Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 May	2 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Warhammer 40,000#Spin-offs and related fiction. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinorum: Execution Force

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

No evidence of any notability for this. No references, and all searches reveal only sales sites and niche market reviews. Nothing independent and nothing robust. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (well, smerge) to Warhammer 40,000#Spin-offs and related fiction (and, as an aside, I'd subdivide that section). 40K is a huge franchise with 30 years of a history. In addition to the core miniature wargame, there are about eleventy-seven spin-off games and standalone products set in the same universe. This is one of them. It has... dubious available sources on its own merits, but deserves at least inclusion in the embedded list of related products in the parent article. For what it's worth, there are at least a couple sources that are absolutely "niche" reviews, but that claim to have some form of editorial control. Places like Bell of Lost Souls, The Dice Tower, and Diehard GameFan (here reviewing the novelization of this game... because rabbit holes are for going down). No, these aren't the sort of "high quality" sources that get you a passing grade at FAC, but there's no reason they shouldn't suffice for inclusion of a line or two of information about this product (and the spinoff spinoff book!) in a wider-topic article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty non-notable one-off boxed game by GW, and the article reads like a bad copy/paste from the GW advert for it.194.28.127.55 (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge as per Squeamish Ossifrage. BOZ (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer 40,000. Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Fawn

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

Fails pornbio with just nominations and the gng because the two rs in the references are not about her and she is just mentioned, once in each. Further this is a blp vio given unsourced claim of rl identity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no RS beyond passing mentions; fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO as per nom. — Quasar G. 22:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District 102. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 18:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aptakisic Junior High School

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

This Wikipedia article simply lacks notable content. Most junior highs are not deemed notable, and this junior high is no different. Much of the content could have been formatted better (see 'About the School' especially). Of course, this alone could be changed, but much of the content looks as though it were just taken from the school site. There are only four sources, and a lot of uncited information. I am not an exclusionist, and do not generally want to terminate articles on the rationale of notability, but I cannot see how this article is warranted. HarryOtter (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This school is a valued part of its local community, and it would be a shame to see it go. There are numerous articles on this site which may not have the citations on them to warrant notability, but this does not mean they are not notable; it simply means that they need to be "dressed up a bit." This article may be poorly made, but that means it should be improved rather than killed. Simply because the reliable sources and notable information do not lie on this corner of the internet does not necessarily mean that the topic matter is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article; rather, it means that these missing sources should be sought out. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to go through this process after it is clear that the topic matter is not notable, but currently, the faults lie mainly within the article. Only after a search for notability should Aptakisic be brought to the chopping block. Mysterymanblue (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You vote, Mysterymanblue looks more like 'I like it' rather than founded on our criteria for notability. I note that you are very new here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comment on the significance to the local community was less of an argument for keeping the article and more of a lament that it might go, though I have no direct ties to the school in any way, shape, or form. The real argument I pose is rooted in Wikipedia:NEXIST rather than in any sort of sentimental connection to either the article or the school. I am not sure what exactly you are insinuating by noting the age of this account, about three years, but, I can assure you, my comments were both wholehearted and genuine. Mysterymanblue (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been tags on this article for a while and it appears nobody has found anything more notable now. We cannot keep articles on Wikipedia in hopes that they will one day have sources and more content. Would you be open to a redirect to the district page and a section on the school? HarryOtter (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logistically speaking, it seems like augmenting the district page with the content from this article would cause it to be a bit lopsided, especially considering the lack of content on Wikipedia about the other educational institutions appertaining to the district. Mysterymanblue (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well more content could be added. I don't think that would be a big issue. HarryOtter (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced material to Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District 102: We have that article, which can have sections for each school. I'm not convinced that a 2-year school is separately notable from the 4-school district it's in. Every school "is a valued part of its local community"; that doesn't make it separately meet Wikipedia:Notability. --Closeapple (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Should we add Earl Pritchett School to this discussion also? It's a K-4 school in the same district. --Closeapple (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district as per standard accepted treatment for this kind of article. Closer: Redirects are blanked and not deleted. The {{R from school}} template should be added to the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect merge any notable encyclopedic content to school district and redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course to Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District 102 as per standard procedure for non notable schools. Closer: please remember to blank rather than delete, and to add the 'R from school' template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as we do not generally have articles on non diploma granting schools and I see no reason this should be an exception. John from Idegon (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Zimmer

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

There are only two references given 1 is another Wikipedia article and 2nd reference is his own publication Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A35821361 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the current state of the article, appears to meet basic notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY appears to apply. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Polandball

