Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Sheehy

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

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

*Delete No apparent notability.--Nowa (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have given this AfD the standard formatting. No comment at this time. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless good RSes come along - even if potentially notable, a BLP needs RSes - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable local businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as this is essentially speedy material if it wasn't that it contains entirely thin "claims" of the company. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a BLP with no 3rd party independent sources. No indications of notability or significance; A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly merge to JM Family Enterprises to avoid a redlink bait for recreation. (Also, a common enough name, probably not WP:PRIMARY). Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 20 September 2016 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-ring

Pseudo-ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article should generally be about just one topic, but this one appears to be about three different definitions of one term; and a disambiguation page must not have sources in it, so is not appropriate either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a broad concept article per WP:DABCONCEPT. The three types of psuedo-ring are all born of the ring concept, are capable of being described in an article and need more than just links to target articles--the refs are valuable for verification of the different definitions. Hence treating this as a broad concept article seems reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As there seems to be evidence that the term is commonly confusable... or as common as you can get when discussing advanced mathematics. It's not really a disambiguation page, it's a page explaining that one term is used three different ways within the same field of use, and is thus confusing, even to those who use the term. That's a valuable thing to explain. With disambiguation, the same term is used by different people in different fields of use... within their field, there is no confusion as to what is meant. Here, an abstract algebraic mathematician hearing the term from another abstract algebraic mathematician would still have no clue what is being talked about unless the specific definition is laid out IN THAT CONVERSATION, and that the very next conversation might use the term with a completely different definition. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:DABCONCEPT. This term has been confusing students (and to some extent mathematicians) for many years. It is useful to document that three different beasts may hide under the same name, and to encourage people to refrain from using this ambiguous term. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2016 (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 as there is sufficient consensus stating that like several other cases, secondary schools are themselves in fact acceptable and notable; comments suggesting deletion were not followed by other comments or these users reconfirming their delete votes, thus another week has not suggested any other outcome (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gundu English Secondary School, Suryavinayak, Bhaktapur

Gundu English Secondary School, Suryavinayak, Bhaktapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient information, Unreferenced, Stub. Hell walker guy (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DEL8 and FAILN as very clearly falling short of NSCHOOLS, the established notability guideline for schools. Rebbing 14:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: An entry probably for this school appears as line 29 on p5 of this Nepal government document. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GN and WP:NSCHOOLS The Banner talk 09:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Verified per AllyD's comment above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, there is the long awaited argument to keeps schools because we keeps schools because we keep schools because we keep schools.
  • And that consensus is also rather doubtful, seeing the number of schools brought to AfD. The Banner talk 14:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And tell me, pray, how many have been deleted at AfD... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And again, no arguments based on the content. The Banner talk 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Essentially no article on a secondary school has been deleted for notability in the last 5 years, except where real existence has been doubted. That the practical standard for notability of schools. The guidelines are what we do consistently. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced; accordingly, existence not established. WP:V, end of story.  Sandstein  17:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). This is the reason for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's a secondary school, as such, there's absolutely no reason to doubt that WP:NEXIST applies. Fieari (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SCHOOLOUTCOMES, an essay, makes no pretense at replacing the guidelines: it explicitly references them. More importantly, the introduction to the essay reminds us that "notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources" and cautions us to "[a]void weak or illogical arguments, such as 'Notability is only an optional guideline' or 'We always keep these articles,'" WP:OUTCOMES § Citing this page in AfD, which appears to be your argument. Also, NEXIST clearly applies here: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." No one, including you, has pointed to any independent sources giving the subject non-trivial coverage. (The line in the government document is the furthest thing from that.) Rebbing 02:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have my foundation backwards. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is sortof a summary of the result of the essay Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), which explains WHY "Keep" is always the outcome for secondary schools. I, and many many many other wikipedians, fully agree with the essay Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). In summary of Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), reliable sources are bound to exist for pretty much all secondary schools. It is a waste of bloody time to hunt them down for every AfD of a secondary school that comes our way. I'll add that this is especially the case because secondary schools are the PERFECT "Gateway Drug" for new Wikipedia editors... why should I deny a local of this school the opportunity to do the research themselves? I'm not going to do it for them. By longstanding consensus, we can be afforded the laxity to assume the sources exist. Hence, my citing WP:NEXIST. I will not budge from this position, and I believe that LONGSTANDING Wikipedia consensus backs me up here. Fieari (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hear, hear! The deletionists here hate the consensus and try to claim there isn't one and that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is being used as a policy instead of what it actually is: a summary of consensus. Utter rubbish! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see some panic here. No, Necrothesp, it is not a summary of consensus. It is a summery of the effects of loud shouting that you should keep schools without content-based arguments. But loud shouting has nothing to do with consensus and SCHOOLOUTCOMES has also nothing to do with consensus. It must be embarrassing to know that you have no content-based arguments while pleading for keep... The Banner talk 13:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Panic? You're having a laugh, right? Maybe there's been a sudden rash of secondary school deletions? Oh no, there hasn't. Still almost none deleted at AfD. Ever. And going by the comments so far, this one won't be either. But I do love your essential pared-down argument that a consensus isn't a consensus because you don't agree with it and are convinced you're right. Most amusing. The anti-Brexit campaigners could take some handy hints from you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it exists, it's a secondsry school - no more is required.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks sources to verify article content or that the school even exists. I have to say that I'm surprised to see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES being cited as a reason to keep, when it clearly states that sources have been required for such an outcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above, this government document lists it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on non-Anglophone schools. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot download the PDF that's included here but I'm assuming it's a poxy little mention like the rest of these schools, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is great and all that however it doesn't establish the schools notability here, Anywho the PDF will at some point become dead and unarchived and then yet again it's going to be an unsourced article essentially - There's no sources on the school other than that so better off deleted . –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steve Quinn who has kindly provided another source to verify the schools existence, If the first source above could've somehow been archived then I'd of happily !voted keep the first time however as I said above it can't be archived, Anyway thanks Steve!, Easy keep now. –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not going back & fourth !voting so I'll make my !vote easier - If anyone below provides a source (other than the PDF) then Keep per my above keep comment, If not then Delete per my delete comment .... I don't want to re-!vote delete and then someone again finds something so to save the back & fourth !voting I'm doing it this way. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We do need to satisfy WP:V, and there is enough to satisfy it. If we start arguing about the relative extent of coverage for high schools, there will be not just be the unfortunate result of adding a few dozen articles to afd, , but also the other half of the compromise will come into play, and there will be support for every one of the hundreds of thousands of primary schools for which one can make a case. The purpose of WP is to make an encyclopedia , not argue incessantly over how to make it. I've been consistently opposing the inclusion of articles on local institutions of most sorts as part of the compromise, but it would probably be possible to find sources not just for primary school but for fire stations and branch libraries. They're in essence part of the compromise also. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First, I agree with DGG. He has pointed out that it is best to keep agreements such as - proof of existence satisfies the criteria for "keep". This is important because if we start hemming and hawing, the floodgates of having AfD discussions on local libraries, fire houses, and the like, could be opened. This is besides these locations finding a home in an article on Wikipedia simply because they exist. Both of these scenarios would put more stress on a system that is having difficulty keeping up as it is.

