Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 October	7 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo CarShare

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

WP:N. There is no reason given as to how this carshare was notable before or after it went out of business. The incorrectly formatted infobox mentions that it had only 4 employees at the time it shutdown and does not have any mention of how many cars were in it's fleet or even what company it dissolved into. - Vanstrat (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Vanstrat (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and since it’s purportedly defunct it’s unlikely it ever will be. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject is not notable enough for wikipedia Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Lifeisstudyinghard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete the Whole activity of firm is vague and obviously its not a notable article for WP Dave linc (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Dave linc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. It obvious that this is going to be a keep, there is one good source, It is a known brand, that is plenty good enough. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 21:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilla

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kindly focus on sourcing it, rather than rehasing the pointless argument of: theres endless mentions, its super famous and everyone eats them!!. Dysklyver 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided (or located) establish notability for the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensive coverage in the NYT [1] Washington Post [2], also for good measure a business ethics book [3]. Those all cover the brand as a brand advertising campaign. This isn't counting the countless references in every print newspaper and cookbook/book on the history of food in the United States. The two from WaPo and NYT are enough to establish notability under CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, and GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick critic of those sources, even if two sources was even vaguely close to passing GNG, which it isn't, you still only have supplied one usable source.

[4] [5] this is a fairly extensive look at the brands social media presence in a NY times article and a wapo article which picks up the story.

[6] Law and Ethics in the Business Environment By Terry Halbert, Elaine Ingulli. Literally a single sentence in a textbook that mentions 12 other brands on the same page.

Dysklyver 11:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece is an extensive look at Nilla as a case study for new marketing techniques, and was the article that the WaPo story was commenting on. Extensive coverage in the NYT or any paper of record for any country creates a strong presumption of notability because those stories are likely going to be picked up and further commented on independently by other news organizations, both national and local, and we see that in this case with WaPo picking it up. The business ethics book is a short mention but it is used as an example of marketing campaigns along with a list of other cultural icons. That says a lot because it is assuming everyone who reads it will instantly recognize it. PMC also provided sourcing in article from a paper in a major US city. We should keep this or any article about culturally iconic food brands from any country. As I mentioned there are plenty of sources available for this in quite literally every US newspaper. I just chose to list the two most important papers in the US because generally everyone agrees that coverage by the NYT and WaPo meets inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent source-finding by Tony. I have also added a source to the article and will be returning with more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural prevalence of Nilla wafers, being used as a skin tone descriptor: [7]. A psych study that used Nilla wafers to study packaging preferences [8] ("labels used by the three brands in the US (blue background with white type for Oreo, yellow background with red type for Nilla Wafers, and red..."). Nilla wafers are apparently commonly used "for oral administration to mice and rats" in scientific experiments: [9][10].

Oh, and Dysklyver, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that Nilla is not mentioned in the NYTimes article, given that the article contains a section titled "Lesson of the Nilla Wafers". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above sources. And note that nominating three related products within six minutes of each other ([11], [12], [13]) casts serious doubts as to whether the nominator is even attempting to do any WP:BEFORE whatsoever, and starts to look an awful lot like nominating to prove a WP:POINT. GMG ^talk 13:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So basically this is going straight down the path I thought it would. Arguing fame/cultural significance, usage as a word, usage in popular culture, and other unsubstantial claims. No-one is arguing they are culturally insignificant, I have no doubt 50 million Americans like eating them. 'it fails WP:GNG' is the issue raised, how difficult is it to find three articles about Nilla wafers if they are so goddam ubiquitous? There is no presumption that it notable just because it has a section in a NY Times article. (also I made an error in my original statement, the Washington post article is a republication/pickup of the NY Times article, which is based on a statement from an advertising agency which works for Nilla - not that it is barely mentioned which is what I previously said (and based on a faulty search tool), Sorry.) although you can't build an article with this source alone, I look forward to something else. Dysklyver 14:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the above sources. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:44, 7 October 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} 02:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and World Affairs Center of Evanston

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

Little indication from source searches of coverage from reliable, third-party sources, or that the group had any significant impact on the public perception of Vietnam, thus failing WP:NORG and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 21:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing except a local publication, which is what one would expect. I'd even consider this a speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I did, it was declined. DrStrauss talk 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some references have been added. Therefore please don't delete. Jidanni (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a participant (born 1931) and she said:

Hi there, Good of you to find it and put it on. And the documentation that Wiki claims it needs -- can be found in the local newspaper, the Evanston Review which during the history and activities of the Evanston Peace Center had news articles about it. The draft counseling service was very active, also used by Northwestern Univ. Students and others, also served as a meeting venue for various peace groups. Had a pretty extensive library of current at the time newspapers and periodicals, a reading room staffed continuously. For support the Peace Center sold UNICEF Christmas cards, all year round.

Annette Jacobson

So we will continue to drag up more evidence. I personally remember Jane Fonda came to Evanston and taught me the words Ha Binh which means peace in Vietnamese during that period... Jidanni (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Peace_and_World_Affairs_Center_of_Evanston additional quotes. Jidanni (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>> "M" == Annette Jacobson {{redact}} writes:

M> So is Wikipedia really a disappointment? That's good to know because
M> since I haven't contributed to them yet, I was thinking of adding a
M> thousand dollars for them in
M> my will. If you say so, I won't do it. Please advise.

M> L,m

Dear Mom, consider instead https://archive.org/donate/ ,
which stores all the Wikipedia articles that have been deleted.

Jidanni (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument boils down to "keep my article because we'll give you cash". I'm not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation but their key principles put the integrity of the encyclopedia above monetary gain. Either way, we're in no position to advise you as to where your mother should donate her money but it will have no effect on the outcome of this AfD. DrStrauss talk 21:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can read it any way you want but I told her to keep her cash regardless of your decision. Jidanni (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see any significant coverage about this topic and I see nothing in the article that indicates notability.Sandals1 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
xommwnr the local material mentioned above, is exactly the sort of material which does not show that the subject belongs in a general encycopedia . Local references to local organizartions do not not show discriminating coverage. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I know you said on your userpage that you're not a good typist and that we're free to correct any mistakes (I tend not to do that to anyone out of courtesy) but is your vote a delete? DrStrauss talk 20:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Just realised it says comment but shifted characters plus a delete vote has already been given.[reply]

Delete - ordinary local charity. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 14 October 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 Nabisco. The history is preserved for any editor who may want to perform a selective merger. (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nutter Butter

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

fails WP:GNG/cant find any significant in depth coverage. Dysklyver 21:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is short and should be deleted soon SparkyHelper (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nabisco per WP:ATD-R – Can't find any significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources that are independent of the subject (See here and here). J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Nabisco or List of cookies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Accuracy it could be more accurate if redirecting to Nabisco Dave linc (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Dave linc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) Kagundu Talk To Me 13:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triscuit

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

Fails WP:GNG despite editors being affected by its ad campaign. Dysklyver 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

despite editors being affected by its ad campaign Uh, can you clarify this vague assumption of bad faith? Are you suggesting an undisclosed COI? If so, which editors do you suggest are involved? Additionally, can you clarify your WP:BEFORE search? Because I've spent about five minutes looking and found several books. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um this?... "I'm going with a Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep, on account of a huge advertising campaign ("Don't forget the Triscuit!"), millions upon millions of boxes of these things sold annually, scads of these things on my local supermarket's shelves, and many and sundry other reasons too numerous to list. In short, Triscuits are many things, but they are certainly not non-notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 8:21 pm, 13 May 2007, Sunday (10 years, 4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−4)" perhaps you disagree but subconscious inluence does not equal bad faith, I am not accusing anyone of bad faith. Dysklyver 10:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Argument "fails GNG" weightless in the absence of a BEFORE search. I searched for about five minutes and have already found lots of interesting sources: Utopian Images and Narratives in Advertising: Dreams for Sale, UnMarketing: Stop Marketing. Start Engaging, The Blueprint for Strategic Advertising (all re: the marketing of Triscuits), Niagara Falls (history of Triscuits), Food: A Love Story (memoir by notable comic Jim Gaffigan discussing devotion to eating Triscuits). I bet I could find more but I've made my point for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – An option is to merge to Cracker (food). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in a wide variety of extensive secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly appears to meet GNG based on sourcing, and arguments already mentioned.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep need to more expanding though revise by unanimous of reviewers and editorsDave linc (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Dave linc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep plenty of coverage, as demonstrated above. While I don't think these are particularly tasty, that has no impact on notability. Lepricavark (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anybody actually likes eating Triscuits. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:14, 12 October 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheat Thins

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

fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 21:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[14] [15] NY Times articles - a good source focusing on whether they are crackers or not.

[16] Creative Strategy in Advertising, By Bonnie L. Drewniany, A. Jerome Jewler. Only two paragraphs here as an example in a college coursebook, I don't think this is significant coverage.

[17] Unforunatly this is only a passing mention in an article about crackers and chips in general referring to many other brands.

[18] Buzzfeed article, I am dubious that buzzfeed is being mentioned, I rank it with the Daily Mail as unreliable sensationalism, to only be used in a situation of dire lack of better sources.