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

I'm just bringing this here because... it's so freaking big I don't know if anyone is going to actually accept a PROD. Basically the most blatant violation of WP:NOTGALLERY I've seen yet. If it was in user space it would be a slam dunk WP:U5, but it ain't. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I think this meets WP:A11. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, it's not invented, not in the sense of A11. It's an "internet thing". See https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/. TimothyJosephWood 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too stupid to argue about. One way or another, it will be gone soon. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nice to look at, but is completely unnecessary and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGALLERY. @Power~enwiki, not sure this meets A11 as it actually is a thing. — Quasar G. 21:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much as I'd love something like "I like it" to be a valid reason to keep something, comments above are completely correct. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary internets cruft; no authority, hence WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more authoritive referencing - random internet thing? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per other comments on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's meme-cruft GretLomborg (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but transwiki to Commons. Unsourced WP:NOTGALLERY. But it is worth noting that it could be transwikified to Commons, where it could exist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOTGALLERY. Ajf773 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - As to transwiki...ing ... (insert words) this pretty much already exists at Commons:Polandball. Although it needs some cleaning up since it looks like it was done by script and the script went all wonky about half way through. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

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

I don't think this essay is notable enough for a standalone. I checked American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement, and while Hofstader appears in the pages cited, it is a different essay about Pseudoconservatism - the essay that is the subject of this article only appears in footnotes. Surely, we are not going to create stand alone articles for every cited paper in a secondary source. I don't think there is enough to establish independent notability for an academic paper. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; easily passes the notability guideline. Consider this New York Times piece alone. It's a very famous essay; maybe not as widely known as Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written around the same time, but related to it. Antandrus (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes General Notability Guidelines Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - and mulloy does specifically reference the book and essay - for example on page 27: "After all, once you know what you're looking for it's easier to categorize subsequent groups, and with this template firmly in place the paranoid style has been regularly applied to whatever far-right groups have subsequently emerged in the United States, often with little regard for the specific circumstances of their emergence or the specific nature of their aims and ideas. As noted at the outset of the chapter, many observers considered thai the New Right and the New Christian Right could be understood by reference to the paranoid style (despite the fact that both were composed of various groups with differing interests and aims), and the disparate elements of the Patriot movement have been categorized by the same analytical token. It is an approach which has been particularly evident in respect of the militia movement, with academics, journalists, "watchdog" agencies, and others readily finding the paranoid style to be at work. Indeed, the extensive and widespread application of Hofstadter's thesis suggests that it has emerged from the Academy to become a stable, if often unexamined, part of American political and cultural discourse. Kenneth Stern speaks for many, it seems, when he argues: 'The political historian Richard Hofstadter, writing in 1965, explained the basic ideological premises that empower America's private armies of the 1990s.' " Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so there is a NY Times opinion piece that Antandrus thinks is enough to pass WP:GNG on its own, and a passage that has the word "paranoid" in it, but does not actually mention this essay by name (because it is talking about his other article Pseudoconservatism) - so synth and an opinion piece. That is a good summary of why I nominated for AfD. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, by ignoring other commentaries? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. An important essay in American political thought. Why people nominate articles like this for deletion remains an eternal mystery. — goethean 22:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly influential work, oft cited and discussed (see e.g. the gBooks and gScholar links above). --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is easily one of Hofstader's most famous works and is clearly encyclopedic. A Google Books search gives me 41 pages of hits and a Google scholar search shows that not only is the original paper and book cited 500+ times, many other papers and scholarly works which seem to directly reference the work are also cited hundreds of times. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable and influential essay cited and/or referenced by academics and other authors in a variety of fields and media. -Location (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. czar 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Underwood

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

A collection of minor credentials; played basketball at the University of Maine, won Miss Maine USA, appeared on Survivor. None of them are sufficient for notability individually. I don't see how the combination makes her a public figure. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are of people whose only claims for notability are winning a state-level beauty pageant and appearing on Survivor:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashley Underwood. I see multiple non-trivial sources covering her in-depth.--TM 23:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the pageant they won where you find their name on a list. This is the standard way we usually handle these very minor celebs. Complies with WP:NOPAGE. As is, she fails WP:ACTOR and WP:MODEL which covers these cases. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - clearly they don't meet WP:GNG, nor as Legacypac points out, do they meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these are redirect candidates, as there's no way to tell whether to redirect to the beauty pageant or the Survivor season. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

then it needs to be delete because two minor entertainment gigs does not = meeting WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all -- insignificant achievements in other areas to warrant stand-alone articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: The subjects are just not notable. Ashley Underwood was a top ten all time scorer for the Black Bears, "won" Miss Maine USA 2009, and was a participant on the Survivor. Any obvious redirect would be to Miss Maine USA. Angelia Layton was a participant on Survivor and won Miss Utah USA 2014. Redirect to that article. Janu Tornell participated on Survivor and "won" Miss Nevada USA 1989. Redirect to that article. Otr500 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: to pages suggested above. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Rebels

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

Does not appear to be a notable music label; a search for coverage in reliable sources found only one promotional shoutout from a media partner. Other hits included false positives for an unrelated music event in Singapore, or for unremarkable music groups with the same name. The claims that its music has been used by the likes of BBC and Channel 4 are only sourced to the label's pages, and not by independent sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, completely unreferenced, and promotional. --Lockley (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not Notable MassiveYR ♠ 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Well