Second, the government document PDF shows this schools exists - satisfying the criteria for keep. Third I have two more sources: The World Heritage Encyclopedia at Project Gutenberg [1]. Scrolling down reveals the information on the image emphasized. The next is Google Maps [2]. After I plugged in the complete title (I think using the above AfD template) the map shows the location of the school. Also, the school and location are in the URL of this map. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am adding all three posted refs to the article.Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per longstanding consensus on secondary schools which are shown to exist. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourced high school. PamD 06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources by Steve Quinn: I think it is beneficial if we look a bit closely at these sources:

1. Google maps is not reliable (user generated content) so I don't think we should use it for verification purpose.
2. This World Heritage Encyclopaedia seems to be a copy from Wikipedia? The content matches our Wikipedia article word to word. I looked up more and I found this. Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press, also known as Project Gutenberg Consortia Center. Unlike the Gutenberg Project itself, Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing allows submission of texts never published before, including self-published ebooks. Also owns the "gutenberg.us" domain. Launched in 2012,[42][45] by 2015 became notorious for close connection[46] with one "World Public Library Association". This latter, allegedly an "aggregator of eBooks", among other, publishes a sham encyclopedia called "World Heritage Encyclopedia" made of mangled Wikipedia articles. This is not Project Gutenberg. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: I didn't realize any of this. I am glad you pointed this out. I just matched two of our articles Metamaterial and Belgium with the World Heritage Encyclopedia [3], [4]. They are virtually the same. The variation of a few words is because they probably have a slightly older version. And I didn't know Google Maps is user generated. Well, back to the drawing board. I apologize for inadvertently misleading everyone. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed this discussion in the normal sweep I do for "World Heritage" mirrors. Yes, these are simple mirrors of Wikipedia content and obviously not suitable as a source for anything. They work very hard to obfuscate the nature of their material, so don't feel bad - I probably remove 10-15 links to these sites each week (there are about 40 domains from this same group). I've removed the link from the article. Kuru (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2016 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Top 50 Albums of the Year

The Top 50 Albums of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no signficant coverage by third-party sources of this topic, and this article is made up of nothing else but citations to Pitchfork, whose year-end best albums list is the topic of this article. While Pitchfork itself is notable, WP:NOTINHERIT applies here. This isn't notable outside of the publication.

• Delete as the nominator, per WP:NOTINHERIT and lack of significant third-party coverage. Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOTINHERIT parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable. With no third part rs, the article should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into awards section on Pitchfork Media. South Nashua (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response - A table already exists at that article @South Nashua:, along with this template. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears like that the article up for deletion here was an expansion of that template. South Nashua (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so this article should be deleted, because it is also a needless content fork. Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I agree. I think some of the information will be useful in the original article, as you mentioned here. South Nashua (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For info, there have been two similar lists related to Pitchfork that have gone through AfD before. One was deleted and the other kept. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no independent 3rd party coverage. All sourced to Pitchfork so also has an appearance of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a coathanger for listcruft. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 22 September 2016 (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 DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicblue Airways Flight 604

Sonicblue Airways Flight 604 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tragic but non-notable small plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete General aviation fatal accidents are generally not notable. This is one of them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just one of tens of thousands of non-notable light plane accidents. We don't have articles on every car accident. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above. In my opinion the crash and its aftermath are covered adequately in the Sonicblue Airways article and I actually boldly redirected an earlier iteration of the subject article to the airline article five years ago. Someone replaced the redirect with a new version of better quality a few months ago, but much of it is padding and unencyclopaedic info and some is just incorrect. The airline article has all of the salient information. YSSYguy (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect & Merge - I don't agree with the above comments that this is a light plane accident or a general aviation flight. Those terms apply to private flight; this was a commercial flight on which anyone could have been a passenger. However, since the flight was the defining incident in the history of the airline, I agree this crash can be covered in Sonicblue Airways. Since that article has only one paragraph on the crash, and this article is much longer and appears to be well referenced, I think additional information from this article should be merged into Sonicblue Airways. MB 15:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Light aircraft are up to 12,500 lbs so, yes, this is a light aircraft. General aviation includes all flying other than military and airline, not just private flying, so, yes, this is GA. - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not particularly notable as a stand-alone subject and is already covered in the airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2016 (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 05:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Waite

Thomas J. Waite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP without a single secondary independent source. All that I've verified is he's the author of four books and some articles, all primary / non-independent. He may meet WP:NAUTHOR but the bulk of the BLP is unsourced / fails WP:V and a quick look didn't find sources Widefox; talk 21:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, I'm finding other people of the same name. I can't find much on the books, perhaps there's stuff on them I've missed - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searched for additional reliable sources to back up the information in the lead and "early life and education section" and simply couldn't find anything that wasn't a self-published source. Looking at the references on the page they are largely articles written by the subject, but none of these sources describe the author from a BLP perspective. Doesn't seem to meet WP:V and therefore, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are still no major publications or library holdings, nothing else here is actually convincing, I'll note the article itself is even focusing with PR aspects by going to specifications about his other things and activities. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 18 September 2016 (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. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Catastrophic Risk Institute

Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article by a pair of WP:SPAs. Sources are mere namechecks (e.g. author affiliation for an article which does not mention the subject at all). Google turns up no obvious reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable enough. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] is enough coverage to warrant an article. --Fixuture (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I mean.

1. [12], namecheck for Baum with affiliation, does not discuss the institute at all.
2. [13], namecheck in author bio of an article written by Baum
3. [14], interview with Baum, namechecks the institute but does not discuss it at all.
4. [15], duplicative of above.
5. [16], namecheck ("He is also an associate at the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute.)
6. [17], Wordpress blog, mentions the institute as one of a number of groups but mainly talks about Baum again.
7. [18], namecheck again, once again talking about Baum.

These sources make a good case for the notability of Baum but no case at all for the notability of the institute. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The analysis by User:JzG is spot on. For organisations, WP:ORGDEPTH needs to be satisfied and trivial mentions do not demonstrate notability. A certain depth of coverage in reliable third party sources is required which is clearly lacking here. The institute cannot inherit notability from the individual. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per JzG's excellent analysis of the deficiencies in sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an advertorial page. Sources presented above are unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2016 (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 Ray Harryhausen. If anyone disagrees with this redirect, a discussion may be started at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ray Harryhausen Podcast

The Ray Harryhausen Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NWEB.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ray Harryhausen makes most sense I think. Pichpich (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the references show that material exists that would make it possible to go beyond a mere description of the podcast and create an article that summarizes its impact or historical significance. Mduvekot (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's literally nothing in the way of RS coverage. Notability has to be shown independently of Ray Harryhausen here and in my opinion I don't see enough coverage to pass GNG. I don't think we need a redirect either, so this can be just deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2016 (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Curfman

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

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

Notability concerns. Also potential WP:COI when comparing contributers to article against those who have edited Feeding Fingers. Hiding T 14:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as it stands promo article, but the RSes (two out of the five references, only one of those two mentioning his name) don't establish notability at all - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability criteria not met for his endeavors outside of Feeding Fingers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Styline