Dysklyver 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two extensive articles in the New York Times is more than enough to establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with the fact this may be notable, but you should perhaps re-read WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources" - the NY times articles are the same 'source' as they are from the same orgainsation, so you should actually include one of the others as well for your argument. Notability is simply a test to show verifiability, no original research and NPOV, if you think it is something else, like how important something is, then go and read WP:WHYN. Dysklyver 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An idea is to merge to Cracker (food) as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enormous amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly appears to meet GNG based on sourcing, and arguments already mentioned.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than enough coverage in reliable sources. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable based on sources Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Lifeisstudyinghard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – Meets GNG. Source examples: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, see above. Carrite (talk) 13:06, 11 October 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. From my reading of the discussion, I think the consensus is that meeting a sub-guideline for notability like WP:NCRIC is insufficient without any reliably sourced biographical information. A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Amaranath

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

This biography of a living person (probably) is insufficiently referenced since 2009. It fails WP:V; it has no inline citations. It appears cricketarchive is a primary source. One appearance fails WP:BLP1E. For a person whose first name is unknown, WP:NODEADLINE is being stretched; it appears NEVER. Rhadow (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rhadow, CricketArchive is NOT a primary source and there can be no possible basis for suggesting it might be. Your comment is misleading. I also suggest that you calm down and show respect for WP:NODEADLINE. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking reliable sources means it fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If the person cannot even be reliably identified then as a topic he or she falls short of notability guidelines and WP:V a core content policy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles need to have secondary sources. This article essentially violates the principals of no original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we simply don't know enough about the chap and I am unconvinced that notability can be established through sufficiently detailed, non-routine secondary sources. It's possible that this may be doable through Sinhalese press sources or the archives of Singha CC, in which case I would be perfectly happy for someone to re-create the page. I feel the chances that suitable sources will be found within a reasonable timeframe to be unlikely however - based on a lack of biographical detail about the chap (full name, date of birth etc...) - and his CricInfo profile tells us only that he played his single first-class match a wicket-keeper as additional information; as a result, on judgement, this should be deleted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough verifiable information, can be recreated if sources are found Atlantic306 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of Singha Sports Club cricketers, if such a thing exists. Otherwise delete. As Steve Quinn says, and as I've been saying for years, biographical articles based on sourcing so insignificant that the subject can't be reliably identified, are more trouble than they're worth. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has consistently been held that a single appearance at the highest level of a sport is sufficient for WP:N. The correct interpretation of "presumed" in WP is that it is considered to be the case, unless there is evidence to the contrary, for presumed notability to mean the subject is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. In this case, no one has presented any evidence suggesting that the subject is not notable, given that he has played cricket at the highest level and meets WP:CRIN (see WP:NCRIC in WP:NSPORTS). Furthermore, there have been several precedents in which subjects like this one have been kept or where no consensus has been ruled (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination)).

For those with their own interpretation of WP:GNG, the introduction to that guideline states unequivocally: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the WP:NOT policy". "Either...or..." means what it says and WP:NSPORTS is one of the listed SSG. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has, rightly, been tagged for lack of inline citations and that is the only thing needed. AfD is a knee-jerk response. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still does not meet our general notability guideline. We should not have to dig around in original research just to confirm this person's existence. BLPs deserve higher quality than this. Obviously, these articles are not "consistently" kept and copy-and-pasting the same exact argument across cricket-based AfDs does not make it any more compelling.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm coming at this from discussions on notability guidelines elsewhere, but has there been a proper attempt to find offline sources per WP:BEFORE? This article does meet the presumed notability set by NSPORT, and thus appropriate for a stand-alone. But the nom or those !voting delete should be discussing their lack of ability to show that no other sourcing exists, not just what the current state of sourcing is. I'm inclined to believe there is little (region + only played one game), but there is a process set forth by WP:BEFORE that hasn't been followed that I can tell. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this. I can confirm that I've carried out part D.1 of BEFORE - I did it previously and have just repeated it with some other search terms. That's the minimum that can be expected. GBooks in particular doesn't come up with anything remotely helpful for searches such as Amaranath Singha Sports Club or Amaranath cricket singha. If there were a greater number of games played and/or seasons played in then I think I'd be happy to presume Sinhalese sources might exist; if we knew anything other than a surname and initial I might do likewise. In this situation, where we just don't have very much verifiable information about the bloke, it's very difficult to source anything much beyond that - and I'm not sure which part of BEFORE suggests that offline sources must be used fwiw. I'm not convinced that effective sources exist in cases like this (where so little is known about the subject) - certainly I can find no reference to book sources that might deal with Sri Lankan domestic cricket in 1992 or 1993 beyond one that's made up of Wikipedia articles... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea with offline sources here is that this person played in 1992-1993, before the Internet and Google were "a thing". Google and other search engines are slowly backfilling paper references but they are not there yet. As such, I would expect a reasonable BEFORE search to include a search of local/regional newspapers and magazines to see if there is anything else. If this person had played in 2002-2003, a decade later, I would fully agree a lack of online hits likely indicates no sourcing exists. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Masem: Oh, I understand that, which is why a GBooks search is important to do. I've looked at what limited other resources I can fine - both printed and e-Book. As I say, if it's a someone with 20 appearances over three seasons then I think it's reasonable to assume that we'd find something useful in written sources - in this case I think we've probably gone beyond what's strictly necessary and probably, without going into Sinhalese sources, exhausted the routes open to us. It's notable, perhaps, as well that Sinhalese wikipedia has nothing else to add on the subject of the article under discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to suitable target. @Dee03:, @TheGracefulSlick:, @Johnpacklambert:, @Steve Quinn:, @Rhadow:, @Blue Square Thing: Why not have a list something like that List_of_minor_planets:_316001–317000#084 for cricket biographies and redirect them there than discussing every single of them waisting a lot of time and energy. There are tens of thousands of cricket biographies and we can't discuss every single of them. We should devise an alternate guidelines or methodology which we can follow directly without need for lengthy discussions. Hope, we will have consensus. This is more likely to be deleted as current situation suggests. I don't think we will able to find any alternative way for these database entries. I tried but no such consensus developed. Fails WP:GNG as simple. Greenbörg (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As @Reyk: suggests above, merging (I would suggest there's so little content that redirecting might be more sensible) to a list of Singha Sports Club cricketers might be sensible. I don't think such a list exists in this case, although it's one that could be created. That way once suitable sources were found the article might be developed. There's also the possibility of an article such as List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, But this is not a long term solution. We can't redirect when a cricketer has played for multiple cricket teams. Then, also we will lose the information about his full name, when he was born, for which team he played and so on. Rhadow solution is workable one and therefore I agree with him. Greenbörg (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbörg: I'm not sure that any of the players we'd want to include would have played for multiple teams, would they? Primarily we're looking at players without a known given name with one appearance? You can try the suggestion if you like, but I have a feeling the name of the article might cause some problems - lesser known is subjective and requires interpretation. I'd recommend one similar to the MLB article above which has a title which is clearly objective. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - More likely the title should say single appearance or without press coverage. The first initial is an indicator, but not a predictor, of no press coverage. The underlying problem is the definition of notable. In the West Indies, a player is either a club player or an international player. There isn't national level play. Rhadow (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Perhaps List of lesser-known Sri-Lankan cricketers, which could include the paragraph summing up the score card. That way we don't lose the work the fans have put into the articles, which do not have sufficient references to achieve WP:GNG on their own. Redirect each as it is discovered, without dramatic discussion. Rhadow (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: Perfect. In this case, we can have a list like List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers: A and put the content of a lesser-known cricketer whose surname starts with A there with a section to his name. This way we will have his name in the categories, other lists for the teams he played and later can have a stand-alone article when we have multiple sources. Greenbörg (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal is accepted, we can REFUND the following, MERGE the paragraph and reference to List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers, and leave the original article as A REDIRECT. I may need some help with the MERGE so we retain ten years history. Rhadow (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
U. Hettiarachchi
P. de Silva
U. Chandana ‎
J. Aponso
B. Abeywickreme ‎
D. Abeyasekera
J. Bandujeewa

You cannot be serious with this proposal. Who gets to decide who is "lesser-known"? Lesser known to whom? You can't change the title to single appearance because there are plenty of players in many sports who made only one appearance but who are fully deserving of articles and whose articles are more formed. You can't use without press coverage because you're making a presumption that Sri Lankan newspaper coverage of cricket and cricketers is either absent or less than that of, say, US college baseball players: I'd agree that, for me at least, it's less accessible, but I don't presume to know whether it's non-existent. You seem to want to create a new article that no one will ever look for merely for the satisfaction of deleting an article that, while inadequate, does at least serve a purpose. I thought we were here to create an encyclopedia, which is inherently in a perpetual state of unfinishedness, not a mausoleum-style filing system, with everything tidied up in an immutably deadly fashion. Johnlp (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm tickled by the fact that since I recently removed all my created articles from my watchlist, I never saw these seven articles being deleted. Not complaining, just tickled. This is precisely my problem with randomly deciding to delete some cricketers who clearly reach WP:CRIN and not others. If people simply stuck to brightline criteria this would not happen. If people really wanted to create an article called Cricketers nobody has heard of therefore delete omg wtf bbq, then this is fair enough. If people could do such a simple thing as sticking to brightline criteria, none of these debates would happen. As John says, the primary aim here is of creating an encyclopedia - and if we are deleting articles willy nilly, then a policy as painfully simple as NPOV, is served up as worthless, and renders the job of people who actually care about the project, as worthless. Bobo . 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the above, it'll not surprise that I vote to keep. No, this isn't a satisfactory article, but the presumption has to be that it can be made satisfactory at some stage with more information. Meanwhile, why not flag it with a category for "Sri Lankan cricketers with incomplete names", draw the category to the attention of Sri Lankan editors with access to non-English sources, and see what that might produce? Johnlp (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SNGs allow for the presumption of notability so we don't CSD or PROD-tag them too hastily, but ultimately the person must pass GNG. Multiple RFCs have confirmed this. One statistical entry on Cricket Archive, especially an incomplete entry, and no in-depth sources, is simply not enough to pass GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone who knows a single thing about cricket could easily add a second. WP:ONESOURCE has become a very contentious issue recently but where cricket articles are concerned, this is a painfully easy problem to fix. Why didn't I do it at the time? Force of habit. Sorry. Bobo . 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The presumption of notability based on what? There is nothing to base any presumption on. Someone noted the paywall reference is incomplete. So the only reference, which is arguably a primary reference being closely associated with the sport, is also incomplete. And thank you PMC for showing how SNGs rely on GNG. SNGs are not a free pass. Common sense is also a guide in this situation, which tells me what is lacking about this subject, and that is in-depth sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The presumption of notability is based on WP:NCRIC, which presumes notability for cricket players who have appeared in first-class or List A cricket, as defined by the international authorities. SNGs should assist the GNG but they do not "rely" on it; they enable the input of subject specialists into the generality of the GNG to create some kind of equivalence between different areas of notability. WP:NCRIC, like several other sports SNGs, sets a threshold that is easily verified and enforced, and Amaranath meets it. This article's problem is incompleteness, not non-notability. Johnlp (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, it has not been determined what the subject has "appeared" in, nor for how long. More reliable sources are needed for verification, per WP:NRV. Was it like five minutes this person appeared, was it ten minutes? This is not an either/ or situation - and that SNG is not there to take the place of GNG. Nor does it take the place of "Applicable policies and guidelines" on the NSPORTS page:

...Standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements This article does not meet the more stringent requirements of WP:BLP. It is far from it.