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

Imo a promotional article about a book for which the sources are entirely inadequate for the establishment of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere PROMO. No SIGCOV found in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviews not from reliable sources. Best it's got is this blurb czar 18:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mukul S. Anand. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dus (unfinished film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM plus significance cannot be found. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 12:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mukul S. Anand: Though this wasn't ever completed, let alone released, the film has received some coverage for being the director's last film. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of unfinished or unreleased film articles on here with much less info than there is available for this film. Therefore I think this article should be kept as it was much talked about at the time of its production and is still remembered today for its soundtrack. Shakirfan (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kailash Surendranath. With no opposition to the redirect suggestion post two relistings, I am bent to close this Afd as per Skr's redirect suggestion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love You Hamesha

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

According to IMDB This film hasn't released. Since there is even no source to claim the release in 2001 as it was of 1999? Deletion needed. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the director Kailash Surendranath or maybe May Madham, the film it was a remake of. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Leiden Observatory. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's Chair

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

Fails GNG/CRUFT. Just because a notable person sat in a chair a few times doesn't necessarily make it notable. South Nashua (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Leiden Observatory as already suggested. The chair has enough historical interest for a mention, but not for an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Worth a mention, not worth an article.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge into Leiden Observatory where the structure is currently located. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: into Leiden Observatory. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It must be snowing in Leiden. Let's not hit this dead horse too many times. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sajit Poudel

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support general notability guideline and fails WP:NMODEL. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Strong Delete (TSD). Cannot find anything about this person that isn't self-created, self-published or self-promoted. While they seem to have marked their territory on EVERY single networking and profile site out there on Google, there's nothing independently written and published about them at all out there. Mabalu (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no notability for the subject. Primary sources do not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. Off all the names he could have called himself, he chose to just add 'The' to his name. Bah. Jupitus Smart 17:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putnis

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

Unreferenced and not notable. Searching turns up very little. Fails GNG. MB 17:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything. Maybe some editors from the subcontinent can shed light, searching in other languages. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and completely referenced. A quick google search produced no results relating to this (only unrelated names). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I also cannot find any reference to this dish. I tried going at it sideways, by searching a reference in the Udupi cuisine article. Nothing came up from that Udupi recipe site. Nothing came up in the other searches I tried. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gbooks also only shows this as a surname . Unless someone finds foreign language coverage it falls WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Veterans of War

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

WP:TOOSOON. No notable pro wrestling tag team. It was created just a few months ago HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only coverage is in-universe promotion. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A quick and gentle suggestion to Diako1971, post the consensus comments; perhaps they should give a quick read to our WP:deletion policy and AFDOUTCOMES before nominating other articles. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Theatres

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

This article has been created a long time ago without having any references. Diako ^{« Talk »} 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well the redirect was created long ago and the article today. It needs references but ....PRehse (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You found something in Category:1732 establishments and you decided today that it is not notable? Seriously? Go and find sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my duty to find sources for other articles. The creator of an article must provide sources for it. Diako ^{« Talk »} 07:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sufficient mentions in Google books to indicate notability of this topic. The subject has a well developed ru.wiki article as well: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it is not notable. I nominated it for deletion, because it does not have any sources and the creator of the article has not even made an effort to mention sources for it since 2009. Diako ^{« Talk »} 07:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Then this is a waste of time. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The nominator isn't even claiming it's non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural close. There is no subject specific guideline around club notability. WP:FOOTYN which states clubs are notable if they play in a national competition (and therefore aren't if they dont) is just an essay. Whilst it is an essay regularly cited in individual deletion discussions, I don't think it is appropriate to use here across such a wide number of clubs.

Moreover, this is ultimately a question about GNG and I don't see how a reasoned discussion can be held on so many clubs in one go as there is no clear thread indicating they are all non notable.

This closure does not suggest notability for any of these clubs and any editor should feel they can renominate individually if they feel a club fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Stormers FC

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

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 2

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 5

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 3

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 6

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 6

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 5

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 5

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 6

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 3

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round ?

