get notifications "The page Anuj Gupta has been reviewed" by "Graeme Barlett" (only new page patrols/moderator/admin can review, So 'Graeme Barlett' is one such) . Once I receive this notice, I again looked into the article for any flagging by reviewer. But, I did not find any tagging. Then I decide it was reviewed and accepted. Now please clarify me, what does it mean "The page Anuj Gupta has been reviewed" and after this notification 'No flag' has been put by reviewer? How should I take this?. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone marking a live page as reviewed is different than someone reviewing a page through the AfC process. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia and if you are "confused" with the process of moving pages, I would suggest only submitting them to AfC going forward. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klayout[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. I am unable to find multiple independent sources discussing this software. ... discospinster _talk 12:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Open source software. no notability issue. Daiquping (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll note that the article in its current for is incomprehensible to anyone who does not already know what an IC layout editor, GDS and OASIS are, so should be sent to Draft for a rewrite if kept. The article basically says that Klayout is software that can be used to view (and edit) files. With regards to notability, the subject fails both WP:NSOFT and the WP:GNG. It has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and has no particular historical or technical significance. Mduvekot (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 / G11 material & no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flourette Ketner[edit]

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

PROD was removed by the article creator with no changes made to the article. The original reason still stands: Fails WP:NPOL Dammitkevin (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot show and properly source that she was already eligible for an article for some other reason besides her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability from the election itself. Every candidate in any election could always show as much sourcing as has been provided here, so candidates are not granted an automatic WP:GNG pass just because some campaign coverage exists. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins the seat, but nothing stated or sourced here earns her an article just for being a candidate in an election she hasn't won yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having done some research and thinking on notability, I concur with you that the article's subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia as of now. Though creating it gave me some valuable experience with the markup language, so it wasn't all for naught. LookingGlassEye (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for US state legislatures are almost never notable, and there's no claim this candidate is unusually notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sean Doolittle#Personal life. There was a suggestion for a limited merge, but nobody supported that, so I'm making this a plain redirect. The article history is still there, if anybody wants to salvage something from it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Doolittle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated deleted article. Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his brother, Sean Doolittle as is often the case with minor league players related to major league ones - see, for instance, Tate Matheny, Tyler Nevin, Mariano Rivera III, Ryan Ripken, etc. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To his brother's page since it is a likely search term. He is not deserving of his own article unless he manages to play in a major league game.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per new sources brought forward at the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 14.No comments on the merit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very little) and redirect to Sean Doolittle#Personal life per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already !voted before the DRV, but the new sources do nothing to change my mind. Still not notable, but with regards to a comment TonyBallioni made on the DRV suggesting a redirect from one BLP to another to be inappropriate, WP:INVALIDBIO clearly says that redirects are appropriate from non-notable family members to notable ones. It is common practice to do, both in sports and non-sports subjects, for relatives who have received at least some coverage, however routine or trivial. In this case, Doolittle has received routine coverage for his games, and a few other trivial mentions that were cited in the DRV, which is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but does merit a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he's not notable, and INVALIDBIO says nothing of the sort. It lists examples of the children of very notable people who have very strong connections with them as redirects, and that it may occur, not should or must. That's it. The majority of the text is actually about how being related to someone doesn't make you notable. Redirecting a BLP to another BLP without a very strong reason is one of the most actively harmful things results that can possibly occur at an AfD: you make someone's name point to an article where they have zero control over the content. Redirects are inevitably forgotten about the instant an AfD closes, so you have the potential for a massive BLP violation by associating a person with the future negative actions of others for no reason, and the benefit it brings the encyclopedia is virtually zero. The practice may have been common at one point, but with one exception where I felt there was strong cause for a redirect, I've argued against it every time I've seen it and been successful in preventing it from occurring. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And numerous similar AfD's have been closed as redirect - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Faye Lund, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph LaMotta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shonda Schilling, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), among other cases, where a non-notable but somewhat covered individual was redirected to their notable relative. And that's just athletes as the target page (and for all except Shonda, as the subject of the AfD as well). If we're getting into non-athletes as well, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Carter IV, among others. And with regards to the redirect subject having no control over the content of the target article, I hope you're not suggesting they would otherwise be able to exercise special control over their own article. Nobody owns or exercises special control over any article, even the subjects of those articles. And BLP would still apply to the target article, like it always does. So I'm not sure what your point is. Smartyllama (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - BLPs have no right to ownership over their own article: but they do have control over what is in the article by their actions. We report on what they do or what is done to them and their responses. We don't report on things that their relatives or family members do, generally, especially if it would somehow imply a negative action by the subject that they had no part in. If this guy's brother became the next Aaron Hernandez or Michael Vick during the dog-fighting era, having a redirect to him would have the potential to cause real harm to the reputation of a living person for next to no benefit to the reader if something negative doesn't happen.