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC/WP:BASIC with no reliable secondary sources, major labels or chart positions. McGeddon (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey McGeddon, I'm still working on finalizing the article and adding secondary sources. The artist did have multiple chart entries and major label deals. Will elaborate on that further now inside the article! — AleksandrMironov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please do. I assumed when you removed the prod template that you felt you'd already addressed these problems. --McGeddon (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AleksandrMironov: Providing links to sources on this page would help people participating in this discussion to get a good handle on the subject. Specifically, I'd recommend looking at sources which would establish that Styline passes the criteria at WP:MUSBIO. If the charts you're talking about are major national charts, that would go a long way. I'd also recommend copyediting to make the language more neutral. Everything in the article should be verifiable in a reliable source independent of the artist (and labels, etc.). Language like "huge impact" is going to lead people to believe the article is promotional. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to have charted anywhere in Europe, which would seem to be the main market for this music: I haven't checked North American or Asian charts yet. I'm wondering if the "multiple chart entries" are on Beatport or the iTunes chart. And I think I'd want some evidence that "power house" was a widely accepted genre in dance music circles and not just a neologism invented by Styline. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"power electronics" is a genre, but it's a form of loud hideous noise industrial, not EDM. "pioneers his own music genre called Power House" is a bit of a red flag. Most Google hits on "styline" are for a kettle. "styline chart" shows Beatport charting (not convincing for NMUSIC) and an Instagram noting "Number one in the Russian club charts again!", and multiple national minor chart entries would pass NMUSIC if Clubtone qualifies - looks like nobody's worked it out for Wikipedia:Record charts. Can anyone here read Russian and also know if Clubtone would likely measure up as a respectable minor national chart? Of course then we still need RSes. I only found [19] in GNews, though Digital Journal is actually a user-generated content site that looks like a news outlet. So I guess it's whether Clubtone is a respectable minor national chart, and then if the entries can be verified - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell so far, Clubtone appears to be a website dedicated to dance music, no more than that. I can't see any evidence of editorial oversight, and judging by the site's name and the fact they sell ringtones, I wouldn't be surprised if the "Clubtone Top 10" was simply the ten most downloaded ringtones that week, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One week on and "huge impact" has been changed to "significant impact" without any evidence of Styline's "significance", no clarification as to what the Clubtone chart is, and no evidence that "power house" is a term used by anyone else except Styline. I'm leaning delete here unless these issues are addressed. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• yeah, I'm concurring. delete as it stands unless some convincing sources show up soon - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; no indications of notability or significance per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2016 (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. This is a rare case in which I must disregard most opinions because they do not address a core policy issue raised in the nomination: verifiability. As the nomination points out, the content is sourced only to http://genealogy.euweb.cz, an evidently self-published and therefore unreliable website. Almost all "keep" opinions make notability arguments, but do not address (let alone rebut) the verifiability problem, which as a core policy issue must take absolute precedence. This does not preclude a properly sourced recreation.  Sandstein  07:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastiano Nicola Buonaparte

Sebastiano Nicola Buonaparte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

First off, I did a source search and the sources are just as weak as found her, genealogy related website that are not reliable sources. They may be a way at times to find primary sources, but we do not build articles on primary sources, but on secondary ones. The only claim to notability is being part of the council of Ajaccio. There is no indication this is a postion of a level that would make him default notable. He really is mainly notable as an ancestor of Napoleon Bonaparte, but that is not grounds for inclusion. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dubious of notability -- I see very little that is notable in this article; it is mostly genealogy, with slight notability inherited from a descendant. Corsica in his time was (I think) a possession of Genoa. Colonel Commander is probably not a high enough rank, unless Genoa had very few regiments. Equally it is not clear to me whether the Council of Ajaccio governed a city (in which case he was a local councillor and NN) or the island, in which case he might be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Obviously notable as an ancestor of the patrilineal Bonaparte line... see WP:NOTABILITY KingAntenor (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pls see below -- Original comment: an unsourced essay and no indications of notability apart from a remote descendant. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Needs improvement, but it's a reasonable start, and improvements won't happen if it's deleted. Notability is more than sufficient as great-great grandfather of Napoleon. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Keep -- Google books returns results for "Sebastiano Buonaparte" (without Nicola). If this is the same person, then it may be possible to source this. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fine for a genealogy site, but not enough here for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP is not a geneology site, but we do keep the genealogy of royal families, which is what the Buonapartes became. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against userfication or draftification if requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MIRZA JUULIET

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

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

WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RELIABLE RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 08:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Mirza Juuliet Rajesh Ram Singh Shanti Bhushan Green Apple Media Falansha Media Darshan Kumaar Piaa Bajpai

• Temporary delete or, since the topic is sourcable and appears complete and is awaiting release, we can userfy short-term. Upon release and more coverage, it can be returned. Also the director seems to have coverage enough for an article and if written this can be spoken of and sourced there. And sorry nominator... the article is neutral enough to not be WP:PROMO, and since it has completed and is sourcable in WP:RS (even if not used), it is not WP:CRYSTAL. It is simply a little TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources to establish notability; see WP:CRYSTAL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 22 September 2016 (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 Overload (Swedish band) . Don't usually close on one !vote however participation's low and the nom agrees with redirecting so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Procession of Tartaros

The Procession of Tartaros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indications of notability for the album (or the band Overload (Swedish band)). Previously de-PRODed. Apparently part of the walled garden, pls see: User talk:Stovarn for more details. A redirect to Overload (Swedish band) would also be acceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agree with nom's rationale. Neutrality^talk 15:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Overload (Swedish band) The album doesn't seem to be independently notable. I guess a redirect works here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: yes, a redirect to Overload (Swedish band) would work. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2016 (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. Consensus is that, whether or not it happened, reliable sources cover it, and therefore so should we. Any well-sourced doubts about the event should be discussed as part of the article. Sandstein 20:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page was deleted previously in 2016, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre. It was reinstated in June 2018, based on new references and edits of User:A Bicyclette who has since been permanently blocked. I have critiqued those new references here: Talk:Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre#Restored, but no more WP:RS provided as I do not believe that they are any more reliable than what was there when the page was first deleted. I don't think there are enough WP:RS to say what went on at Bình An/Tây Vinh and certainly not enough to say that a massacre took place there. This page should be deleted as an unconfirmed event as WP:V applies Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is at least verifiable that there are allegations of a massacre and none of the sources are suggesting that it didn't happen, so this does not amount to a hoax. The sources are largely newspapers and press agencies, so the claim of PRIMARY does not really stand up. This AfD sounds to me very much like an attempt to whitewash the ROK army. In their critique of the sources, Mztourist says that they cannot access Clodfelter's book. Well I can, and this unarguably independent, secondary, reliable source has this to say,

The ROK Capital Division hunted Charlie in its AO in Binh dinh Province. Between September 23 and November 9, the Tigers of the South Korean division reported 1,161 enemy deaths in the course of operation Maeng Ho. A good many of the reported enemy KIAs may have been noncombatants, for the ROK had a reputation for brutality against the pro-VC peasantry of the region. On February 2, 1966, for example, 380 civilians were killed by ROKs in the village of Binh An, in Binh Dinh province. As many as 1,600 noncombatants may have been killed in the provinces of Binh Dinh, Phu Yen, and Quang Ngai in January and February 1966

— Micheal Clodfelter

SpinningSpark 20:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper accounts are interviews with villagers many years after the purported events and so they are PRIMARY. There is no photographic evidence or contemporary reporting of the purported events. The AP story shows proper journalistic investigation and indicates serious doubts as to what, if anything, occurred. In relation to Clodfelter, use of "Charlie", "Tigers" indicates a lack of standards in what you say is an "unarguably independent, secondary, reliable sources". What actual sources does Clodfelter give in relation to a massacre at Binh An? Or is he just repeating the same dubious stories that are included on this page? I am not attempting to whitewash anything, but a massacre is a serious allegation and it shouldn't be included on WP without very solid evidence. This page has been deleted once before for lack of evidence. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AP source does not express "serious doubts" of the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses. On the contrary, the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true. It is true that the journalist says "[t]he AP was unable to independently confirm their claims", in part because "[a]s is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the [local] officials' allegations." But that is hardly the same as actually casting doubt.