Centenary Stormers FC doesn't meet the requirements of WP:FOOTYN#Club notability, its best achievement being Preliminary Round 4 of the FFA Cup. The clubs gaining notability through appearance in the FFA Cup are listed in FFA Cup appearances, and those through playing in a fully pro league in A-League (per WP:FPL) - these clubs aren't among them. Cabayi (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The premise of this AfD is wrong: per the policy the nominator just cited and I quote, "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." This is not a presumption of non-notability: it means there needs to be a discussion about the individual notability of those clubs based on the available sources, which you cannot possibly have in a group nomination of 33 different clubs. Incidentally, the nominator doesn't even try to make the case that they don't pass WP:GNG (as the guideline states) - "best achievement FFA Cup Preliminary Round 4" is not a reason for deletion. The nominator should individually relist any clubs he wants to make an actual case for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Drover's Wife summed up my thoughts nicely, but I shall also add that clubs such as Grange Thistle actually competed on a national stage in the NSL Cup back in the day. A lot of these clubs played in the Brisbane Premier League at some point, and were at the second highest flight (or equal top flight prior to 1977) of Australian football. - J man708 (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J man708, Brisbane Premier League isn't listed at WP:FPL and it's current status on the 3rd tier of Australian soccer league system doesn't endow notability on its participants. Cabayi (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My views concur with those stated above by The Drover's Wife and J man708. In addition, three of these clubs have competed in the Australia Cup (national cup competition 1962-1968) - Bardon Latrobe (as Latrobe), Eastern Suburbs (as Merton Rovers) and Oxley United (as itself). Akttns (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akttns, I purposely didn't nominate Oxley United FC because of its participation in the Australia Cup. Neither Eastern Suburbs FC nor Bardon Latrobe FC make any mention of the Australia Cup. If you'd like to add the detail, with source, I'll happily withdraw the nomination for those two. Cabayi (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Without making comments either way on notability, there isn't any way to pull apart so many different cases in one single discussion. I wouldn't oppose some of the lower hanging fruit being nominated in individual discussions, and if those result in "Delete" we can work our way up the tree. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Procedural Keep. for some at least, the articles pre-date the introduction of the FFA Cup (and its preliminary rounds) - such as Kangaroo Point Rovers FC - so for an article that's been on Wikipedia since 2010, how has the notability decreased by introduction of a particular Cup in 2014 to be used as the ?sole criteria for inclusion ? I also agree with the comments above from The Drover's Wife and J man708 in this regard. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayamohithachandran

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

Possibly shelved movie. No indication that the movie completed its shooting. Was supposed to release in 2003, and the last news that I could find about the movie was from 2005, when a source mentioned that the movie has not released yet. For some strange reason the article was made only about a month ago. Anyway fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable content, No coverage 14 years on if the film was completed and released WP:CBALL. FITINDIA 15:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FITINDIA. There's not even enough on this movie to know anything about the plot, either. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Buses in Sydney. Given the redirect suggestion by Pepper (seconded by Aoziwe), and given that there's no evident opposition to the redirect suggestions, I'm closing this Afd as a redirect. Yet, if the nominator or other delete !voters wish the article to be deleted rather than be redirected, feel free to request me on my talk page to reverse the close. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Buses routes

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

Not an appropriate topic for a list article. Bus routes are not a notable subject. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lockley (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buses in Sydney, whose lead section directs users to articles about the type of bus routes they are looking for (these articles already exist). "Pepper" @ 01:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best, to Buses in Sydney. Not a directory, list cruft . . Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Icelandic Expedition

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

Absolutely no sources to indicate significance or importance. Search reveals no coverage by reliable sources either. Coderzombie (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching is somewhat complicated by the existence of a very different British-Icelandic Expedition to Vatnajökull (in 1977, to perform radio echo surveys of subglacial geography), and potentially a third such event in 1981. The 1989 event that is the current article topic is essentially nonexistent in reliable sources. I don't think there's any benefit to conserving the title for the 1977 expedition, either. This Journal of Glaciology article isn't sufficient by far to demonstrate notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though there are some sources in Icelandic for an British-Icelandic Expeditions to Vatnajökull, they are not enough for GNG. Focusing only on Icelandic news published in the same years as the expeditions themselves, two Icelandic sources are about the 1977 expedition and one about the 1989 expedition that the article is about. The 1989 source even contains so little information that it adds nothing to the article.--Snaevar (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we can find a solid source, this cannot stay. With a weak source, a good alternative would be to redirect to Vatnajökull. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge in Vatnajökull — If sources can be found for an entry in Vatnajökull. —Paleo Neonate - 17:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GLOBOsapiens

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

The word GLOBOsapiens is used by various bodies, which makes searching a bit trickier. I can find mentions of their website but no discussion. The article was created by a member. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advocacy & unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Protests against Donald Trump. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Twitter accounts

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

Not notable at all, should not be an article by itself. Mellk (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mellk (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Donald Trump's use of social media~~ Protests against Donald Trump. WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rogue Twitter accounts contains zilch about Donald Trump's use of social media. It's about others' use of social media about him. It's not even about others impersonating his social media accounts, but impersonating accounts of various agencies of his administration. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Finnusertop. Any merge would be to Protests against Donald Trump. jnestorius^(talk) 16:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed that. Ceosad (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename article "Government employee protests against Donald Trump" OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree, because none of those accounts have been verified as "government employees" and are most likely fake. Mellk (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ceosad, article should be Merged with Protests against Donald Trump. CarlDurose (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Zidane