    The BLP policy has as its fundamental precept do no harm and we choose the most conservative option necessary: in this case you have one brother who is not strongly associated with another brother. There isn't a real reason to have the redirect, but there is a strong reason not to: redirects are forgotten and have the potential to be harmful because the target can change based on the actions of another person.
    Re: AfDs, yes, there are some that close that way, but there are others that aren't: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Channing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Buchanan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Buchanan for BLPs to another BLP, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumana Islam is a BLP to a dead father. The practice is not consistent anymore, and in my view it should be discouraged except for rare cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Sununu. Redirecting a BLP to another BLP is normally a horrible idea, and I see no compelling reason why we should do it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, so two articles of non-notable subjects that were deleted instead of redirected to each other, and one article about someone who has no remote claim to notability other than being in a relationship with a notable person. I agree if it's just some random person in a relationship with a famous person, as in the case of Channing, it shouldn't be a redirect, but if the person has received at least some coverage outside of the relationship, however routine or trivial, consensus in most every case is to redirect. And Doolittle has received plenty of routine coverage related to his games (game reports, etc.) as well as the news coverage cited below, which I would consider trivial, but coverage nonetheless. The notability standard for a redirect is and should be lower than the notability standard to have an article, which should be obvious or we wouldn't have redirects. If it were an athlete's infant child, then except in very rare cases (Jorge Posada's son would probably qualify if he didn't have the same name, thus removing the need for a redirect) there would be no redirect since the child would have received next to no coverage. But Ryan's received at least some coverage, meaning in these cases, consensus is that a redirect is entirely appropriate. As for the Buchanans, that hardly makes your case, since they're both non-notable, making a redirect from one to the other impossible. Smartyllama (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not about notability: its about the redirect posing zero aid to the reader and posing the potential for a major BLP violation if the future. There is literally no downside to deletion and every upside. There is no consensus that this should be done universally, and RfD has deleted such redirects in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It provides plenty of aid to the reader - it takes them to a page, and specifically a location on the page, where Ryan is mentioned. The target page itself is clearly not about Ryan, and there would be no reason for readers to assume so, especially since it explicitly says Ryan is Sean's brother, and no reasonable person would think he's his own brother, even if they didn't look at the title or notice the fact that he's obviously not the main subject there. Minor league baseball players get enough attention that it is likely a significant number of people have heard of him independent of his brother. That's not enough for his own article, but prior history, including the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinem Doğu, suggest it's enough for a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], plus three articles from newsbank.com, "Seneca's Doolittle opts for UNC-Wilmington" (Burlington County Times - May 19, 2006), "Doolittle enjoying Cup experience" (Burlington County Times - June 7, 2005), and "All-County 2006 Baseball Player of the Year" (Burlington County Times - June 23, 2006). So there is about 7 articles of significant coverage. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G5 eligible 38.96.9.224 (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. The creator is not blocked, and even if he were, others have contributed to this article, meaning G5 would not apply anyway. I suggest you strike this comment. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The above user has been blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. It is clear the above comment is an example of that, so I have stricken it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The sources listed above are local and / or routine coverage, such as by Burlington County Times. A redirect to a family member would not be appropriate; this could be done for a spouse of a celebrity, but this is not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's between delete and redirect at this point. Why not redirect? Smartyllama (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I just had the same argument with Tony over at WT:CCSI#Tweaks, so anyone interested can read my thoughts there. Basically, I agree that some information is better than none and the goal should be to provide readers this information at some location. The "do no harm" idea was rejected when crafting WP:BLP precisely because it forces us to make WP:NPOV-related decisions, i.e. when is it not "harmful" to redirect the article. The argument that a redirect make[s] someone's name point to an article where they have zero control over the content does not work because no subject has any control over content written about them, no matter where the content is (cf. WP:BIOSELF, WP:AUTOPROB). And even if they did, why should they have less control at the redirect's target than they had at the article? WP:BLP explicitly states that it applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article [...] (emphasis added). And if Ryan Dolittle is covered in a short sentence or two at Sean Doolittle, the policy that applies is the same. And no matter what the brother might do later, him being Ryan's brother will not change and that is already covered in plenty of reliable sources. Regards So Why 06:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are using "do no harm" differently than most people are, and that essay about why it was rejected actually conforms with my usage here. Deleting this article actually would not prevent the reader from gaining any information: it would still be in the personal life section of the article. The difference is that his name wouldn't automatically send you to an article about an entirely different person. That is actually very much in line with our NPOV policy. And yes, BLPs do have some control about what is written about them: they choose how they act. They don't get any control over how it is reported, but they do have control over their own actions. Pretending otherwise simply to avoid deletion is harmful to the project.
  Regarding the argument that BLP policy applies to all articles: yes, that is certainly true. The distinction is that what is allowable under the BLP policy in one article is COATRACK material in another and expressly disallowed. These redirects that have zero benefit to the reader function in a similar manner. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. Original prod was to allow for adding of in-depth sources which I was unable to locate in searches of Google search, Google News, and books. Everything I did find was simply a passing mention. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted[edit]