Also Basic criteria says, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published; non-trivial; secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion... It says "likey" which also means "maybe" or "possibly". But the main theme is the need for high quality independent reliable sources, not some paltry statistic board or score card.

This tunes me in to look for indications of notability. If there are no indicators then appropriate action needs to happen. Also, it keeps me from CSDing the article or PRODing the article. Indeed, this article is at a very low standard pertaining to sourcing, far below what Wikipedia strives for. There is no indication that better sourcing for verification of notability is available per WP:NRV. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hold on a cotton pickin' second (best possible hillbilly voice). I have an alternate theory. Perhaps the entire problem is that some people (as above) consider Cricket Archive and Cricinfo to be primary sources which have some (internal) connection to the sport. (This is certainly a possibility based on at least one comment above). Is there any need to provide evidence to the people that these databases are in fact independent of anything to do with the sport and yet still have statistical and editorial credence (independent of each other)?

@Rhadow:, I hope you know I mean no harm by this query. But we all know that it is CA and CI which are predominantly quoted on the site as references. Bobo . 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- It's 1989, so I bet this is how statistics work in Singha: a statistician uses Lotus 123 and creates a package for the game. He prints it out and mails it to Colombo. Every player is listed by surname, first initial. A couple of times during the season, someone in Colombo photocopies the stack of papers and sends it to CricketArchive, or wherever. Eventually someone keypunches it all into a crude database. For better known players, the first initial gets translated into a name. For the cricketers with one appearance, the initial is all they have to go on. No birth date, nothing. It's not as if CA or CI sent someone to Singha or Galle to collect stats or act as sporting press. Both are working with the same raw material. As long as the transcription was error free, they will agree. The data form may have changed, but fundamentally the score cards are a copy of a copy of the primary source. Rhadow (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why there is a need for multiple reliable sources independent of the subject so notability can be definitively verified. Cricket players do not get a free pass. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seeing these discussions centring round Sri Lankan players with no forename or DoB, I ultimately see no difference between them and players from other countries where CricketArchive and Cricinfo do have these rudimentary pieces of information (and nothing else). The only difference is the data collection that Cricket Archive rely on is slightly better, the notability or otherwise of the 2 players is the same. Does anyone actually know how cross-referenced the 2 databases are? If they are both using the same source of information (or if one copies from the other) then should they ultimately be considered one source? Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 12 October 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. It obvious that it is totally irrelevant whether this meets WP:GNG or not, it is, as I am told "an iconic American brand" therefore there is no purpose served by dragging this out any longer that I have already. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 21:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Ahoy!

AfDs for this article:

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

not notable, a promotional article about a particular brand of Chocolate chip cookies with no obvious reason to include it in an encyclopedia. fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Dysklyver 20:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WHAAAATTT!!!!!, how could chips ahoy! be up for deletion? they are about the tastiest bikkies out there, surely they meet WP:YUMMY? oh drat, don't we have such a policy..... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in e.g. Fast Food and Junk Food: An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, Volume 1, also 2, 3 etc.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[24] Fast Food and Junk Food, An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, by Andrew F. Smith. possibly a good source, Pontificalibus should give the page numbers from his copy though since it isn't available online.

[25] The Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Book: Scrumptious Recipes and Fabled History From Toll House to Cookie Cake PieCountryman Press/W.W. Norton. I have no opinion on whether this book is a reliable source, I can't even tell if it is researched or not, let alone the fact checking it went through.

[[26]] This NY Times article is a good start.

Dysklyver 11:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in the NYT and offline sources. Wikipedia does not require that the sources be easily available online, only that they exist and that someone would be able to verify information in the article about the subject if they had them. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable with significant coverage in multiple types of sources. Not sure what the nom was thinking with this one? WP:BEFORE -- Dane ^talk 21:02, 7 October 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. nom withdraw (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 12:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belvita

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

No notability outside its parent compan(ies), all the sources are about the parent compan(ies) and therefore there is no merit to a distinct article. Dysklyver 20:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references cited in the article establish notability for Belvita. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 October 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 Cracker (food). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned Wheat Thins

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 20:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cracker (food). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to wherever it will fit. I added four references, all of which are fiarly weak mentions that just establish simple things like it is Canadian, it's also sold in the US, it's a cracker, etc. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA-CO Industries

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

I don't see that this company satisfies WP:NCORP, based on the sources provided and the sources I could find via Google search. In the nominated version of the article (permalink: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LA-CO_Industries&oldid=804109826) the sources are...

Source not online, http://www.supplyht.com/ looks like an industry insider site.
http://www.tempil.com/ is a LA-CO brand and site.
"LA-CO Industries 75th Anniversary Brochure" is obviously a company source.
http://www.allweathermarker.com/ is a LA-CO brand and site.
http://www.laco.com/
http://www.markal.com/ is a LA-CO brand and site.
http://www.laco.com/
https://ahrexpo.com/becomeexhibitor/newresults.php, 404 Not Found, looks like an industry insider thing.
"Lester Aronberg Chair In Applied Chemistry Report by Prof. Yoel Sasson, June 2008", not online, no idea.
"The Board of Jewish Education of Metropolitan Chicago", http://www.bjechicago.org/a_bje_history.asp, 404 Not Found.
"File Not Found - Weizmann Institute of Science", http://www.weizmann.ac.il/pages/page-not-found, 404 Not Found.
""Weizmann Wonder Wander - Homepage - Weizmann Institute of Science News"", https://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/site/en/weizman.asp?pi=1210, 404 Not Found.
http://www.tempil.com/la-co-industries-acquires-tempil/, I get a blank page, but it's a LA-CO brand and site.

My own Google searching finds nothing but primary sources, press releases, passing mentions. I can find no in-depth independent coverage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clear that the article has been developed by undisclosed paid editors. Per WP:Outing I can't provide the evidence here, but I can pass it on to any other admin who wants to see it and they can say here whether they agree with me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one thing I can say without breaching WP:Outing (because it's all open at the geolocate link on the IP contributions pages) is that the couple of IPs that have edited the article, User:12.161.143.50 and User:12.161.143.57, are corporate static IPs and geolocate to Elk Grove Village, Illinois, which is is where LA-CO is based. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Boing's analysis and my own searches. Sourcing here doesn't meet our standards for inclusion: it is either not independent or is not substantial. Also fails WP:NOTSPAM as a promotional piece created in violation of the WMF terms of use, and is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL4. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is promotional and there isn't enough indepth coverage in independent reliable sources, meaning that we cannot verify the contents of the article. Thus, because of the promotional nature of the article and its lack of ability to be verified, this article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Boing and fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Boing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 9 October 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 Battle of Nanchang. Seems to already be carried out, redirected and everything. No point in keeping it open any longer, since consensus seemed to be pretty much formed before the relist. ansh 666 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Xiushui River

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

Has never had any sources in its edit history, and does not appear to be significant, mostly part of Battle of Xuzhou. (Delete or redirect) IEsuredI (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, not sure about this yet, but if redirected, I think the Battle of Nanchang article would be a more appropriate target than the Battle of Xuzhou article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (changed from delete) - ~~As far as I can gather, and I have been trying, this battle has been misnamed at best and didn't happen at worst.~~ The Battle of Xuzhou (Jiangsu province) happened in 1938 some 800 kilometres away from the Xiushui river (Jiangxi province) according to Google Maps, so that can't possibly be the correct target for a redirect. Furthermore, the article itself specifies that this engagement was part of the Battle of Nanchang. Assuming this battle happened, as stated, in March at the river, which is around the same time as the Battle of Nanchang, then it makes sense to redirect it there. However, I mention that this battle may not have occured at all, and I base this on the source used at the article for the Battle of Nanchang. You see this source states that; The first action took place at Wucheng in Jiangxi Province, where Japanese troops were held down by Chinese positions near the Xiushui River for four days .... The other relevant quote, which contradicts the first, is Chinese troops repulsed a Japanese attack across the Xiushui River near Wucheng, Jiangxi Province, China. Indeed, Wuchengzhen (Wucheng is in Zhejiang and Wuchang is at Wuhan) is located between the rivers of Xiushui and Ganjiang[27]. So, at the very least, the placement of the battle is incorrect according to the cited source. The idea that a battle may have occurred here is supported by this source which states; The Japanese had come to the conclusion that in order to control the central Yangtze valley they would need to destroy IX War Zone south of Wuhan and west of Poyang Lake. To do that they would drive south on the west side of the lake to the city of Nanchang with their 11th army, recent victors at Wuhan. The Japanese offensive kicked off on 17 March 1939 and met with only few instances of hard fighting. The source, however, doesn't state where this hard fighting happened. Wuchengzhen is located, coincidentally, on the west side of Poyang Lake, and south of Wuhan. In terms of Xiushui, however, all I could find was a reference to Japanese troops following the Xiushui river, from the recently captured Nanchang, on their approach to Changsha with no battle whatsoever. This might seem odd as Changsha is another 500 kilometres from Xiushui river, again, according to Google Maps. The best that I could do was to follow Google Maps and chart a route via google maps from Xiushui river, but, that's semi-OR. This leads me to the final question, do we rename or simply delete the article. I have done as thorough a search as possible, and have found no reference to a battle at Xiushui, and only one reference to a battle at or near Wuchengzhen. I think deletion is the appropriate action here. The only reference that I could find to the battle comes from a C. Peter Chen who appears to be a software engineer with an interest in history, but, isn't a historian. This leaves me with my only available source being of some dubious authorship/scholarship. If perhaps the author had listed their sources for the material, I might be inclined to look at them as well. As they haven't, I can't verify any of their information. Furthermore, they keep saying Wucheng, which as I've stated, is in a different province completely. So, I have to come to the conclusion that this article fails WP:V and as such, should be deleted. TL;DR - The information in the article is unverifiable, the source it appears to come from is of dubious scholarship given that the author is a software technician and not a historian, and as such I come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted. Well, after being notified, I did a second search through the article, refer to my second comment for findings. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wucheng = Wuchengzhen. "Zhen" is just a Chinese word meaning "town", and the Chinese language employs no spaces. The en.wp convention is to omit "zhen" just like the source. You are right there is a Wucheng in Zhejiang, but there are also multiple Wucheng's in Jiangxi, such as our Wucheng, Yongxiu County (zh:吴城镇 (永修县)) and Wucheng Township, Zhangshu (which IS NOT on the Xiushui River despite what the article says). Timmyshin (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information regarding the meaning of "zhen" and the multiple Wuchengs in China. Prompted by your message and !vote, I did, after a second read through of the article, find this article, which I had missed the first time, that specifies the battle with minor details; MajGen Sumita's 6th Field Heavy Artillery Brigade bombards Chinese positions in support of the IJAs crossing of the Xiushui River, but after meeting little resistance, cease the bombardment. Japanese troops successfully cross the river barrier and IJA troops, supported by aircraft and tanks, break out of the Xiushui River bridgehead, defeat Chinese reinforcements and reach the west gate of Nanchang. It's not much, but, it's enough to verify the battle. So, redirect is fine. That said, there are still zero citations in the article itself, I'm not sure that a merge can be performed. Any chance you have any other sources to look at? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can try other spellings of Xiushui: Hsiushui, Hsiu River, Hsiu-shui, Xiu River, Xiu-shui etc. This appears to be a good source: [28] Timmyshin (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Nanchang. The battle did exist and the Nanchang article already contains many details about the Xiushui battle. I don't think there's enough information for a stand-alone article and the Nanchang article isn't very long. Timmyshin (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Nanchang. In fact I'll work on the Nanchang article to incorporate any missing information from Xiushui, as there isn't much to begin with. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:46, 3 October 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)}}} 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge because it's not notable. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 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 Draftify. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark marketing