Clodfelter's book is published by McFarland, a serious, well-eatablished publisher specialising in academic and reference works. On sourcing, Clodfelter says,

Cross-checking and comparison of sources and, most of all, common sense have guided my research and results. i have employed official and supposedly authoritative sources wherever available, have sought statistics from both sides in each war to evaluate the inevitably conflicting claims, and have tried to verify the numbers reported on the battlefield with the records of the various medical corps and military surgeon-general reports.

This does not sound to me like someone with a "lack of standards" or "just repeating the same dubious stories". It is not for Wikipedia to assess the significance of lack of photographic evidence, contemporary reports, or the primary sources used by RS (although Clodfelter has a nine-page bibliography if you really need to know). That kind of assessment is the job of the reliable secondary sources. That's why we use them. SpinningSpark 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the low standards being applied here. A massacre is a very controversial accusation, but you seem willing to accept the existence of an event based on minimal details and very dubious sources. The lack of photographic evidence and contemporaneous reporting should be of concern, because that was available for other massacres, such as My Lai Massacre, Đắk Sơn massacre, Hue Massacre, Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre, Son Thang massacre etc. Re the AP, I don't agree that "the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true" what gives you that impression? Once again I am asking you specifically what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre, not general statements as to sourcing, so what are they? If all Clodfelter has done is copy details from WP or those same newspaper reports then it isn't any more reliable than those underlying sources. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the accusations are dubious, it is down to you to find reliable sources saying that. The article can then be balanced with that material. Until then, your position is entirely WP:OR. SpinningSpark 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rubbish argument. WP:V and WP:RS are the pillars of Wikipedia. Vietnamese POV pushers have created a number of pages regarding purported massacres based on tenuous sources, I am simply challenging them to ensure that WP:V and WP:RS are met. You haven't answered any of the other issues I raised on the talk page and are refusing to answer the simple question of what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre. Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sources Clodfelter used. Presumably they are in his nine-page bibliography that I already pointed you to. There is no reason why I should be required to name Clodfelter's sources; Clodfelter is the source I am citing. If I were to name his sources, would you then ask what sources they used? Eventually, we would get back to primary sources which you have already made a big case of rejecting. I can only surmise that nothing will ever satisfy you. SpinningSpark 08:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another copout. If Clodfelter refers to WP or those articles then it becomes circular and he is of no value as a ref. Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that he used Wikipedia as a source is ridiculous. SpinningSpark 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources report that something (may have) happened; we report what the sources say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sets a very low bar for a very controversial accusation. The sources are minimal and IMO not reliable.Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We need to cover what the sources say, otherwise, if the article is deleted, other mentions may creep in at other articles without a linked place to discuss what the sources say dispassionately. If Mztourist wishes to challenge the veracity of the sources, then there are other avenues for that (eg RS noticeboard, which I have repeatedly directed him to). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

read the refs, they're rubbish, particularly Tuổi Trẻ which is the official publication of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union... Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I retain *serious* concerns about your complete disregard for anything but official U.S. DOD sources, whether that's the AP or Vietnamese sources (just because it's the other side doesn't *automatically* mean it was falsified). I remain also concerned as to whether this disregard may extend to your not being able to be neutral in these matters. My vote stands. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have history, I don't expect you to be objective wrt anything I write. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BLUDGEON should probably be mentioned at some point too... ——SerialNumber54129 12:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Whether the event happened or not doesn't seem particularly relevant. A hoax popularized by numerous sources could still be notable. If the information comes from multiple reliable sources (and the Associated Press, Globe and Mail, and Asian Human Rights Commission articles are sufficient, regardless of the others, for which I would need to look closer to make a determination), it meets WP:V. All of this is not to say that I don't believe the event happened--I am simply speaking to the reasons for opposing the article's inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Saha

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

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

I declined a PROD on this as the article now has sources, but they do not establish notability. I think this is likely to be an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't seem to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Anup [Talk] 18:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are thousands of "film producers," and most of them aren't notable. Nothing in this addresses depth requirement of WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:37, 23 September 2016 (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saqi Books

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

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

Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing present reads above the level of a press release coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO. Strictly an advertorial page; it even includes the address of the company: "The Saqi Bookshop is located in central London on 26 Westbourne Grove." K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2016 (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. Despite challences, the "keep" side has not identified which sources specifically cover the topic.  Sandstein  13:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intersection (sculpture)

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Covered in multiple independent reliable sources. MB298 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What independent reliable sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I checked most of the references in the article. I couldn't find a single mention of this sculpture by name. Some quick google searches similarly came up with a blank. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not trying to take away from your vote at all, but all of the sources mention the sculpture, so I'm not sure where that's coming from... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, maybe I'm missing something, but I look at, for example, https://trimet.org/history/orangeline/library/sustainability.htm. I searched for the word "intersection", and can't find it. Perhaps you could point out where it is? Same with http://www.pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/216346-75520-artwork-anchors-new-max-line-to-regions-history -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2016 (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 Doctor Who#Logo history. If anyone disagrees with this redirect, a discussion may be started at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who logos

List of Doctor Who logos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Whilst Doctor Who is notable, a list of logos isn't needed, per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. In addition, many of the logos are fair use, and so probably shouldn't be used here, as their use should be minimal. Joseph2302 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an FYI - we were discussing getting rid of the content. But I think deletion is a good decision for this article. Dresken (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The actual logos are public domain in the US. The screenshots of the last few aren't, but they can be replaced.
  In any case, this shouldn't be a redlink, since we cover this subject (in Doctor Who#Logo history, as mentioned on the talk page) and this would be the usual title for it. So if this isn't kept separate, it should redirect there, without prejudice to being spun out again if the section in the main article becomes too large. —Cryptic 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• See also c:COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Doctor Who logos. —Cryptic 22:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doctor Who#Logo history. That section seems to cover absolutely everything this list needs to be, including depicting the logos in question. Fieari (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Fieari.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I declined a CSD on this because I am convinced there are enough sources out there to write a genuinely comprehensive article about the logo history (including who designed each one, why, and what popular reception was etc etc), however it would more or less be a complete rewrite from scratch) and we don't need this version of the article hanging about to do that. Nobody is going to type "List of Doctor Who logos" into Google, they will go for the main article first, so I wouldn't even go for a redirect. After this is deleted, anyone can come along and write a FL-quality article at any time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of"? I suppose not. But typing "Doctor Who" logos is more plausible. That gets me this list as the fifth hit. The main article isn't in the first five pages; I stopped looking after that. —Cryptic 21:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - the google results have convinced me alone. From my understanding, hopefully it should pick up the redirect and then list main article. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Fieari is spot on. These logos can and should be acknowledged, but certainly not on an individual article. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Fieari - already covered there in better detail. Artw (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is absolutely no content to take from here that isn't already included in the main article. Coverage of these logos within the main article suffices. Furthermore, if someone wants to search "list of Doctor Who logos", they would do so on Google or Google Images, not Wikipedia, so a redirect is unnecessary, as they would just to Wikipedia's article on Doctor Who first and go from there. I see no logical reason to make this a redirect. —Mythdon 09:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No one' is ever going to search for "List of Doctor Who logos" ... Doctor Who logos maybe but not the other title, That aside this isn't notable at all and IMHO it's better off deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 23:29, September 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • Ehh, knowing how Wikipedia works, I type "List of _______" all the time into the searchbox, and very frequently get a result from doing so. And besides, redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I should've been more clearer - What I was trying to say was editors probably wouldn't search "List of DW logos" but instead would search "Doctor Who logos" or something similar (It makes more sense in my head than it does here lol). –Davey2010^Talk 03:16, 23 September 2016 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visuals (project)