Hi all, I feel this article should exist in Wikipedia. Because, 1. The subject is covered by newspapers, news websites like The Hindu,The Times of India, etc and those are not at all press release. 2. This organisation is 'NOT' profitable, commercial establishment. It is 'Non-profitable' service organisation and it is not looking for any kind of 'advertisement and promotion' to wide the business. 3. The vision of this organisation is 'To eradicate heart decease from India', So Wikipedia may disseminate this to whole world. 4. This organisation is not just headed by some X,Y and Z doctors but the leaders are eminent professional in the medical field and for their service to society, the Indian government has honored those people by Indian highest civilian awards like 'Padma Shri', Padma Bhushan and this I mention to stress how important this organisation is. Others please think on this and share your views. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-1)Not for profit does not mean the company does not advertise.(Even the Wikimedia Foundation advertises).2)Vision is not a criterion for notability(Even organisations with one member can have visions of changing the world .It is the work and its coverage that counts).3)The "leaders" are not at all leaders but patrons of the organizations who may or may not be linked with the organization itself[no sorce affirming that has been provided]4)Most of the sources provided are of passing mentions of the organization[hindu and TOI] (Do not constitute notability).Some are press releases .Some of them are coverage regarding the so called patrons110.227.103.178 (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Reply to above comments: Hi, 1) Please understand what is 'advertisement'. Whenever a 'Non-profit' organisation advertises, it is not for commercial gain or profit. It means the foundation to be known to serve better. 2) This is where we, the human has to look into whether is an organisation simply one man organisation or it is a collaborative effort by many people. And this particular organisation's vision has been created forwarded by eminent doctors who are all the recipients of India's highest civilian awards. 3) The subject is not just passing mentions in the leading news papers. The news paper covered the subject particularly. References for conference proceedings will be this much only but it clearly support the subject I hope. So others if you feel it is worth this subject to be in Wikipedia kindly give your opinion.Uyarafath (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to discuss, but only one !vote is allowed per person. As far as non-profits not being promotional or having a commercial gain or profit, that is false. Even non-profits need to make money in order to survive, even if it is through donation. Regardless, I still don't believe this page meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you link to the sources that you feel meet that guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:CNMall41, I do agree with you. I once again went through one by one references. As you said, no depth of coverage about the organisation in independent sources. Let the discussion goes, if anything is there, let me add it to the article. By the way, for conference related references will be like that only. Those references supports that the conferences held are true. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uyarafath - If you agree that there is "no depth of coverage about the organisation in independent sources," does this mean you agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH? I don't want to misquote you so please clarify. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can spot only some mentions on references, I think it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG.17:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)JackTracker (talk)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pashupati Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The only award won by the singer, seems to be non-notable itself. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any reliable sources covering her. Jdcomix (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jio Pagla[edit]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reference at all to meet basic WP:GNG. Robert G. (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article can be recreated nearer or after its release when there will be more coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any decent refs atm Spiderone 10:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phoebe Fox#Personal life . (non-admin closure) Lourdes 06:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prue Clarke[edit]