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

Semi-procedural nomination: uncontested PROD, but had previously been PRODed. However, I more or less support the deletion rationale. Appears to fail WP:NFOOTY; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED; no sources demonstrating standalone notability seem to exist. Vanamonde (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Wasn't notable when deleted last time, nothing has happened since then to improve notability. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources given in the article.Whiff of greatness (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG & NFOOTY. Article can always be recreated if and when subject meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced BLP, and no notability. Seagull123 Φ 13:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zinedine Zidane, where Luca is mentioned. He's notable enough to be a plausible search term, but, as others have noted, not notable enough for his own article. There is ample precedent for this at other AFDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shonda Schilling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey), etc. Smartyllama (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY. Disagree that this is a plausible search term. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The National Archives (United Kingdom)#Forgeries discovered in 2005. While the nominator and AllyD prefer deletion, I presume that E.M.Gregory's suggestion, seconded by Kingiron, is a suggestion without opposition; and as the saying goes, redirects are cheap (if any administrator wishes to delete the history of the redirected article, please feel free to do so). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Allen (publicist)

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

Nothing on why he is notable, only source is own book. Fails GNG Killer Moff (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a couple of newspaper sources about the identification of the forged material which had been placed in the Kew archives. I don't see biographical notability as being obtained from that event, nor any wider evidence that could establish notability, whether by WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For me, there is biographical notability, coming from two affairs. Marvoir (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Marvoir (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revise, rename, and keep~~ (changing iVote, see below) Here is a source that puts this guy in a nutshell: [1] He peddles crackpot history sourced to documents he forged and planted in the National Archives. I suppose that we keep but rename the article Martin Allen forgeries. [2], [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, as far as I can see from the Google source, the subject denied any allegation, and The Guardian source indicates that "the Crown Prosecution Service decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, in part because of Allen's deteriorating health" (which indeed is the sum total of biographical information about the subject). I do not see that your suggested name would be appropriate/fair, in the absence of a legally proven responsibility. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen isn't notable independent of the forged documents, if kept the article needs to focus on the forgery [4], [5].E.M.Gregory (talk)

Redirect to The National Archives (United Kingdom)#Forgeries discovered in 2005 No need to merge any of the material form this page. Allen is popular among those who wish to rewrite history so that Nazism is viewed s a positive good. Editors can be innocent dupes of this WP:FRINGE sort of Pseudohistory. Allen and his books became notable only due to the forgeries he created and slipped into file folders in the National Archives. Best to keep this material in The National Archives since any page on Allen or his books will be vulnerable to attempts to make Allen appear to be a reputable scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or REdirect. This is a sub article about a NN author promoting a NN fringe theory. If E.M.Gregory is right that he has been perpetrating a forgery, but interfering with archives, he should not be given the oxygen of publicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 128

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

WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 1 June 2017 (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? 10:37, 1 June 2017 (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? 10:37, 1 June 2017 (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? 10:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant flight that is nowhere near notable enough for its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete Nothing about the article is worth keeping. Sario528 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : WP:NOTNEWS per nom. Coderzombie (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we had an article for every time someone made any kind of threat on a plane, we'd have to start disambiguating titles. Also per everything above. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (creator) This has received significant coverage in sources, [6] [7] , it may set a precedent I am currently expanding on it. Regards. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless this incident leads to a change airline laws/regulations, I don't see this article ever meeting Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Sario528 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guy probably didn't even know he was on an aircraft. Mental healt project might be interested but Aviation is not!--Petebutt (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT definitely apply here as it isn't that notable and since the guy had mental health issues he probably wasn't fully aware of his surroundings and not a proper threat to the flight. Just like the United Airlines flight where the doctor was dragged off, this article was created off news reports without any proper basis or research done into it. Flashjacket348 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, United Express Flight 3411 incident was kept at AfD - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, it happens regularly. Wykx (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the passenger got into the cockpit, that might be notable enough. Otherwise, this just sounds like an average day of the week for that SWAT team. South Nashua (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable bomb threat. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlike the United Airlines doctor-drag-off incident, coverage of this event has died down, even here in Australia. It was news; almost anything these days is news, but a brief flurry of news reports should not be confused with notability. YSSYguy (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Electricity sector in Germany#Transmission network. Mz7 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elbe Crossing 1