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

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

The article seems to fail WP:N and WP:RS: the only third-party RS provided is Bild (and yet it receives criticism for its dubious journalistic standards). All the other sources are Ukrainian media of questionable reliability, and most of them do not mention "Visuals" at all, only using infographics from it. --Buzz105 (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. New source from Wikimedia Ukraine added. --Dctrzl (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  + extra new source. --Dctrzl (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Such a number of ″questionable reliability″ sources (Wikimedia Ukraine, Ukrainian Independent Information Agency,Hromadske.TV, Ukrayinska Pravda, The Ukrainian Week, Bild, etc.) is sufficient to describe the project? --Dctrzl (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hotels: Countries B#Bangladesh. Consensus is to redirect, If anyone disagrees with the redirect target then it's perhaps best to discuss it on the talkpage, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Bangladesh

List of hotels in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article claims to be a "list of notable hotels in Bangladesh." But in fact it is a long list of red links (= hotels without their own article, deemed not notable) and to hotel chains (not the individual hotels as suggested by this article) The Banner talk 13:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There appear to be only four qualifying articles in existence, judging from Category:Hotels in Bangladesh and its (unnecessary) subcategory. Maybe that's still enough to be useful as a list, I don't know. But if deleted, it should be without any bar to recreation should more articles be created or notability of redlinks supported by secondary sources. postdlf (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, we have List of hotels: Countries B which includes Bangladeshi hotels, again plenty of redlinks, so this article could be folded into there. ps. i entered "list of hotels in armenia" to see what would happen and instead of going here List of hotels: Countries A#Armenia, this came up - search results so maybe an editor who likes doing redirects can check if any other "list of hotels in ..." needs a redirect created? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of hotels: Countries B#Bangladesh would be a fine place to redirect it. postdlf (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2016 (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonika Kaliraman

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

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

Non-notable wrestler - participant on some reality show does not demonstrate notability either. Her sister was just AfD'd for similar reasons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepika Kaliraman) Peter Rehse (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Just have a look at her official profile, which is provided by the United World Wrestling. She had represented India for more than one decade in the top international tournaments, which include the Senior/Junior World Wrestling Championships, Asian Games, Asian Wrestling Championships, etc. In fact, she was the 2000 Asian Junior Champion. She had also reached to the bronze medal bout of the 2006 Asian Games – click here. At the national level, she made multiple podium finishes in the National Championships, e.g. 2001, 2003, 2008, 2009, etc. I guess that is more that enough to satisfy WP:NSPORT.

She is even further special as she was the first Indian female wrestler. And the struggle of hers and her father Chandgi Ram to introduce women's wrestling in India is even highlighted by the United World Wrestling - click here. She was the first one to win India's highest women's wrestling title – Bharat Kesari. She has also signed up to become the first pro female wrestler from India.

Finally, her post-retirement career in TV – where she participated in the country's top reality shows like Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi — 1, Bigg Boss — 2 & Zor Ka Jhatka: Total Wipeout — 3 – is in itself sufficient to satisfy the WP:GNG. But that isn't even required. - NitinMlk (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an adult she never came close to winning a match at a world championship, finishing near the bottom at both events. She has no medals in a significant international competition. The article on her and her sisters looks like good coverage. If other sources can be found, WP:GNG might be met. I'm not inclined to say that appearing on reality TV shows is enough to show notability, though others may disagree. Papaursa (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities states that an "athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor....". So, it clearly states that the long-term participation in the major competitions is enough to satisfy the WP:NSPORT. And the concerned amateur wrestler has represented her country in the top amateur wrestling events for more than one decade. I guess that's 'active' enough. Secondly, as far as WP:GNG is concerned, there are enough reliable independent sources in the English and the other languages, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. But I guess the WP:GNG will come into picture if she fails the WP:NSPORT, which doesn't seem to be the case here. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should add these sources to the article. The presumption of notability does not guarantee notability. WP guidelines still say reliable sources are needed. Because of the number of organizations, events, and divisions simply competing at a martial arts world championship has not always been sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, there's not necessarily a need to add the sources to the article to pass AfD. Please see WP:NEXIST. Fieari (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about passing the AfD, it's about improving the article. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that NitinMlk has provided enough coverage to show WP:GNG is met. It's still debatable whether she's notable for her wrestling alone. Even one of the sources provided [20] says she has accomplished nothing at the international level (at least according to my computer translation). However GNG trumps any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEXIST and NitinMlk's sources, above. Fieari (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. when an arguement for 1notability has to use something as vague as "participated in ", then its likely thee is not substantial notability. It's accepted that Jr. league victories in any sport do not count, and that 'sall the accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) ß[reply]

It's not some far-fetched argument – it's the relevant wiki policy. At present, unlike many other Olympic sports, amateur wrestling doesn't have separate notability criteria – check at WP:ATH. So, only alternative left here is to use the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities, which the subject meets easily. In any case, to meet the WP:GNG, there's more than enough coverage of her in the third-party reliable sources. BTW, what's vague about the term "participated in"? At least in the case of sports tournaments, its meaning is crystal clear. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2016 (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 that this topic does not merit a standalone article, while a redirect did not gain consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French–Armenian Agreement (1916)

French–Armenian Agreement (1916) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The title of the article, "French–Armenian Agreement (1916)", is unsourced, and I can find no source that indicates there ever was a document with this title (or this title with the date 1916 removed, or its French-language equivalent). All references to it on google are just recycled Wikipedia content. The title is also misleading (probably intentionally) because it suggests a military or political treaty between two nations, France and Armenia - but no military or political entity called Armenia existed in 1916. What does appear to have existed is a French military decision to recruit non-French citizens (such as Armenians and Syrians) for its proposed Légion d'Orient, and then a French approach made to Boghos Nubar for help in gathering possible recruits amongst diaspora Armenians worldwide and Armenian refugees in the middle east - in other words nothing as formal as an agreement, and absolutely nothing that would justify the status of a title such as this. This content, and the rest of the content in this article, should be covered by the article French Armenian Legion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- unneeded content fork since the material is already covered in French Armenian Legion. Not enough for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to French Armenian Legion, which says there was an agreement in November 1916 in Egypt between an Armenian delegation and the French. This was clearly part of the effort to bolster the allied war effort at this period, resulting in a number of agreements that some have since wished were not made. Armenia was not a country at this time, but it was an ethnicity that was subject to genocide by the Ottoman Turks. A wish by a delegation of refugees to take up arms against their persecutors and of the allies to encourage that is wholly credible. However, I agree that it does not merit an article of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, the French Armenian Legion article is also unsourced for a claim that there was an agreement called "French–Armenian Agreement (1916)". It does appear that some approach by (or to?) the French (at a time when Allied manpower was becoming stretched and conscription was being introduced) was made to (or by?) Armenian groups and community leaders in order for them to facilitate the recruitment of Armenians who were not French citizens into the French armed forces as part of its Légion d'Orient. But a group or a group of individuals agreeing to do something is not the same thing as an "Agreement", which implies some sort of formalized treaty or convention between state entities - so I would rather the French–Armenian Agreement title was gone completely and did not become a redirect. Let's not continue with the implication that a document with this title ever existed, or that academic sources have used this term to refer to whatever the actual agreement was. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the origin of the name of this alleged "Agreement" - it originates in Armenian Genocide denialist literature originating in Turkey. It is part of the pseudo-history conspiracy theory produced by Turkey that there were, and still are, "Powers" that are out to destroy Turkey, and that there was no Armenian Genocide but merely Armenians rebelling against the Ottoman Empire as part of that project to destroy Turkey and a justified response by Turkey to put down that rebellion. The title is meant to suggest an actual military agreement existed between Armenians and one of those Powers - thus supporting the allegation that Armenians were conspiring to destroy the Ottoman Empire. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- similar to the nominator, I do not see a reason to redirect this, as the alleged agreement likely did not exist, or does not amount to an "agreement" between two nations, as the title of the article suggests. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no substantial notability shown for a stand alone article, nor indication the agreement amounted to anything substantial; if it in fact it could be considered a formal agreement. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2016 (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) 05:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Foster (producer)