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

Original research with misused and poor references designed to publicise the view of a particular start-up company, BrandTotal, which claims to have trademarked "Dark Marketing" and uses it to push their marketing intelligence platform. It was quite wrongly accepted at AfC, especially since it contained this blatant advertising for BrandTotal. If further proof of the intent of this article is required, see here. The entire article is based on a very misleading, skewed and idiosyncratic definition of the term "dark marketing", which has multiple uses and meanings in scholarly literature. See the front page of BrandTotal.com and this post on their blog which are essentially repeated in Dark marketing and are now posing as a Wikipedia article. For more on these issues, see the discussions at Talk:Dark marketing. There's a good argument for completely blowing it up. Minimally, it should be returned to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC). Expanded by Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I had also looked for scholarly sources and had concluded that this article does not accurately reflect use of the term "dark marketing" in that literature. I had suggested moving the article back to draft, given the obvious AfC failures here, but I am not convinced that the author has an interest in writing a non-promotional article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to draftify, since the author has displayed an interest in writing a more neutral draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have carried out a thorough investigation of this article and have concluded that it misrepresents the body of literature (the blog literature) and completely ignores the scholarly literature on the subject. I have provided detailed, evidence-based arguments on the article's talk page. The article is an exercise in spin and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, with the potential to mislead users. BronHiggs (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a likely COI/promotional creation, consisting mostly of original (and poorly done) research. A couple of other editors have been thorough in research attempting to see if it can be improved as is, but WP:TNT seems the best course of action. Melcous (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete. Please do NOT delete this article for the following reasons. While I am affiliated with BrandTotal, I chose to write this completely on my own without compensation because I believe it's important to have a wikipedia page on dark marketing to share and make known this ongoing phenomenon. Yes, "dark marketing" has other meanings which I included in the article and will continue to include, as this is still a work in progress. There was no previous page on dark marketing and I believe there needs to be one. All BrandTotal ties have been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the article because the intention was never to promote BrandTotal and, instead, is meant to be an informative piece about dark marketing (BrandTotal information was included originally just to provide factual information that "dark marketing" was indeed trademarked by BrandTotal). Additional references to the article were added/changed that support the writing, and others may continue to be added. I am happy to edit and adjust the article to more clearly demonstrate the other meanings an uses of the term "dark marketing" with scholarly literature. PLEASE put it in draft space and do not delete. I do not at all mean to mislead users, since the meaning of dark marketing that I convey is absolutely one of the meanings. Please consider my points above and understand that I have every intention to write about dark marketing solely for the benefit of the wikipedia and marketing community.Rooks12345 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per Cordless Larry. It's not ready for the mainspace as it appears to be a neologism of sorts but I think it's unfair to the page's author to delete something that has been accepted via AfC that could be notable, verifiable and neutral given enough time and effort. The AfC accept was probably erroneous (courtesy ping Sulfurboy). DrStrauss talk 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I am staying neutral as I was the editor who approved it out of AfC. I will state however, that I did not do as much research as some of the above editors into the scholarly level of accuracy in the article. Thus, consideration should be given to them. Thanks to everyone for their work on looking into this. With 1700ish articles in the AfC process waiting for review, it's hard to dig too deep below the surface in reviewing, so please understand that occasionally one may slip through the cracks. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, while I appreciate that the drafts backlog means that researching each and every topic in detail is not realistic, surely you shouldn't be passing drafts with this much unreferenced content? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~. Comment. I very much appreciate getting more time to adjust the article so that it demonstrates a more scholarly approach. It has great potential and absolutely does not intend to mislead readers, since the meaning conveyed is certainly a meaning of Dark Marketing. As mentioned previously, the sole intention is to help make the wikipedia and marketing community become more aware of this ongoing phenomenon.Rooks12345 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd !vote stricken. Rooks12345, please do not vote twice. Any further comments you make should be preceded by Comment (not Do not delete). Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply tacking on "other uses" to the current article is not sufficient. And, no, the meaning conveyed is not one of the accepted ones. The primary focus of the article is the completely proprietary "definition" and analysis used by BrandTotal in their marketing material. The Wikipedia article is simply paraphrasing that material. No other reliable source uses that definition and that analysis. Nor have any independent reliable sources written about BrandTotal's definition. Simply having removed the explicit advertising copy and all the links to BrandTotal's blog and website, does not change the situation. In fact, given that the whole analysis is paraphrased from BrandTotal's materials, the current state of the Wikipedia article is extra misleading since it does not explicitly state where it comes from. The advertising remains but becomes hidden. By closely echoing BrandTotal's marketing material, the Wikipedia article lends credibility to it whether the BrandTotal name is mentioned or not. It is, dare I say, a prime example of "dark marketing". If sent to draft space, the article will have to be completely rewritten from scratch, leaving out all the previous text. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising per above comment/analysis by Voceditenore. I can understand why it was accepted at AfC, (promotions shouldn't be for perfect articles, just those which the reviewer deems likely notable) but it doesn't stand up to deeper scrutiny. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify there's not a feasible mainspace article here at the present time. It's possible this could become one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 3 October 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)}}} 19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The subject is notable, but the article isn't quite there yet. Since there aren't problems that are significant enough to warrant a delete in my opinion, but the article still shouldn't be in the mainspace right now, draftifying it is the best route to take. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:15, 9 October 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) Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro De Vico

"Withdrawn by nominator

Agreed, but perhaps needs some work.

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

I do not believe the article meets the notability guidelines - it is not adequately referenced. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "it is not adequately referenced" is not a valid reason for deletion. This actor has appeared in more than 70 films, and per WP:BEFORE, you could easily see the article is linked to an extensive page on the Italian Wiki. Within 10 seconds, I found these pages via Google: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple films. As noted by Lugnuts, not being "adequately referenced" is not a viable reason for deletion. There are plenty of sources available and a more robust Italian Wikipedia article that an interested editor can use to flesh out the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks an awful lot like this needs a caffeinated Italian speaker, but probably not deletion, per sources already presented. GMG ^talk 19:59, 6 October 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. But people are free to recreate it with independent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Pritchett

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

Fails WP:GNG a puff piece created by his publisher Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presumably the creator mistakenly thinks it's okay to advertise now she's declared her COI. Deb (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. This is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deb. This is an article about a non-notable subject that is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Disclosure of COI does not exempt editors from complying with our basic inclusion and content policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Current sources are not independent, blogs, etc, so I'm not surprised the article was nominated and discussed. That said sufficient other references exist to establish notability. Still not stellar in my search, hence the weak keep. gidonb (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid is promo. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denshin 8 go

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Lacks referencing, so the article seems to be completely original research WP:OR. Lack of referencing also means that is violates WP:V. Promotional and in violation of WP:PROMOTION FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article for it at ja.wiki[34] is unsourced. Searching for the client shows no coverage to speak of. I think it hasn't been deleted simply because people have assumed it must have bigger importance in Japan, and because that is slightly harder to search for it has been left untouched. But it doesn't have any coverage in Japan either. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not found Samat lib (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 01:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 09:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ream (email client)

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Lacks referencing, so the article seems to be completely original research WP:OR. Lack of referencing also means that is violates WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is the same argument as wp:Articles_for_deletion/Courier_(email_client). Time to go. Rhadow (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 7 October 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) Kagundu Talk To Me 12:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stamford and Rutland Hospital

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Most hospitals of a reasonable size would but this doesn't have the coverage, probably because it is so small and offers little services. WP:ATDs include redirects to Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, I have no objection to these, though personally I would go for delete then create redirect. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage both of its history (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) and contemporary aspects (5, 6, 7, 8).--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You might have missed my reply on these points in the edit summary - or you've ignored them. (You don't appear to have done any personal research or contributed to the article.) However, I'm open to your proposal to consolidate and bring the articles up to date. I would suggest you might take the following approach: (1) Incorporate the content from Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Stamford and Rutland Hospital into North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust and delete those two articles. (2) Revise North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust to provide a historical context and provide a summary of each of three hospitals: Peterborough City Hospital, Hinchingbrooke Hospital and Stamford and Rutland Hospital (which is essentially that summary text). (3) Move any information about organisational structure from those three hospital articles into North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, whilst also updating for the current situation. Millstream3 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rub (US band)

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

I can find no evidence this band has charted or has any significant in depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and just about everything else I can think of. The only references I can find through searching basically just link back to/regurgitate various iterations of this article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible evidence of a WP:NMUSIC pass, and no reliable source coverage about them in media shown to get them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 15:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THE RUB meets multiple Wikipedia notability criteria for Bands:

THE RUB clearly meets this criteria:

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Happy Squid Records, Los Angeles. www.HappySquidRecords.com one of the most important independent record companies in Los Angeles punk/post punk/underground. THE RUB released 2 full length albums, and is releasing new material on this label in the next 2 weeks.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinals_(band)

Also,

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1].

https://mrowster.wordpress.com/category/the-rub/

This is one example.