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

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability as actress. Quis separabit? 18:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please elaborate. It seems she meets WP:NACTRESS #1 with starring roles in The Cleopatras, The Day Britain Stopped, Shadows (TV series), The Wicker Tree and Very Good Eddie. Also, while WP:NOTINHERITED, she is the mother of Phoebe Fox, a potential merge/redirect target. Regards So Why 08:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those were not starring or major roles (e.g. being in 2 episodes of 8-part series The Cleopatras is not major). Early in her career she had some parts which look as if they might meet WP:NACTOR including perhaps A Question of Guilt and My Son, My Son, but the guideline requires both a large enough role and a notable show, and it's not clear that either is notable. It's often hard to judge the notability of older TV programs, or to judge what constitutes a major role without reviews or other coverage, and maybe material from the 70s and 80s exists, but I'm not yet seeing evidence to prove that she meets WP:NACTOR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phoebe Fox#Personal life. I checked all sources available to me (newspapers.com, GNews, GBooks, HighBeam) and all I could find are short mentions of her performances. There might be more out somewhere but for now, redirect it to her daughter's article where she is mentioned. Regards So Why 07:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comet Crash. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 06:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Crash 2 : The Kronkoid Wars[edit]

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

Could not find enough sources for the game to satisfy WP:GNG, non-notable game. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Comet Crash. There appears to be some trade-press coverage of the game [24] , but not enough for a stand-alone article. There's currently no content worth keeping on the article page. The current page name isn't a plausible search term, but with the spacing fixed it might be. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comet Crash. I believe it is a viable search term. May be TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the first Comet Crash. — Niche-gamer 09:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Power~enwiki. Elliot321 (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trollfest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to verify this band meets WP:BAND. I havent' found evidence of charting, certifications, or major awards. The members nor the label are significant, etc. I'm also including their albums for consideration. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The German-language article has a number of international sources, including coverage by metal.de. Meets WP:MUSIC through significant coverage in third-party non-English outlets. Chubbles (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of international tours, etc. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, merely being on a tour wouldn't meet the criteria at WP:NBAND unless there significant coverage in secondary sources? Can you confirm? -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can somebody list the sec. sources for better evaluation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. All the keep !votes were "per" a weak keep !vote which depended on interviews with the subject to argue for notability. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Vandelli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY and nothing suggests he meets WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes seems to just about pass wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

Queensland Soccer News - significant interview with the player, already in the article
sofoot.com - significant interview with the player, already in the article
Image of dedicated newspaper coverage of the player

Although he hasn't played at a hugely high level, his career path does seem to have garnered some significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced that the article could satisfy the GNG. I'll concede that So Foot is a reliable source, but "Queensland Soccer News" appears to be a self-published blog. That leaves us with a single interview in a reliable source, which although it is not routine coverage, I don't think it's enough by itself. I've searched for more online coverage and can't find other articles which would meet the parameters of significant coverage in a reliable source. Jogurney (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Fenix down. Subject's career doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY but may pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix down. Ross-c (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with Jogurney, I don't see evidence of the "significant" coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Deli nk (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogurney, I agree there is not significant ongoing in depth coverage and the individual has not achieved anything of note. Having an article in a paper does not make one noteworthy for an encyclopaedia unless said article(s) show that the subject is notable, or "worthy of notice". I don't agree any coverage here shows this guy is notable. ClubOranje^T 10:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jogurney. Player fails the subject-specific notability guideline, so needs to be shown to pass GNG. This one hasn't been. One interview in SoFoot's players abroad thread does not notability make. The Queensland Soccer News thing is the sort of trivial "who is" piece you get in a match programme at levels where they have match progammes, and the only newspaper image I see on his Fieldoo promo page is a routine "manager thinks new signings will help improve club". I can't find anything not already in the article that would add evidence of sufficient significant coverage in WP:RS to pass GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaila Mullady[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Does not meet musical notability and a stretch for general notability. Contains promotional language (which may be its purpose).

A merge to Beatbox House would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