Karen Foster (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Subject has been associated with (though not the director of) notable films, but this does not necessarily make her notable. I could find no coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. ubiquity (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - added refs (which basically verify her role as producer), added categories, external links, no longer an orphan. That said, I don't think she passes GNG or CREATIVE per nom.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Coverage found is primarily mention as producer without further comment. There was an article which included interview responses by the subject. Fails notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2016 (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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Dinn

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

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

Delete. Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of an actor whose strongest claim of notability is a role in a single web series. The only "source" here is his own official website, which is a primary source that cannot confer notability, and the article was evidently created by his webmaster (creator = User:RchandlerUS; credited author of website reference = Chandler, RC), which is a conflict of interest. A person like this would be eligible for an article if it could be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG, but one role in one web series does not confer a WP:CREATIVE pass in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2016 (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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odgerel (Top Model)

Odgerel (Top Model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, only 1 source (which is a YouTube video), promo, Commons link is broken. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2016 (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 seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steps of Faith Foundation

Steps of Faith Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub, non-notable, only 1 badly formatted source. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; can't find SIGCOV. Neutrality^talk 04:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; RS not there to meet GNG. A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I could only find trivial or passing mentions of this organization in WP:RS. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2016 (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) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eri Nakao

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

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

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

Japanese voice actor with a bunch of supporting roles in anime shows, but difficult to find any lead roles in major productions. No secondary source coverage of the individual subject, just that their roles are referenced. 73 roles in VADB though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of sources, lack of content beyond a credits list. Can always be recreated if someone does dig up some sources that represent significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 21 September 2016 (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 Phobia (2016 film). Sort of the redirect equivalent to WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yashaswini Dayama

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

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

Young actress which may very well become notable (I do wish her the best) but is currently not there yet. She's had one significant role, though not a leading role, so far and all seven of the references provided by the article link to reviews of that one film and only mention her name in passing as a member of the cast. I haven't been able to find reliable sources that discuss her in more depth so I believe she fails both the basic notability criterion and the actor-specific guideline. Pichpich (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phobia (2016 film), the only film she has appeared into as of yet. May qualify for a standalone article sometime in future, then we can return the redirect into article. Anup [Talk] 18:09, 11 September 2016 (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) Nordic Nightfury 07:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Hackspace

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

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

Non-notable, promotional. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Leigh Hackspace is notable within the Leigh Community and also the wider UK Hackspace community, where it has gained a reputation for being very well equipped and large compared to other Hackspaces in the UK, despite its extra-urban location and low budget. We've referenced the article extensively, to a number of different sources.
• I also note that the user who opened the AfD has been removed (or removed themselves) following a number of unwarranted AfDs and the user received an ANI notice User_talk:KATMAKROFAN on 1st Sept 2016 Pacharanero (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Any RS coverage other than Leigh Journal? - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2016 (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) 05:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radboud Miedema

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

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

Tricky case. Poor article, completely lacking in proper sourcing--the problem is establishing to which extent the subject can lean on the credits of the hit he co-wrote and co-produced; I cannot find reliable sources that argue he can derive notability from it. He and fellow writer Janieck van de Polder were given BUMA/STEMRA awards for the tune because it charted internationally, but they got 2nd and 3rd for national and international hit song--not number 1, and one should realize that these aren't awards as much as verification of hit status: the second biggest Dutch hitsingle wins second in the national hitsingle category. Given the low number of articles discussing our subject, I'm going with delete since he does not pass the GNG--this is the one more or less reliable source I found, an article from a local paper which describes how his hometown mayor invited him over for coffee. Noordwijk--nice place. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:NBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2016 (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. Some participants suggested the notability was marginal, but the overall conclusion is there is enough coverage to write an article on this subject. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evandro Rachoni De Lima

Evandro Rachoni De Lima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not made an appearance in a fully professional league. There is not any indication that WP:GNG is met. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup is a tier one competition, and there is literally hundreds of articles on the subject online so i'm not sure how wp:gng is not met — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides he has played in the German 4th division which is ALSO a fully proffesional league, you have no grounds for deletion here. Here are bbc, itv and 442 articles on the player aswell. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30796787 http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/meet-keeper-looking-luck-ninth-tier-after-leaving-war-torn-ukraine http://www.itv.com/news/2015-01-13/crawley-sign-brazilian-keeper-evandro-rachoni-de-limaon-who-fled-ukraine/ And british eurosport just for luck http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/evandro-rachoni-de-lima_prs416424/person.shtml

Even if he doesn't earn a football article he deserves one of some sort surely JohnTombs48 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for all the above reasons seeing as no one is voting
• Comment The fourth tier of the German league pyramid, otherwise known as the Regionalliga is not fully professional per WP:FPL. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is famous more for his off-pitch activities, i.e Being a footballer who escaped a war torn country to play in England, He is therefor notable for this reason, similar to Alessandro_Zarrelli, who also in theory breaks WP:FPL

Eckyy660 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I had been working on a draft for a number of months, which I have now merged with this article. On the balance of things just about squeezes through GNG with substantial articles about him in BBC and FourFourTwo. GiantSnowman 08:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails the subject-specific guideline, WP:NFOOTY, because he hasn't played at senior international level or for a club from a fully professional league in a senior competition. The articles on BBC, FourFourTwo, the local paper cited in the WP article, and elsewhere are all reworkings of an interview with the subject that highlighted one event: a man chose to go and work in an unstable country but when it got more unstable he didn't like it so he left. As such, 1) those pieces can't be treated as multiple intellectually independent sources, per WP:BASIC, and 2) so what? it's good background material, but not enough to make someone notable.