"Death Of Pop" by THE RUB has been the opening theme song of this long-running weekly show on WPRB, Princeton University:

http://keepingscoreathome.com/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.115.79 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 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. Consensus is that participation at Eurovision satisfies notability requirements. (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CatCat

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

Fails WP:NM. PROD opposed because "Not notable is not a reason for deletion." Argento Surfer (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs improvements for sure. But has participated in Eurovision a major televised music competition the biggest in the world in fact. Per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The subject did participate in Eurovision Song Contest 1994, where it finished 22 out of 25. WP:MUSICBIO item 9 indicates notability comes from 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place only. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then implicitly they must have won the Finnish national heats. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep participating in Eurovision is enough for a presumption of notability; almost all participants will have either won a domestic-level music competition, or will have songs that appear on a national music chart. Even if this group is one of the few exceptions, it is worth keeping this simply for completeness; the information in the article is easily verifiable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose you can find evidence that this band won a domestic-level music competition or had songs that appear on a national music chart? The sources you added to the article only prove what's already available at Eurovision Song Contest 1994. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - [35] suggests they did win a national-level competition to qualify for Eurovision; I'm not 100% confident in either the source's reliability or the machine translation, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eurovision is a bye for musical notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kolly Buzz

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

The company is claimed to be the fourth most followed digital media website in South India. But no reliable sources are available to support that, or WP:GNG or WP:ORG. If there are any regional sources, I've not been able to find them. Fails notability on all grounds. Lourdes 13:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches, including an Indian media search, are finding reproduced tweets from the company account, which confirm the firm going about its business, but nothing substantial. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly fails notability with lack of RS. I also believe we are dealing with a COI. A google search shows that the creator of this article is the founder of the company. Mark the train^Discuss 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Christenson

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

Burton Christenson was an NCO in E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. Neither his rank (technical sergeant) nor his awards qualify him for coverage under WP:SOLDIER; most of the information about him is in relation to generic events, such as a weapon jamming. After the war, Christenson returned to civilian life and worked for "the telephone company" while also operating a gymnasium and working in landscaping; none of these things earned him significant coverage. His most significant representation in the Band of Brothers miniseries involved the incident in which a soldier representing Christenson drank water when told not to do so; Christenson's fellow soldiers said that never happened to the real Christenson. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near passing any notability guidelines. The deletion nomination is very persuasive. The reference to "the phone company" does make sense since at the time there was a phone monopoly in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and coverage is trivial and incidental. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- another which does not meet notability; trivia. Redirect name to E Company. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 12 October 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} 02:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Graham

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

Had a prod removed with the comment that they were the head coach in a professional league. However, the league they are a head coach of even the players aren't considered notable, nevermind the coaches. Fails to meet WP:GNG after a search, nothing but passing mentions or routine coverage and also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY as either a player or a coach. DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Head coaches of sports teams are often more likely to be notable than their players. For instance, head coaches of Division I college basketball and football teams are generally notable, and hockey coaches at that level usually are as well, even though most players on those teams aren't unless they go pro. So I don't necessarily agree with the logic that if the players on the team aren't notable, the head coach isn't either. Of course, that doesn't mean he is notable either. I'm withholding my !vote until I look into this a bit more, but I wanted to get that out there. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely the case in some sports I agree, but not generally in the minor leagues of hockey. This league is a few steps down from the NHL and is mostly in markets that don't have much hockey coverage period, let alone in depth articles about the coach. All that being said I couldn't find any sources, but if some can be found that is great. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the PROD. I am seeing multiple published news sources about the subject being named to the position, being nominated as one of the top five coaches in the league, and having his contract extended. I leave it for the hockey people to determine whether this is sufficient for inclusion; I will say that this notability question should be discussed at AfD rather than through PROD, for sure. Carrite (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we typically consider that type of coverage routine. Surprised no one has come to comment yet as we usually have a number comment on these hockey deletions, other than maybe they don't see it as controversial so haven't commented. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have held off my conclusions until now and have searched for sources because I sort of assumed they would exist for him. But in the end, I found hundreds of mentions in primary sources and lots of routine coverage (ie "Graham named coach", "Graham signs extension", "Graham named Director", etc). I went through about dozen pages of results for "Neil Graham" hockey and I am just not seeing any articles about Mr. Graham himself. I would happily retract my !vote if someone proves otherwise. Yosemiter (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing common practices for minor league coaches, both in hockey and other sports, it appears most of them aren't considered notable unless they pass some other criteria - such as having previously played at the highest professional level in their sport. So I agree we shouldn't be granting minor league hockey coaches (or minor league baseball managers, or G-League basketball coaches) the same sort of presumptive, albeit uncodified, notability we grant to Division I college coaches in major sports. As such, since Graham doesn't meet any other criterion of WP:NHOCKEY (never played in the NHL or anything else that would qualify him, as far as I can tell) we have to look to WP:GNG, and I couldn't find anything non-routine. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That minor-league hockey should not be considered under the same rules and procedures as NCAA Division I basketball or football (I note, for instance, that no one made any comparison to the inherent notability of NCAA Division I lacrosse or track coaches, by way of example) is common sense of the sort that led to the wise decision to unbundle NATHLETE into discrete sports. Division I basketball and football are gigantic deals. Their matches are attended by tens of thousands of fans, broadcast over national networks, dominate regional media. Their coaches are media stars that, when they coach public universities, are often the highest paid public employees in their states. Probably no coaches generate as much press short of those from the top European soccer leagues. By contrast, the subject of this AfD doesn't even toil in the top minor league, and I doubt that any ECHL coach generates as many GNG-qualifying cites in an average season than the coach of Penn State or Alabama will generate this coming weekend. At his level, I'm willing to (charitably) concede presumptive notability for a Coach of the Year citation, and nothing short. Ravenswing 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Omar An-Najar

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

Bio falls under WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Known for 1 event. Questionably sourced from Hamas website.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, questionably-sourced article. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable suicide bomber. The article has major violations of NPOV as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. I looked into renaming to the attack but it is also non-encyclopedic. gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't know why guys commented deleted because if you search title in Google you will find 3 news on reliable website like as The guardian ,NBC News,Times of India, Gutenberg And ect.Amirdaeii (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i think she is completely notable for WP.Also Ive added new sources Amirdaeii (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Amirdaeii is CU-blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vo Duc Van

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

Bio falls under WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lacks sufficient notability, while the article is mostly unsourced. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to 2001 Vietnamese Embassy in Bangkok Bombing (+trim down bio). The man perhaps fails BPL1E (though this was a protracted extradition case). The bombing event was significant and involved diplomacy between multiple countries.Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Clarify keep but rename vote.[reply]
Delete - Both the person and the incident fall under WP:NOTNEWS and have no long-term significance. Not to mention there was no "bombing event" but rather an attempted "bombing event". So the hypothetical rename would be "2001 attempted bombing of the Vietnamese embassy in Bangkok"...or whatever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS .WP:BIO1E and has no WP:LASTING significance as the bombing did not place only a bombing attempt.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jaafar

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

No such notability as it fails WP:GNG. We can have an article on the topic Killing of Ali Jaafar if significant coverage exists which I think doesn't exists. Greenbörg (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on non-notable murder victim with only one source. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory and psychology of religion

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

delete per WP:NOTESSAY, it seems User:TaylorNewton is a lecturer who in 2012 got his students to upload their work. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a simple search gives some 146,000 hits while a Google Scholar search returns some 2,300. This is evidently a significant topic in psychology, and as such undoubtedly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The source "Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion by Lee A. Kirkpatrick, 2005" indicates that the article is not only original synthesis. The study of religion from a psychology perspective is a notable topic. If there was not enough material for a separate article, another possibility would be to merge in psychology of religion. —Paleo Neonate – 00:42, 7 October 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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of religious conversion

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

delete per WP:NOTESSAY, it seems User:TaylorNewton is a lecturer who in 2012 got his students to upload their work. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the psychology of religious conversion is a major topic within the Psychology of Religion. This article has many cited sources, and, whereas it is true that there are a few places where the article says "citation needed", these would be better served by finding citations for these articles than by deleting this article. Vorbee (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are abundant reliable sources on the subject, such as 352 on Google Scholar - a conservative estimate, as there are some 17,000 with a slightly different search. There is no doubt that psychology finds conversion a major topic. The article definitely needs work, but if that were a criterion for deletion we'd only have 34,928 good or featured articles in the encyclopedia. Nom should have done a quick due diligence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could be improved, but topics like conversion and deconversion (and more recently radicalization) have wide coverage. Important aspects of the psychology of religion. —Paleo Neonate – 00:56, 7 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and schizophrenia

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

delete per WP:NOTESSAY, it seems User:TaylorNewton is a lecturer who in 2012 got his students to upload their work. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, essay is a very weak ground for deletion. Secondly, the status of article authors is scarcely ever relevant (barring writing about themselves). So to this topic: a Google Scholar search finds some 70,000 papers on the exact topic. This year (2017) alone yields some 3,400 papers. The topic is notable. The article itself (as if this mattered) is in fact already reliably sourced, but notability depends on what is out there in the world, not what may happen to be in an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could be improved but the topic is notable enough to have too much material for merging in the main schizophrenia article. —Paleo Neonate – 00:38, 7 October 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. Consensus to keep after improvements to the article. Whether a similar list which may contain redlinks should be created in a WikiProject subpage is out of this discussion (i.e. of course any editor may create such a list in project space to facilitiate article creation and improvement). (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of female military historians

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

2 sources for entire list; not a single WL for names; not clear why being female is significant in this context. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a range of reasons, women only make up a small proportion of military historians. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Of the people listed at List_of_historians_by_area_of_study#Military_history, not one of them is obviously female. This suggests that female military historians may be notable (in a colloquial sense rather than necessarily in terms of WP:GNG) simply for being female military historians. Zazpot (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move. As it stands, the article seems ~~not to pass WP:GNG, but with work it might do, and~~ close to meeting WP:LISTN, per Joe's comment below. I am OK with keeping it.