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

Non-notable, routine, power-transmission towers. Alsee (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now - I think some work probably needs to be done figuring out the strength of the German sourcs for this and Elbe Crossing 2 and integrating them into the main article, and possibly a merge of the two articles should be performed, but given that this appears to be a large and important piece of infrastructure deleting it seems off. Artw (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a giant electric pole. I see no coverage that isn't WP:MILL. If there are missing German sources, the article on the German Wikipedia can be improved. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followup Comment by nominator: I did an exhaustive search on Elbe_Crossing_2, per my comment on that AFD. My search on Elbe_Crossing_1 was not as exhaustive, however it was pretty clear that Elbe_Crossing_2 is the larger and more significant of the two. Alsee (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electricity_sector_in_Germany#Transmission_network. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed redirect per WP:ATD-R.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is no mention of these towers in Electricity_sector_in_Germany#Transmission_network, so a Redirect is not appropriate. Merge into Elbe Crossing 2. MB 03:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed the AfD on Elbe Crossing 2 as a merge into Elbe Crossing 1, not realizing this article was also at AfD. While I personally think the two articles could be merged, when looking at both AfD's in their totality, my making that decision might be a !supervote. When you look at the two discussions, the best course might be to merge what can be merged from both articles into Electricity_sector_in_Germany#Transmission_network, as per RoySmith's suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed two typos in Onel5969's comment, because mixing up 1 and 2 could be very confusing to any readers in the future. Alsee (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Elbe Crossing 1. While a redirect could be in order, the merge argument makes more sense, combining the two articles, with only the citable material from this one seems the best option. There was only a single weak keep. The alternative to merging would be to delete, but since there is citable material, and the other article already exists, that appears to be the way to go. The only question is after merging, should the target article's name be changed? (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elbe Crossing 2

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

Non-notable, routine, power-transmission towers. Alsee (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searching in German on "Elbekreuzung 2" turns up lots of hits. Elbe Crossing 1/2 appear to be the highest electrical transmission towers in Europe. Someone who reads German may be able to analyze better. 04:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now - I think some work probably needs to be done figuring out the strength of the German sources for this and Elbe Crossing 1 and integrating them into the main article, and possibly a merge of the two articles should be performed, but given that this appears to be a large and important piece of infrastructure deleting it seems off. Artw (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete this is a giant electric pole. The claim of "tallest in Europe" might be enough to keep the article, but that's original research with no citations, and Pylons of Messina are supposedly taller. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followup Comment by nominator: I did an exhaustive search. German Wikipedia doesn't have any sources that we don't already have. Google returns 53 hits for "Elbe Crossing 2" -wikipedia and 119 hits for "Elbekreuzung 2" -wikipedia. I checked them all. Many hits, such as forums and flickr, could be dismissed based search result itself. I often used Google Translate to check foreign language hits. A lot of hits were mirroring Wikipedia (including a scam "book" of repackaged Wikipedia articles), sites with personal photos, forums, indiscriminate map/database sites, etc. There was exactly one meaningful result:[8] Some adrenaline-junkie climbed it, getting covered in the local newspaper. A 100% exhaustive internet search turned up one kinda-lame local source. Alsee (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electricity_sector_in_Germany#Transmission_network. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed redirect per WP:ATD-R.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The two Elbe Crossing articles into one, maybe? Gatemansgc (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced there's enough in the two articles combined to justify a stand alone merged article, but certainly a merge would be better than keeping both. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is no mention of these towers in Electricity_sector_in_Germany#Transmission_network, so a Redirect is not appropriate. Merge with Elbe Crossing 1. MB 03:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Sparks (band)

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

Was dePRODed. Concern was: Fleeting mentions, social media, and YouTube are all this band provides as sources. Fails at WP:BAND. The social media sources have been removed and the article continues to be expanded but still fails to meet WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources added are substantive. Some generic event participation, a battle of the bands article, and what appears to be fan-generated content. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and therefore does not pass WP:GNG. No indication passes any of the prongs under WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are either self-published or passing mentions. A search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:NBAND. Narky Blert (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Barrett (businessman)

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

Does not seem to meet the requirements for notability. darthbunk pakt dunft 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are 1) his alma mater, 2) some random website, and 3) PR Web. Need I say more? Bearian (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of proper consideration, I should note that I deleted a use of a slightly-better reference, because it did not actually contain the material that it was being placed as a reference to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nom. and per NatGertler Coderzombie (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basanta Dhakal

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

Non-notable musician lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has not won any notable award or produced any notable work. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a WP:BLP with no reliable sources: a whole bunch of blogs, social media, and a dead link to MTV redirecting to its main page. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, thanks @Piotrus:--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janina Goss

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

Whereas the person might be notable (apparently she is someone who has no profession but has influence on the Polish prime minister), all sources I can find are in Polish, I can not write an article, and what we have now is not really at the Wikipedia standards. Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The stub was atrocious, I've expanded it. Clearly notable given recurring media coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel El-Aurassi

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

fails WP:CORP. could find no significant indepth coverage. Arabic version of this article only has one source. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a travel guide to include every unremarkable hotel. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non notable hotel. Ajf773 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request. Hut 8.5 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Primary School

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

The article doesn't even mention the town or city of the school. Not as single line written Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Fife (as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but there is no distinct article on Fife Council and its services). Nothing found to indicate that this primary school serving the village of Leslie, Fife is notable. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cöln-Frechener Strassenbahn BENZELRATH