  All the facts in the original interviews come from the man himself, without independent corroboration. This piece on a Brazilian news site states that Rachoni was never at Arsenal Kyiv and that the Fluminense he claimed to have played for was not the well-known one but the Mineiro State League Div 2 side Fluminense de Araguari-MG. It also suggests that his economy with the truth on footballing matters casts doubt on his veracity in general. Whether true or not, it's hardly unprecedented that naive footballers get fooled into going to unsuitable places for jobs that either don't exist or exist under intolerable conditions, and no-one helps them when they want to get out. Sadly, it happens to hundreds of young Africans every year. And it's hardly unprecedented that unemployed persons talk up or whitewash their background to try and get attention and hopefully work, but he'd need to get to the standard of Alex Zarrelli mentioned above to be notable for that. I don't see a WP:GNG pass. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fails NFOOTY, and I would agree with Struway that there are questions over whether he ever played for the major clubs he claims to but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

1. FA Cup: Ilkeston goalkeeper's journey from war in Ukraine - Lengthy national article on the player
2. From war-torn Ukraine to Concord Rangers: The remarkable story of Evandro Rachoni - lengthy local news article, recycles some quotes, but also includes original copy
3. Meet the keeper looking for luck in the ninth tier after leaving war-torn Ukraine - fourfourtwo article on player
4. Brasileiro usa legenda de “refugiado da Ucrânia” para ser futebolista no Reino Unido - Brazilian article querying the truthfulness of his claimed career
5. From sunny Sao Paolo to rainy Ilkeston - the rise of Robins’ Rachoni (part one) - first part of two part interview in local news on the player

Fenix down (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG per multiple reliable and in-depth sources found by Fenix down. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2016 (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) 05:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Blalock

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

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

Career minor-leaguer who fails WP:NBASEBALL. He has not appeared in any major leagues defined by NBASEBALL nor has he appeared in any major international competition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per insufficient coverage to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems he was kept last time because he played in Italy's top league. WP:BASE/N has since been revised to include the top leagues of the U.S., Japan, and Korea only. (Or also Taiwan? Not gonna look it up right now.) My previous argument against the Baseball America piece that it's subscription only was the wrong argument. It's a trade publication, which decreases its use for our purposes. So WP:GNG is still not met. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The rules for notability have been revised since the last AFD and Italy's top league no longer qualifies. Spanneraol (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2016 (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 Minor Passions characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viki Chatsworth

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

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-- I wanted to say "redirect" to Passions, but a "Viki" (no last name) is mentioned there only once. So this appears to be a very minor character and the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Passions characters and cast, perhaps? I doubt that there is a notable real-world person by this name due to the unusual spelling, and Google hasn't revealed any. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we have Minor Passions characters; whether we should is another question, but that would no-doubt serve as a suitable merge target. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J Milburn: Merging this article into Minor Passions characters seems like an acceptable course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Minor Passions characters is a good solution. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2016 (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. Seems like nobody is advocating to keep here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gannon Cup

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

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

The only thing that I can find that backs up even the existence of this race is the included image of unknown origin. Beyond that, I can find no primary or secondary sources that would even begin to support this race as a notable subject. The linked YouTube video doesn't seem to give the race the name used for this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My guess is this could be a minor company-sponsored race that is considered trivial by the press. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This was the ninth race on the Wednesday of Derby week.  As I recall, the Derby itself is the ninth race on Saturday.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Churchill Downs has all sorts of races that week as part of the Spring Meet, Of course, a difference between one 9th race and another is the coverage. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searched Newsbank, Highbeam, and Newspapers.com. I found a golf tournament in Maryland and a boat race in Ireland, but no mention of this horse race. This may not even be the most notable Gannon Cup! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Article lists this as a 1 1/6 mile race run in 1:44:14.  There don't seem to be 1 1/6 mile horse races.  [21] gives the fastest time for 9 furlongs (1 1/8 mile) as 1:45.25.  1 1/8 miles is 1 3/24 miles while 1 1/6 miles is the longer 1 4/24 miles.  A possible explanation, not as good as a reliable source, is that the 1 1/6 miles should be 1 1/16 miles, where the best time on the dirt is 1:36.40.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Sources show that Corrupt won the ninth race on the Wednesday before the 1st Saturday in May in 2008 at Churchill Downs, so this is all credible, but with the only known reference for the existence of the topic being the official program from Churchill Downs, the topic currently fails WP:V#Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps credible insofar as one race in one year, although I haven't seen anything hard that labels the race as the "Gannon Cup". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The guidelines at NHORSERACING generally need a horse race to be a graded stakes race as a threshold. Putting that name into equibase.com brings up nothing. (Also, horse races are never run at 1-1/6 mile, they may have meant 1-1/16 mile). Looking up the race record of the horse Corrupt, I see he did win a race the week before the Kentucky Derby in 2008 with results described here but the race is described as an "Allowance optional claiming" race -- unnamed, ungraded. So unless my colleagues at WikiProject Horse racing find something I can't, this race is too insignificant to meet NHORSERACING. Delete. Montanabw^(talk) 20:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't have the 2008 Racing Almanac to hand, but the 2007 does not list any "Gannon Cup" as a graded stakes race in the US. Typically, stakes have to have several years of history before actually reaching graded stakes status - so the lack of it appearing in the 2007 edition is pretty much proof that it's not graded and thus fails to have enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just can't come up with ANY source material. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Montanabw....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Equibase shows the race won by Corrupt on April 30 2008 was an "Allowance Optional Claiming" race with no mention of the "Gannon Cup" title.[22] Not a notable race. Tigerboy1966  06:51, 20 September 2016 (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) SSTflyer 15:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Stop Feeling (disambiguation)

Can't Stop Feeling (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Taking to AFD since PROD was removed. This page only contains partial title matches aside from the primary topic, and DAB's aren't supposed to just list subjects that contain certain things as only part of their titles. Best to delete it as there is only one "Can't Stop Feeling" entry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined keep, looks useful to readers - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really when only one entry is actually titled "Can't Stop Feeling" and everything else has other parts to distinguish it from that title. Also, see WP:USEFUL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting the last paragraph of WP:USEFUL: There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was that it doesn't carry much weight to merely say something is useful without giving a good reason for how/why. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the case of content articles, saying that something is useful without giving a reason doesn't carry much weight. But when it comes to navigation aids, if someone says that they find something useful, full stop, well... it means that it is useful. You could see that both in the quoted passage from WP:USEFUL as well as for example from criterion #5 of WP:RFD#KEEP. Uanfala (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PTM. There's only one topic that "may refer to" Can't Stop Feeling so a disambiguation page is unnecessary here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to keep. A couple editors I have high respect for have convincing arguments to keep and I don't want to be in the same camp as someone who WP:BADGERs every opposing vote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is the case that only one of the entries actually matches the title exactly, but the rest are so similar to it that they're easy to confuse, so the dab page decently serves as a navigation aid. Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't actually THAT similar; people can definitely for instance tell "Can't Stop the Feeling!" from "I Can't Stop This Feeling I've Got". Let's not exaggerate similarities. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; dab pages with WP:PTMs are a dime a dozen; most are useful. This one is no exception. And please, don't tell me what I can and can't tell apart. I find these entries related enough that it would be easy to confuse them. — Gorthian (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't go so far as to say "dime a dozen". Regardless, other pages being mistakenly filled with partial title matches doesn't justify doing so here. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure badgering all other commenters will get them to agree with you? - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Per Gorthian. There are apparently many songs in which the band or artist cannot stop feeling. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Dabs are cheap and it's a logical search for a variety of titles. Montanabw^(talk) 21:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#A10, and author pointed to the Basque Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kahanen konpentsazio algoritmoa

Kahanen konpentsazio algoritmoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced non-english text Infinity Knight (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as an inferior duplicate of Kahan summation algorithm. I have tagged the article accordingly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2016 (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 Peel District School Board. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Drive Middle School

Allan Drive Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable non secondary school. What scant coverage exists is almost entirely from the local paper, the Caledon Enterprise. The single exception to this seems to be this story about a student from the school making an app, which only gives trivial passing mention to the institution. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Humberview Secondary School or Peel District School Board#Organization of the school system within the Board. Mindmatrix 14:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peel District School Board per standard procedure. nominators and/or patrollers should be aware of this at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and the WP:NPP tutorial. Redirects are uncontroversial and there is no need to add to our AfD backlogs.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defence of the nominator, just because most school AfDs have been closed in a particular way in the past, doesn't mean that nominations can't be made. Consensus can and does change. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2016 (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) 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

Saira Shah Halim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Fails GNG. I am not even sure what is the claim to notability, except for being related to several notable people (daughter of Zameer Uddin Shah, niece of Naseeruddin Shah, daughter-in-law of Hashim Abdul Halim and sister of Mohommed Ali Shah)? Following are the references provided in the article along with my comments.