Failing that, it is still likely to be of great use to Wikipedia efforts such as Women in Red and/or Gender gap task force, etc, and should be moved either to a sub-page of one of those WikiProjects, or to a sub-page of the user who created it, so that it can add value to Wikipedia without necessarily being in the article namespace. If at some point in the future it has been updated so as to pass WP:GNG and any other applicable policies, then at that point it could be moved back to the article namespace. Zazpot (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move: I agree with Zazpot unless some of the names on the list are already the subject of biographies. If so, a shortened linked list could be prepared for the main space.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have Category:Military historians, no Category:Female military historians at present. The category's existing subdivisions are by nationality and topic/war of study. List of military historians redirects to List of historians by area of study#Military history. postdlf (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN in that the group has been the subject of significant coverage [36][37][38][39][40]. Women in traditionally male-dominated scholarly fields (i.e. all of them) are frequently notable, and we have many similar lists, e.g. List of women linguists, List of women classicists, List of women botanists. Based on some quick spot checks I think the majority of the entries could be blue-linked, so while better sourcing would be nice, it isn't strictly necessary. If kept it should be moved (back) to List of women military historians, because it's a list of people not lab specimens. – Joe (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I agree that "women" is more appropriate than "female": good point. About notability, I have little or no experience of WP:LISTN discussions. Is your claim that, "while better sourcing would be nice, it isn't strictly necessary", based upon WP:LISTN, or upon something else? I'm not asking because I disagree (I don't: I'm undecided at this moment) but only for clarity of understanding. Thanks :) Zazpot (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there are two things we need sources for with lists: first to demonstrate that the list itself is on a notable topic per WP:LISTN, but these won't necessarily be mentioned in the article itself; second to support the inclusion of individual entries and verify any details. In my experience editors are usually happy for entries to appear on a list without a supporting citation if we have an article on that entry which backs up the information (presumably with citations). See List of archaeologists for example; only the red-linked entries have citations. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, ah OK, hence your remark about blue links. But if those are needed, then presumably the list as it stands is not yet ready for article space? Zazpot (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a long list, it wouldn't take a lot of effort to go through and add them, so I don't think their absence it's sufficient reason for deletion. We certainly have many lists that have been in much worse shape for years. – Joe (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Joe: This is a viable topic for a list given the coverage, and the article can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment assuming this is kept, as seems the consensus, it would still be natural to remove all the entries which are not WLed or appropriately sourced. Which is still almost all of them. And the list is rather long. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

el cid, el campeador, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no disagreement here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the sources Joe pointed to, I don't think the subject is generally notable. The list of names overwhelmingly contain NN entries and is largely unsourced. I don't think it makes sense to keep this article at this stage in the game; if anything, this is a good WP:TNT opportunity for another editor to start over from scratch. There are too few NN entries to excuse a category, either. Wikipedia needs a list of woman historians before a list of women in the sub-field of military history. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: I'm not opposed in principle to making it a WikiProject subpage but Wikipedia:Userfication doesn't support that. Perhaps the content could be moved into your userspace for development. Be advised, your ping did not work. You might check the box under preferences for the interface to warn you when a ping fails. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: thanks for the heads-up about the ping and the preference. No idea why it didn't work. Did it work this time?

Puzzled by your saying, "Wikipedia:Userfication doesn't support that". Wikipedia:Userfication is just an essay. As we're the editors deciding what to do with the page, we can WP:IGNORE that essay, especially if we come up with a better outcome than the essay describes. IMO, moving the list into the namespace of an appropriate WikiProject is exactly such a case. Zazpot (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can WP:IGNORE anything, but I am be very uncomfortable with the idea of moving an article in the space of a project that has not expressed a desire for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: No, the ping did not work. I don't know why. Yes, it's just an essay but I think that essay enjoys pretty wide consensus and I prefer to stick with what this community agrees to do. Since you're invested in this list, I don't understand why you'd be opposed to moving into your userspace. I can see some editors agree with your suggestion and I won't fight consensus if it decides to move into WP-space; it's just a bit outside our norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, or move upon request to project space, Women in Red.~~ Almost none of the entries on the list do not have articles, and the notability of the subjects is unclear. Does not meet WP:LISTN and WP:SIGCOV; a non encyclopedic cross-categorisation at the moment. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: Either one would work. It could be an interesting project. Just not ready for the mainspace yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of women military historian. Lorstaking (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too few people of proven notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, but the black links should go. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, thank you for the reply :) I'm a bit puzzled, though: are you saying you believe that black-linked entries should be deleted before a move into the namespace of one of those WikiProjects, even though the whole purpose of such a move would be to turn those black links into blue links before the page is restored to article space? If so, please could you explain the rationale behind your belief? Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~ to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red. The blue-links should be added to List_of_historians_by_area_of_study#Military_history if it is moved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Women in Red actually wants the page, but don't know for certain. If not, there's probably a user space that it can be moved to, that of Zazpot by default. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm we want the page. Dysklyver 19:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the subjects is clear enough to me. Many already have articles, although they could be improved. Sourcing would be easy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space without changes per power~enwiki & Zazpot. Dysklyver 16:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those suggesting a move to project or userspace: can you clarify what the purpose of such a move would be? If it's to provide a Women-in-Red-style "redlist" of articles for later creation, I'm not sure that would add much to the very long redlist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Historians. It would also seem to implicitly accept that most of the people in this list are notable, in which case what is the rationale for removing it from mainspace? Or if the idea is to incubate it with a view to returning it to mainspace at a later date, why can't it be left in place and improved in the same way? – Joe (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I already did, but to clarify: the reason for moving it to a sub-page of e.g. WP:WOMRED would be to provide a place where interested editors could work on it, safe from deletion attempts, until it reaches the point where no reasonable editor would propose it for deletion even in the article namespace, at which point it would be moved back to the latter.Zazpot (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I just wasn't sure if others were !voting with you for the same reasons. As mentioned I do have something of a pet peeve about this logic, per WP:IMPERFECT: if an article is on a viable encyclopaedic topic and isn't irrecoverably crap, I don't see any reason why it can't stay in mainspace while it is improved. But I realise that since draftspace came along many editors have come to disagree with me on that (although WP:IMPERFECT is still a policy!) – Joe (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As suggested by Ipigott and others, I've trimmed the list down to only blue-linked or verifiably notable people. I've also added a lead section and some references, and removed the table. I wasn't particularly thorough in checking if those without articles were potentially notable, and I noticed that the names mentioned here as two of the most influential women historians (Joanna Bourke and Amanda Foreman) weren't actually on the list, which suggests to me there is definitely room for expansion. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, your comment above caused me some WP:WIKISTRESS until I viewed the article's edit history and saw that you saved the rest of the list - with table formatting intact - to the article's talk page. Phew! Thanks for that :) I felt it was worth making this comment here, to spare other editors the same stress ;) Zazpot (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, honestly when I saw this a while ago I thought I'd be in favour of deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY mostly. But the subject has received significant commentary in reliable sources, so that's a clear pass of WP:GNG. The rest of the issues can be address through regular editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe, Headbomb. I lean weak for "lists of X in Y" type things, but see no reason to qualify the !vote in this case. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the cleanup, a move isn't called for. The content on the talk page can be moved to a project sub-page without an AfD discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, on notability; needs work; the clean up, helped. Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate that this is a notable subtopic. The list has been significantly cleaned up but I'd be in favor of additional tightening by removing the entries that have no bluelink and for which secondary sources cannot be found (currently, most of the unlinked entries are only primary-sourced). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the bluelinks only list. The references (mostly faculty profiles) didn't show notability. I'm not oppose to redlinks, but only if backed by sources that can be used to established WP:N. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Joe, Nick, etc. Clearly a notable topic, and as for the suggestion to move to project space, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the topic is notable and the article is not irretrievably broken, there's no reason to move it out of main space. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe and Nick.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has been sufficiently improved in the course of this AfD and is suitable for retention. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 14 October 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) 13:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Stone

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. No awards or significant coverage in secondary sources. Most sources seem to be about gossip (i.e. her family) and comments on her appearance. – Nihlus (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mentions, not enough in-depth.L3X1 (distænt write) 13:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Technologies

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

fails WP:NORG. N.B. This company has the same name as a NASDAQ floated company but are unassociated. Domdeparis (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. No indications of notability or significance; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. gongshow talk 01:11, 13 October 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 The consensus is that this album fails to meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MK III (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Self released album from a barely notable band who's page will probably be nominated for deletion unless more sources are added. Domdeparis (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found to pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 14 October 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. With the caveat that if sources exist in the Mizo language, it can be recreated with these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eng Kan Ti Nge Keini Chhung Hi

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Seems to be self-produced movie without any supporting references. Shaded0 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the film is (ostensibly) a Mizo language production, it may very well be that there are sources that don't show up in an English or even Hindi search. I'll ping WikiProject India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches here, here, here, here hardly resulted in any reliable sources. Clearly fails GNG guideline. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above !votes. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:13, 11 October 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UCL Emperors American Football

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

Very few British university sports teams are notable and this does not appear to be one of the exceptions. All references are connected to the subject with the possible exception of a blog post which appears to be related to one of its rivals. Google and other searches find nothing to demonstrate notability. Note that numerous similar articles were deleted back in 2009-10, e.g. Plymouth Blitz, Worcester Royals, and nothing of substance has changed since then in terms of profile of university-level American Football in the UK. Kahastok talk 22:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome should be to keep: The UCL Emperors are currently heading into their 2nd BAFA season. They hold the most successful record of any rookie team there has been in the UK having reached the Division 2 National Finals for American Football; a feat no other rookie team has ever reached. This Wikipedia article serves the purpose of chronicling their rise and falls throughout history - as any article would relating to a sports team. It also chronicles tradition, players and coaches of note, and records of achievement. Having been officially founded in 2015, and only entering BUCS in 2016, the Emperors, under ideal circumstances, could have only become national champions by the end of the 2019 season. If we were not to write about them until 2019 we would lose out on the possibility of several years worth of information that would be key to the teams elevation within the national circuit. UCL is also one of the largest and most prolific universities in the UK with many notable sports programmes. Mfoxallsmith (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for this position, Wikipedia rules are that we should not be the only source for anything - we should only ever be restating what other sources have already said.

Very few British university sports teams meet our standard - the Boat Race teams, those university cricket teams with first-class status, that sort of thing. Even BUCS champions generally don't enough to get the coverage needed to meet the standard, so even if we accept that this team will be potential champions in a few years this is insufficient.

What we need if we are to keep is a demonstration that this club "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The meaning of this phrase is described in detail at WP:GNG. I contend that such coverage does not exist.