update I have Edited the page to remove the promotional language and i have added more third party sources that should state notability. Songfo96 —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Songfo96 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. - striking out comments by blocked sock-puppeteer Songfo96 - GretLomborg (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE. It's still quite poorly sourced, be she was reviewed by a couple of good sources. It probably should also be moved if it were kept. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kaila Mullady has the exact same level of Credibility as a beatboxer that every other beatboxer on wikipedia has. If wikipedia truly values beatboxing as an artform, (Which it clearly does since there is an article dedicated to it) then Mullady has just as much earned a page as every other beatboxer with an article on this website. Because the refference links that i have added clearly indicate that she has earned a status as one of the leading artists in the field, and has most of the same amount professional credits as beatboxers like Kid Lucky (Who is her mentor), Rahzel, Chesney Snow,Beardyman,Reeps One,Butterscotch (performer) and Kid Beyond. In terms of the wikipeida category "american beatboxers" she's earned a place among them and if wikipedia regards beatboxing as an artform enough to give it it's own article as well as articles for the other artists mentioned above then as you will see by the sources i've put she has the same level of credibility that they do.This article is not intended for promotion because she really does not need the help of an online encyclopedia to get promoted. She has a number of viral videos on youtube, and has been featured on multiple TV shows and commercials as well as collaborations with a number of well known musicians. You can't promote someone who is already successful, and mullady has earned the same level of notability that most of the other beatboxers on wikipeida have. Songfo96 — Note to closing admin: Songfo96 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. - striking out comments by blocked sock-puppeteer Songfo96 - GretLomborg (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - World Female Beatboxing Champion 2015 https://www.humanbeatbox.com/events/american-beatbox-championship-2016/ There are links in the references showing notability hence I conclude: WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - Page has been moved to Kaila Mullady.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why has this AfD been placed in the Academics and educators AfD list? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notability established with sources such as Uproxx and Huffington Post. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be some canvassing or sockpuppeting going on in this AfD. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Update One of the pre-relisting keep votes was voluntarily removed due to the sockpuppet investegation: [25]. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bruce Mau. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mau Design[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Perhaps redirect to Bruce Mau. Edwardx (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mau Design and Bruce Mau are two seperate entities.Jihef84 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Bruce Mau per nom. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Mau no longer affiliated with Bruce Mau Design. Merging to Bruce Mau creates false impression. Ebircs (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2017 (EST)

I would suggest that the fact the firm was created and headed initially by Bruce Mau is the only reason why it might be notable. A mention in the Bruce Mau article seems appropriate in the absence of in-depth coverage about it. If Bruce Mau has no current links to the firm, this can also be stated. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bruce Mau; not independently notable. A directory listing / wp:promo article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gangarampur Bus Stand[edit]

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

It is a bus stop. No GNG. 1st reference is details of a bus route, 2nd is a sort of spam link which offers to sell you the bus stand, or something. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2nd link is offering ad hoardings in the bus stand, not the station itself (and is likely not spam but an attempt by the editor to use a billboard company's site to clinch WP:N). Still, non-notable in most every other way. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite my best efforts, I am unable to find anything. Whether it is an inter state bus terminus or not is hard to determine due to lack of information. With no references available, I think it is fair to delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG - very few bus-stops would ever qualify for an article, although major interchanges would. - Arjayay (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 08:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Quigley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much has changed since the last deletion. The only thing of note is that he has signed, but not played for Blackpool. As such, the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from admin who declined speedy, the signing was what made me think there was enough not to G4. I subsequently PRODded due to lack of sources, since remedied. As I'm not familiar with the levels of sport required for notability, I don't feel comfortable weighing in. StarM 00:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or in a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Has appeared on the bench so it's only a matter of time before he makes an appearance but for now it is WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated if and when he eventually plays. Kosack (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Connect[edit]

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

Non-notable company and self promotional article NealeFamily (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NealeFamily (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NealeFamily (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NealeFamily (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. Fails GNG. Why did it take so long for this to be put up for Afd??? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good things take time NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company and is clearly promotional. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Promotional, can't find any good sources. Sorry. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G7 by Cyp (procedural close). (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed African videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of most viewed African videos

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE information, WP:NOTSTATS. The only reference that splits hairs between YouTube videos and African ones is a YouTube playlist, which is not a verifiable reference of real-world significance. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR/INDISCRIMINATE. Not sure would be "African" (Views from Africa? Made in Africa? etc.) South Nashua (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While all the pageviews are sourced, there's nothing to show that this has any real-world notability. [[User:Lugnuts|Lugnuts] ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of most viewed YouTube videos - Per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although YouTube is the major video website on the internet, I wonder if a redirect here would be perceived bias against non-YouTube videos. However, I'd be okay with a redirect if YouTube was somewhere in the title of this article and I'm also okay moving any pertinent information into that article. South Nashua (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of these videos are even an eighth of the way to being on the main list of most viewed YouTube videos. Anybody who searches and gets redirected will find nothing of the sort. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOR. All of the citations are YouTube videos, not news sources. Even if news sources report on this, the amount of views from a particular continent is too trivial to add on Wikipedia. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kern River Golf Course[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, article fails to establish notability from reliable sources. Jdcomix (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork of Kern River County Park. I would not oppose a selective merge back. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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