1. This link does not work.
2. This is not a reliable source and also appears to be primary.
3. This reference is the same as above.
4. This reference does not even mention her name.
5. This is YouTube source.
6. Dead link (same as number 1 above).
7. This link is also dead (same as number 1 & 6 above).
8. This source gives only passing mention.
9. This is YouTube source.
10. This source mentions her name at the bottom of the page. Trivial.
11. This source mentions her name and picture along with other speakers. Trivial mention.
12. This is YouTube source.
13. This is YouTube source.
14. This source mentions her name as a member, along with 56 other members. Trivial mention.
15. This source has a trivial mention of her name.
16. This source has a trivial mention of her name.
17. This source is the same as number 2 above.
18. This source is trivial and primary.

I am surprised, how did this article survive for this long; especially when very experienced users such as SwisterTwister, SovalValtos, Paste and I dream of horses touched this article at some or the other point in time; and these users are very good in what they do. In anycase, I request feedback from these users as well. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. My previous interaction was peripheral to say the least. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Razer^{Text me} 14:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, I may be semi-new but it seems that this article is just causing problems. And yeah, I'm also surprised on how long it has survived.Layla, the remover —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My interaction was the same as Paste---an incredibly peripheral, AWB edit.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hello SwisterTwister, SovalValtos, Paste and I dream of horses. I mentioned your names in good faith and that was not a criticism under any circumstances. I was genuinely surprised that this article managed to slip past you guy; esp SwisterTwister & I dream of horses who I think have very good observation when it comes to notability. I have not noticed much edits of other two users. Thanks for your feedback and happy editing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Arun Kumar SINGH Involvement with deletions has not been a large part of my editing. When I 'touch' an article I am not routinely checking to see if it should be deleted; so not a case of 'slipping past'. Perhaps you should not be surprised that it survived until the first person to nominate it (you) nominated it? No harm done. I do not have policies sufficiently at my fingertips to contribute in due form, but I would not be sorry to see the article deleted.SovalValtos (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. SovalValtos, I just wanted to make sure that you guys don't get upset because of that mention. My comment was made assuming good faith and to inform everyone (I did not attempt to criticize). Sorry if it came across as rude. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as KS.9955 has outlined. Deli nk (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable in the slightest. 96.237.25.200 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (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) 05:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hasselberg

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

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

Deprodded with the reason that any professional coach is notable. But if deprodder were to check WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA he would see that the SPHL is not one of the listed leagues. And any league not listed follows the following "Those leagues not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability to players, coaches, officials or executives, and articles about the same must explicitly demonstrate notability under the provisions of WP:GNG, WP:BIO or other valid notability criteria." As such he fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG as the references listed are routine and primary. DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. All sources I found fail GNG per WP:ROUTINE and his position does not presume notability per NHOCKEY, so I prodded the page. Creator deprodded without making any notability-worthy improvements. Yosemiter (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NHOCKEY and not finding much coverage. He does seem to get significant coverage in the Battlefords News-Optimist, most significantly this as far as I can tell, but significant coverage in a single source doesn't satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and all above reasons. Deadman137 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2016 (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) 05:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Office Timeline

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

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

The article is an advertisement. (Wikipedia is not a venue for advertisement.) The product also lacks notability requirements. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG for lack of available sources.- MrX 12:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article created by one WP:SPA account and subsequently extended by another. The advertising content could be resolved through normal editing, but the given references are insubstantial and I am not finding better, whether for the company or its products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and sorry for the confusion. I will try to add all the required information so that the Office Timeline Wikipedia page meets the desired Wikipedia quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbirzu (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The generic name makes this very difficult to research. I almost gave up, but I did locate two reviews for the software: [23] from TechRepublic and [24] from Softpedia. However, I don't think this is quite enough to demonstrate notability. The TechRepublic piece is rather short and not very in-depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- with a section covering company's "Mission" as "To distinguish professionals through innovative presentation tools" this is purely WP:ADVOCACY and WP:PROMO. Likewise, sourcing is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Kohinoor

Curse of the Kohinoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NFF has not commenced principal photography by the article's own admission. Savonneux (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Savonneux, an AfD usually lasts a week or more and the article says that principal photography starts in exactly one week. If that happens, will you withdraw this AfD? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't use multiple nomination criteria and that was the most relevant. I can't find anything more than passing mentions as a future project, so it is an unreviewed, unreleased, unshot film. The director is notable but the fact that it is unreleased makes it hard to make a case that it is a major part of his/her career--Savonneux (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage for this is pretty light. I'm not seeing an awful lot out there or really anything to show that it actually is going to shoot next week. This source says that it was supposed to begin in July, but it looks like that never happened. The lack of coverage even in the WP:India news search is concerning, so there would have to be a lot of coverage of the production beginning in order to establish notability. The general lack of mention kind of makes me wonder if the project has been stalled. Even the Facebook page is dead, which isn't really the greatest sign. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengali language newspaper Prothom Alo printed an article about National Award winning actor Aref Syed joining the movie and the principal photography is to begin in September. Also, the director's production company has started releasing photos of the actors on their social media accounts. Nequa.s (talk

• The only problem is that we would need coverage showing that filming has begun on the movie, not publicity photos and announcements that the film will be made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been media coverage that principal photography has begun. Please see The Daily Star^[1], New Age^[2], Jago News^[3] among many others. Nequa.s (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nequa.s (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since the principle photography has apparently begun on 30 August 2016. [25]. Anup [Talk] 19:22, 11 September 2016 (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 Once Upon a Time in Amritsar. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilpreet Dhillon

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

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

Possibly failed WP:MUSBIO. The article relies entirely upon a single source and I failed to find anything to support independent notability expect [26][27][28]. GSS (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a borderline pass of WP:BASIC as per the significant coverage in the source in the article and smaller coverage in more newspapers that adds up to enough coverage for notability purposes. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Amritsar: One interview and few one time mentions does not appear sufficient to me for a standalone article. Almost all contents in the existing (BLP) article are unsourced and with all resources available at hand, one can write only one or two or at most three sentences, which can easily be covered in other related articles. Anup [Talk] 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2016 (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. MER-C 12:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryn Lilley

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

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

non-notable author. None of the refs are reliable sources for notability. And, just as significantly, none of the books are even in WorldCat. So it it is not at all surprising to find that her principal work (the Young adult trilogy) is self-published. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Sourcing is mostly their own website. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- strictly a vanity page with intricate details, such as of an accident, chronic pain, so quite possibly written by someone close to the subject. I cannot locate any independent RS, so WP:NAUTHOR is not met. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2016 (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. Soft deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rimpici

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

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

Promotional page for a non notable voice over artist/actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JAGUAR  11:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]