Now, deletion does not mean you have to completely lose what's there. It can be emailed to you or probably moved to your user space if required. Per WP:LOSE, the fact that information would no longer be present on Wikipedia is not in and of itself a good reason not to delete. Kahastok talk 17:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike in the US, university sport is almost wholly non-notable in the UK ("crowds" usually consist of a couple of dozen of the teams' friends, and even the most parochial local newspaper doesn't cover it), and this team seems to be no exception. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:ORGSIG which states "No company or organisation is considered inherently notable. No organisation is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organisation it is." AusLondonder (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madlock

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

Does not meet notability guidelines(WP:BAND). The stated claim to notability is being in the top 6 of Pepsi Battle of the Bands, a music competition in Pakistan- but the notability guidelines state that one must be in the top three of a competition to merit an article. The sources given are all very brief mentions, either in relation to their TV appearance or not. The article states that they are working on their first album so that rules out the notability criteria related to a national tour or their album charting. I suspect it is too soon for an article about this band. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pepsi Battle of the Bands is a TV show as well as a competition, not being in the top 3 shouldn't be a bright-line reason to delete this. However, I agree it's WP:TOOSOON, I don't believe their work appears on any music charts and there's almost no coverage apart from their appearance on the show. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. The first 2 refs in the article have coverage apart from the ones regarding their appearance on the show. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfarazbaig: One of those is an interview, which is a primary source, and the other is a basic announcement. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Dircks

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

This is a ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:BIO1E, albeit in a particularly sad way. Not sufficiently notable for an article. agtx 16:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it can add more on the sections of unusual deaths. Similar cases are in there, some of them still not expanded.--Julio Puentes (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cannot violate WP:BLP1E if they're dead. I see mentions in The Independent, Deseret News, Irish Times, Utusan via Reuters, a paragraph in Miami New Times, and a few pages in a book published by Plough Publishing House. That's multiple news articles, coming from 5 different countries (and that's only in English, there may be more in German). --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair that it's not technically a BLP1E. WP:BIO1E was the correct guideline. agtx 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not BLP1E, but the bio doesn't meet GNG. I would describe [41] as "News of the Weird"-style newspaper filler, not significant secondary coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Estate

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

Non notable cigar brand, self-moved into mainspace by creator. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article's only citation is self-published. It doesn't indicate that the brand has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that suggest it passes corporate notability standards, nor can I find any myself. It's quite strange that a seven-year-old userspace draft has just been moved into the mainspace like that, luckily the edit filter caught it which is how I presume Jcc found it? DrStrauss talk 17:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Yep- exactly that :) jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author, forgot I had made it back in the day and decided, based on a suggestion on its talk page that it seemed nearly ready for publication, to put it up. I understand the references are self published but its ACID brand of cigars are pretty popular, to the point that they even have a cigarillo version available at most gas stations (at least here in central Ohio.) It was my first attempt at a new article and not just edits and the information is all factual. Here is a recent news article referencing the brand: https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/19573 (W.A.A. IV (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep: Not sure what the threshold is for a cigar brand to be notable, and this article's creator needs a WP:TROUT for using a single self-pub source, but I'm finding additional sources that indicate notability, or at least that it's a legit company. If someone wants to try a WP:HEY and save this article, try adding content from these sites. Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC): Another Cigar Aficionado article, interview, ad description from a supplier, review.[reply]

Those sources aren't sufficient- the review is from what looks to be a self-published source, and the ad description from a supplier is exactly that- it'd be like claiming an Amazon listing is sufficient for notability. The Cigar Aficionado article is the only acceptable source but "demonstrating that it's a legit company" is not equivalent to notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:Promo page on an unremarkable cigar brand; significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited exclusively to the company's own web site; there's not even an attempt to make the article presentable. Basically, corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Rule (card game)

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

Appears to be a hoax, as other users have already noted. None of the three cited sources in the article now mention this purported "rule" at all, much less back up the claims they are cited to support. Even if it is not a hoax, this article clearly fails WP:GNG and other relevant notability guidelines (especially WP:Verifiability). Everymorning (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completed a good faith Google search and could not find anything reliable and nothing that did not appear to be derived from this article. I am 99% sure that this is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. I'm amazed that the article survived for over four years without being picked up - so my congratulations to Everymorning for finding this and getting it rightfully deleted.

Any passing admins: is this worthy for the hoax museum when the article is deleted? GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 08:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Children's Playground

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dead Children's Playground

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

Largely unreliable sources. Unreferenced statements of paranormal nonsense. Limited notability. This should be deleted. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FRINGE topic. Most of this article was written before the only reliable source cited ([42]) was published, and that source may have been derived from this Wikipedia article (see Talk:Dead Children's Playground#Possible plagiarism). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's definitely a circular reference situation. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prose is credulous and the references are very bad for a variety of reasons. The "best" reference appears to be a later paraphrase of this crappy article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:44, 10 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green parking lot

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

This really belongs in the main parking lot article, at least at each's current size. Merger or deletion would both be workable. Anmccaff (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Parking lot.~~ Source searches in GBooks, GScholar and Gnews are providing some coverage, but there may not be enough available to qualify a standalone article. The merge target article has no mention, so merging would improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (struck my !vote above) – Available sources demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A "Green+parking+lot" Google Books search shows a lot of coverage of this topic in many books, and I believe that it is a discrete topic sufficiently different from the broad topic of "parking lot" that it deserves its own article, instead of being buried deep in another article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge to Parking lot. I only found one book specifically mentioning "Green parking lot" when doing the same google books search as Cullen328. Based on that and other book searches I agree with Northamerica1000 that there isn't enough there to have a stand-alone article. While other green technologies or adaptations of previous articles have been accepted like Green vehicle, Green building and Natural building, I believe it's simply WP:TOOSOON for this one. As the parking lot article does have a section on alternative paving materials I don't see why this section couldn't simply be expanded to list alternatives to pavement altogether or have additional section added mentioning ways in which some places are trying to make parking lots more "green". In the future if a new article is warranted a split can occur. In addition, I noted that the source cited for the Environmental Protection Agency refers to "Green parking lot" in the title, however even the table of contents lists the word "green" is in quotes before "parking lot". - Vanstrat (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon looking again my searches were mistyped and Cullen328 was correct, there is more coverage than I initially found (not only in Google books but news searches in library databases came up with quite a bit). The article just needs work and links can be added from Parking lot. While I thought that the results would tend to show "a parking lot that is the colour green" as being the most recognised for the phrase "Green parking lot", that was not the case. - Vanstrat (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and what sort of coverage did you see that suggested this should be separated from "Parking lot?" Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same google books search that I believe Cullen328 did, and I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail. One of the library news searches can be seen here. I think there are enough sources and enough detail in them. - Vanstrat (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also more than enough sources for "concrete parking lot", "Gravel parking lot", "asphalt parking lot", "temporary parking lot", "soil-cement parking lot,' &cet, &cet, ad. naus. Why should this be a separate article any more than those? Anmccaff (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all routine and predictable variations of standard parking lots, Anmccaff. A parking lot that, for example, generates solar power, is a sufficiently discrete topic to support its own article.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single technique mentioned in the Wiki article is, in fact, a routine and predictable variations of standard techniques, most of which have been used, often for environmental reasons -although perhaps not by that name - for over a century. Again, what justifies a separate article, especially considering what this one looked like until recently? Anmccaff (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason Brick building isn't a wikipedia article but Green building is. It's not always about the number of sources, it's about the content. As I said above: "I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail". And as WP:N states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". You can see the difference between the books that come back on a book search for "Gravel parking lot" and "Green parking lot". (And it's not about the current article. It needs work.) - Vanstrat (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet, Frame building? The essential difference I see is that "green parking lots" are not a oddity, as "green building" still is, and all of the information relevant to "Green parking lots" should be...and indeed is in the main article, even if it could use some expansion there. This is just a POV fork, and, over most of its life, a coatrack. Anmccaff (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet Green roof is also an article, an arguably good one at that. Blue roof even has it's own. With work this article can get better based on the sources available, and WP:N isn't a question anymore in my mind from what's out there. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and when it does become a good article, we will have two nearly identical articles, covering almost exactly the same subjects; i.e., at least a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and likely a WP:POV Fork. This is good how, exactly? Anmccaff (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definitions given for those forks I don't see how they apply to this distinct subject. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:49, 12 October 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 Berlin International Literature Festival. (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Extraordinary Book

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising & WP:COI. The Banner talk 14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be a copy of the german wp article also created by DasKunstwerk, so the talkpage should have a tag to that affect. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and Children´s and Young Adult Program of the Berlin International Literature Festival to Berlin International Literature Festival. Basically this is advertisement for this festival, and there seems to be not much secondary coverage as per WP:GNG. —Kusma (t·c) 08:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (but attempt to find German speaking editors willing to find sources first) this and Children´s and Young Adult Program of the Berlin International Literature Festival to Berlin International Literature Festival. I could not find English sources, but there may be German editors who can find sources written in Germany. It appears to have a number of notable people involved.Knox490 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sources are hard to digest into something concrete. Most recipients are notable in their own right. Jurors seem to gain real-world notability from being involved. But I can't see enough substance yet for a standalone article. Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skos Shuttle (software)

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

Seems like an advertisement for a non-notable software. I can't find any sourcing that demonstrates GNG. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 23:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and maintained by two WP:SPA accounts, linking to the primary site. The best coverage found in my searches is a page in a review of several classification tools here with an opinion that "Skos Shuttle seems to be a very promising tool". However I don't see that as sufficient to demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability, by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This software is 1. notable and 2. accessible/present de-facto online, 3. generous and free for universities and students. Why deleting even a modest article on it a priori? You prefere to support notable commercial software which is sold for much money ? Please take back your request for deletion. It is a mistake or a lobby driven wish. And please do this change sustainably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.170.127 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep argument above amounts to nothing more than "it exists" DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 08:11, 11 October 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 Flatulence. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly fart

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

Subjective and indiscriminate, seemingly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which doesn't appear mergeable. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly rename to flatus. -

Just because the title may be offensive to some does not alter the fact that this is legitimate article about a legitimate topic which has been legitimately studied by legitimate scientists in response to legitimate concerns by legitimate members of the public. (its totally legit) - I won't bother with the toliet humor, this is not the place.