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

Unremarkable individual locomotive. Fails GNG. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable does not apply, as this is not about a person/event/group/music. Fails GNG: not the case. Sufficient material is available for an article. Although the arguments are void, I do agree that deletion in this case is possible, as the article could be combined with another article of a closely related locomotive, although these are not of the same type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonsvr (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG applies to all articles on Wikipedia, including companies, things, concepts, philosophies, buildings, etc. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is about a individual train locomotive, not a class or model. It was used from 1904 to 1924. There's no claim of notability. Not a candidate for WP:A7 speedy deletion due to technicalities, but it can be deleted in AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was speedily deleted by Hadal at 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Surfer sues surfer over wave

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

This does not appear suitable for Wikipedia per NOTNEWS. TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this article is borderline-nonsense. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why the PROD tag was removed but in any case Wikipedia is not a news outlet.. Pichpich (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pichpich The prod tag was removed by Twinkle when I nominated for AfD. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get that but why not simply leave the PROD tag if you think the article should be deleted? Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:A7: no credible claim of significance or importance. TJRC (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. Ajf773 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think we can speedy-delete this as A7. That criterion makes no mention of unimportant lawsuits or unimportant pieces of news. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been speedy deleted anyway... Right outcome, wrong rationale but hey, this AfD was clearly leading to deletion anyways. Pichpich (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the A7 template, as this was the obvious outcome. Shouldn't have even bothered with the PROD or AFD. If you think an article warrants CSD, don't debate it, just add the tag. Be bold. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Dlohcierekim at 03:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure).

HannahCasey

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

See WP:UPANDCOMING. No independent reliable sources are given for the subject, but sources that will list everyone. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable at the present time. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of any sources to bring her near WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not currently notable by WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR guidelines. Mistbreeze (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I have nominated this article for A7, which was accepted by Dlohcierekim at 03:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) so closing now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In this close, I've additionally considered Iloilo Wanderer's comments as tending towards keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Alliance of the Philippines

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

Written like a advertisement, also possibly unnotable. PROD contested. —JJ Be rs 04:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sounds like an advertisement? What specific wording do you disagree with? It is a stub and therefore still short.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. One of the most important dailies -- if not THE most important -- in the country calls it "biggest group of sugar planters and millers nationwide", and this is in one of the leading sugar producers in the world. How can the leading industry group of a leading industry not be notable? Especially an industry that has had and continues to have such an impact over such a big country. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG.--RioHondo (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RioHondo. Nominator may have misunderstood the prose as advertising or possibly, loaded language, ~~but look up for covert advertising, that can be cleaned.~~ Just clean this up if the issue is with puffery, though the claims are by media. Article is a stub, and expansion is a better solution than deletion. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JetHead

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

Everything substantial in this article was written by the company. It's been tagged for multiple issues for some six years now. There are no links to it, and no sources whatsoever. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam and Google searches are finding nothing better than routine listings and announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Internships

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

Hi! I have nominated this article for deletion as the subject seems to be too specific (there is nothing particularly special about psychology internships as opposed to all the other internships) plus the article itself just seems to express a lot of subjective thoughts about psychology internships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzuki Tamagotchi (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as somewhere between a how-to guide and an essay. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - as with curates, there could be a decent article here. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - agrees with nominator, subject specific and nothing differentiates this from other internships. Also article format is non standard.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the text is general to Internship as such, and adds nothing that appears worthy of merging into that article. Much of the remainder is locale-specific (student cohort size, organisation acronyms) and the "Future solutions" section is propositional, not appropriate here. AllyD (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gandour

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

Only one Wikipedia article links to this one. There *might* be one article on Google that can be used for a reference. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided because it seems a 158-year-old company should have more reliable sources than a quick search finds. This one reads more like a press release. And I'm not finding any others. Do we have a systemic bias issue limiting the availability of sources? I was sure I'd find a book or two mentioning a company of that age, but because I am limited to searching in English by my elementary abilities in other languages (and total lack of fluency in Arabic), I find nothing. So I lean toward deletion, but I'm not sure yet. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- entirely self-cited & no indications of notability or significance. I was not able to locate coverage that discusses the topic directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Gave Me Love (When Nobody Gave Me a Prayer)

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

Non charting studio album that has not received substantial secondary coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The album won a Grammy in 1980, which would make it pass WP:MUSIC. While this album needs more sources, this is a start. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more productive to redirect this page? There is no significant coverage to make this any more than a track listing. I can add a sentence or two about the album winning a Grammy since that is noteworthy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a Billboard chart for the album to the article. There's also a source that said that the album went platinum, but I need to check. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Won a Grammy. And not in some weaselly-way, where the third sound-mixer's assistant on a Grammy-winning album claims to be "Grammy-winning". This is an album that, as an album, won a Grammy. In a lower-profile category that gets less media attention, yes. And so it's probably always going to be a stub article, but stubs aren't necessarily bad things. Additionally, the snippet-viewable Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music appears to have something to say about it, and I expect that's not the only Christian-literature source to address the work (that genre, especially the periodicals, is very poorly represented in searchable resources online), although the award is sufficient that the vaunted "sources that must exist" needn't be conjured to demonstrate notability here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to have seen this become a keep then redirect so content could be used to make a better musician article but I support consensus. Next time I will look more at NMUSIC than the bull of sources to determine notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Ristevski

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

This person was not notable in her own right and her murder does not appear to be either. Grahame (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:VICTIM. and this trumps significant coverage in the case of murders. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having no notability in her own right. There was certainly a level of coverage around her disappearance/murder which may qualify as notability, but that's an argument for another day and another hypothetical article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not notable, per WP:BLP1E etc. The alternative would be to move and repurpose as an article on the murder, but Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't have an article on every murder. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT suggest only keeping where an event has lasting significance or a wider effect, and this would be shown by things like international coverage or lasting historical coverage beyond the immediate event. While tragic, as every death is, there's no indication that it meets these requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The death received coverage as far as the UK and the ongoing investigation shows the likelihood of murder or foul play. Considering the family owned several failing businesses, plus the money from Ristevski's inheritance of a will that was split between her and her husband (who is the prime suspect), it seems as though it could become quite a high profile case. I think as it develops, it should stay. It has received enough attention in Australia and is reminiscent of the 2012 murder of Allison Baden-Clay in Queensland. The issue is, because this case probably will progress (if the Australian judicial system knows what it's doing) then I have no doubt if it is deleted now someone will start it again once a court case is opened. Ashton 29 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And besides which, if the court case becomes reason for notability (NB: the Baden-Clay case appears to have established some level of precedent regarding how criminal cases should be prosecuted and defended in this country, so this one's got a bit of a way to go before that), there's never an obstacle to recreating the article then. The fact that the husband is the prime suspect and has been a beneficiary of a family legacy is - sadly - not an overly distinctive thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:VICTIM. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss U.S. International 2017

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

Non-notable pageant events, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. This pageant has not achieved a level of notability to support individual event articles. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Zero evidence of notability. This appears to be a scam, with an entry fee of $595.00 and a prize consisting of "Rhinestone trimmed Sash and Crown (a $300.00 value)" for the one person who wins.[9] The person who created all of these pages is a very active sockpuppeteer; See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova/Archive. We should also MfD Template:Miss U.S. International. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: As much as there might be someone that might want to keep the articles a criteria for inclusion is the notability of the subject. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.". On WP:BLP's editors are to avoid misuse of primary sources. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". Otr500 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are these related to Miss U.S. International? And either way, why wouldn't these titles make for useful redirects? czar 20:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as spam & promotional campaign. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Pradip Chaudhuri

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and it's a bit WP:PROMO also in my personal opinion I feel that to circumvent the salted title Kali Chaudhuri Pradip was added to it. FITINDIA 17:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:GNG. Agree with Fitindia. This seems like a way to get around WP:SALT on the previous page. This should be salted too. Coderzombie (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Control: Origins

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

WP:TOOSOON Meatsgains (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis game is scheduled for release this year - meaning within seven months. It was announced years ago. It is not uncommon for games to have articles even a year before release. Traveurysm (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Traveurysm[reply]
This article covers a sequel in a widely-distributed game franchise, being published by a well-established game studio. Traveurysm (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Traveurysm[reply]
All other games in the franchise - and the franchise itself - have articles. Traveurysm (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Traveurysm[reply]
The articles has 4 citations, however I have not yet been able to remove the Citiations Needed tag because I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia. Traveurysm (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Traveurysm[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Google News shows plenty of coverage into the gameplay and development of the game from many RSes. It needs to be included, obviously, but it is there. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also a keep: WP:VGRS search pops up at least a dozen announcement articles, an interview, and a longform preview, sufficient to indicate notability. There might be a reasonable argument this could be merged to one or another of the articles on another of the video games in the series, but I don't think that's necessary here. --Izno (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability -- more than is usual for a prerelease game. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Filmed Your Death

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources per WP:GNG. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Only source is the production companies website and I cannot find significant secondary mentions. MarnetteD|Talk 22:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This film has not been reviewed because it has not yet been released. It was an independent production so it has not been mentioned in the Trades. Would love a secondary source to verify the authenticity of this film if anyone can help?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelluthor21 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now has 2 references outside of production company website if those work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelluthor21 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON; possibly a Speedy Delete candidate. No amount of references will save this article. Wikipedia is not intended for promotion; this film has a negligible budget and is being released by a new production studio. It is impossible for it to be notable before it is released. The sources as it stands make it impossible to even determine if this is a hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the references it is clearly not a hoax. The film stars Michael Horse and Peter Tork from the Monkees, verifiable by IMDB. Minor budgets mean nothing when it comes to independent film releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelluthor21 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a WP:Reliable source, unfortunately: more info at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like technically this page might not qualify yet then unless someone could help out with another source besides the production company website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelluthor21 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 2 sources listed.Lionelluthor21 (talk)Lionelluthor21 —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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