On a more serious note, this article is about the actual fart itself, that is, the cloud of gas. Obviously it can't be merged with flatulence, which is about the medical condition, and the human condition of actually creating a fart. (like how singing and song are separate). The fart once released is a physical object which deserves an article, as a highly relevant topic to everyone who hasn't managed to somehow avoid ever releasing a 'fart'.

I am not adverse to this being renamed to something more scientific, I just went with the common term.

Finally I will draw a comparison to Feces and Defecation, in this situation flatus and flatulence, one is about the object/thing emitted, one is about the process by which the human body emits it. Dysklyver 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Flatulence. Half the sources don't even use those words in that order at all. The ones that do just happen to use those words in that order, and not discuss this in any way as if it is a distinct phenomenon from simply flatulence. We ought not be in the habit of making "adjective articles" unless they're treated in depth by the sources as a distinct topic. Just because you can do a google search for "tall horse" and get lots of hits doesn't mean that "tall horse" is a distinct topic from "horse", some of which happen to be tall. It just means that some people happened to use those words in that order in passing. GMG ^talk 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I see the point that Dysklyver is stating, I see it a bit differently. Shit and Fuck have their own articles which talk about the words themselves, the fact that they are vulgar and the use of the words. Shit contains a hatnote directing to defecation for the act itself and defecation is not discussed in "Shit". The problem with Smelly fart is that it's claiming in the hatnote and top section to be about the phrase itself... but then goes on to talk about the act of farting itself, referring to it as flatulence which is already an existing article. As far as I can see the respected term for "farting" is actually "flatulating" (like the respected term for "shitting" is defecation). I don't see "flatulating" and "flatulence" as warranting separate articles. I'd say that this article could be merged with Flatulence to add info regarding the act of flatulating that isn't there already... but there simply is not enough useful information here to warrant it. "Flatus" is the gas itself, "flatulence" is the act of generating it, and "flatulating" is the act of expelling it. These can be discussed in the same article as "flatus" and "flatulence" already are. If fart isn't "vulgar enough" to have it's own article about the word itself, like Shit and Fuck, then "Smelly fart" definitely can't. - Vanstrat (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fart. Come on guys, let's wind this up. DrStrauss talk 22:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to flatulence. This is basically a definition of the word, meaning that it fails WP:NOTDICT, and thus should be deleted or redirected. In this case, since there is a valid redirect, it should be redirected. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 14 October 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 Assala Nasri. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wala Tessaddeq

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. What little coverage I can find is insignificant and comes nowhere close to satisfying the aforementioned notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable album, "Among her most famous albums are "Eghdab i.e. Get angry "،" Wala tessadda 'i.e. Do not believe "، ([43]), "... وكذلك نجاح شريطها الثاني «ولا تصدق» من كلمات..." (https://books.google.com/books?id=7wtIAQAAIAAJ) --Soman (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the album mentioned in the last source sorry? You seem to be arguing against the deletion of the musician's article, something which I have not nominated. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The passage "شريطها الثاني «ولا تصدق", which can refer to both the album and the song. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. There isn't a standalone article on the song, if there was, it would most likely fail WP:NSONG. DrStrauss talk 21:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all notable. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Assala Nasri per WP:ATD-R. A Train^talk 09:37, 14 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bebe & Bassy Tour

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

Per WP:NTOUR, sources only indicate the existence of the tour, not its notability. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of album-related deletion discussions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's about a tour that hasn't happened yet. Maybe, once it has happened, there'll be sources that write aboout it, and justify the creation of an article. Maproom (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NTOUR. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peak 3025 (Vermont)

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

We include all named geographic features of any significance at all. This is not a named feature. It's an unnamed feature. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cough cough Apparently the bad blood over relisting is was shed earlier today so here's my 2¢. If it wasn't PROD'd (which I believe is a useless dangerous process that shoulb be eliminate from the Wikipedia diet) and no one came and !voted, then relist it. Now I know relisting something you !voted in isn't great practice, but I endorse deletion for this one per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert twice, but, the instructions at WP:NOQUORUM are pretty clear; If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. A relist should also be completed by an administrator if they feel the nomination is controversial, which, coincidentally, is a thing non-admins are told not to do; Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. This would be preferred to wasting another week to receive no new comments. I have no idea what bad blood you're referring to? all I did was revert because it was improper and this was on my watchlist in case new developments came up. I didn't feel I had anything to add. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominating rationale and in the hope that there won't be a third week of this. I had done a google and google books search for the peak at the time of the nomination and found only the smallest references to it possible; primarily "listsofjohn" and maybe this reference to a nameless peak at 3025ft. The only thing to note, is that the unnofficial name, alluded to but not stated in the article, for the mountain is Seth Warner Mountain and I found even less about the mountain searching for that. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NGEO Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:36, 14 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Patrick Harmon

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Does not appear to be any significant coverage of this. Further, his name was Patrick Harmon not Harman. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of article meets WP:GNG: it has been covered in full-length pieces at The Guardian, Newsweek, The Salt Lake Tribune, KUTV, the Daily Mirror, and Deseret News (all cited in the article), and perhaps elsewhere. Article is a stub, so WP:DONOTDEMOLISH applies. The misspelling of Harmon's name has already been corrected. As for the allegation of WP:NOTNEWS, none of that policy's four criteria disqualify the article:

Original reporting. Does not apply, because the article is not written as a primary source. Rather, the article cites other sources for each claim made, per WP:VERIFIABILITY.
News reports. Does not apply, because article is not about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Nor is the article "written in news style".
Who's who. Article is exactly in keeping with the stipulation here that "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event".
A diary. Clearly not applicable to the article.

Ergo, keep. Please WP:PING me if you reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: What makes this more notable than any other police shooting? I am not seeing anything. It is only notable in the context of police shootings- nothing makes this different. Nothing calls him by name, it's just "cop shoots fleeing black", "shots fired in downtown slc" , protestors demand to see footage, footage shows..kills black man. None of that is anything more than routine news coverage. Unless you support creating an article for every person ever killed by the police, which might be a substantial task. And it was only fixed because I pointed it out, so don't say 'already.' ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. @El cid, el campeador: "What makes this more notable than any other police shooting?" Sorry, but this question doesn't make sense to me. I don't think anyone is claiming that this is the most notable police shooting the world has ever seen, just that it meets WP:GNG and doesn't breach WP:NOTNEWS. About, "it's just 'cop shoots fleeing black'". Ugh, how can you say "just" in a sentence like that? This makes me really sad :( Finally, about the spelling, I was only pointing out that it was already fixed by the time I replied here on the AfD thread. Geez. zazpot (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - seems to have substantial coverage and reliable sources. Would recommend re-evaluating (in a year?) if coverage completely falls off, but there’s enough to justify keeping it for now. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was asked to look at this, so I won't vote, but I should ask whether a reasonable merge target is available. If not, how do you propose Wikipedia maintain a proper description of this social issue? Wnt (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, if I knew of a reasonable merge target, I would not oppose merging, but I don't know of one at the moment. I propose Wikipedia simply applies WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS as normal. After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTFINISHED. Zazpot (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received substantial international coverage such as in the U.K with The Guardian, Mirror, and all other UK national newspapers as well as BBC, Channel 4 and others. If it was just another shooting it would not have received substantial coverage outside of the U.S. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS as that policy is for trivial events which this is not Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have enough WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to pass the WP:GNG -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notability has been established by news coverage. Maurreen (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has received on-going coverage including in international media; a clearly controversial police shooting, which likely meets WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Coverage is continuing and diverse, with multiple international sources. Meets GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzeldin Tahoun

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

Fails WP:GNG. In addition, it seems that all references in the article are self-published. Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does this article subject not pass the WP:GNG, but the references have been deceptively formatted to make it appear as though they come from prestigious universities and not this chap's blog. A Train^talk 23:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a McMaster University student with a single co-authored paper (arXiv:1708.06308 at a satellite workshop of ACM SenSys chaired by one of his co-authors). This is far from WP:PROF, and as well as the falsified references I can find no evidence of the "multiple awards" at Yale, Princeton, Northwestern, and at IEEE and ACM conferences, claimed by the article. There's a plausible case here for WP:CSD#G3 as a hoax, but maybe it's not blatant enough for speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Too Soon. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I usually participate in discussion which is related to engineers.I've checked out the article and references.the sources provide all of the content of article approximately. Also I checked his name on search engines, his activities such as his multiple awards and his education and alma mater prove his notability for Wikipedia.also I found in a reference that he is inventor so I think subject is notable enough as a engineer with multiple awards and his inventions then meetWikipedia:Notability (people). this engineer is successful by foreseeing his little age.Mehdikhan20 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Mehdikhan20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep with conditions the article need to be more sensible to notable for WP. its need to be revise again specially in Ref. article content could be diminish because it too excessive and have abundant informations that not need to be here. in spite of opinions it sounds he is a good programmer who has some achievements in machine vision and machine learning and dedicating his work to excellence that could proved by probing in internet but reviewers and author must promote it. with making this issues right and in lack of some famous names it could be a good article for Wikipedia because folks like him is the future of World Village. I can declare that seems the author of article opt wrong jagged way and( not a appropriate way) to introduce the profession of his work & activities and that why it became more baffled and we can't accuse him for some slip up mistake. I conclude debate with this argument " it had to be more accurate and revised and could be remained in WP " Dave linc (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Dave linc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep i think its could be better if article ceasing up from vital blunder.such as prohibit from unknow references and etc. But generally he had some news on www so i proposed to keep . Kurt logann (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Kurt logann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and edit hi guys... Ive edited article and checked the sources.The News on Google gives sources that can be used to expand the article.I think This person meets WP:NBIO.but we should let to other users to contribute on editing article to improve it...regardsAmirdaeii (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Amirdaeii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
speedy deletionthe user who created the article has tricked others by adding fake references.i analyzed sources and the websites.all of them are not reliable.im agree with professor Eppstein.regardsAmirdaeii (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked the refrences it seems like they are indeed coming from the official hackathon devpost pages, given the amount of activity on them, which is almost impossible to fake. I did some research indeed there was a hackathon in Yal, Northwestern, and Princeton and they match the dates on the devpost as they match the websites for the hackathons on the wayback machine for 2015. The kid has alot done given his age I believe so that I guess is goo enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people) given that his linkedin seems legit and googling his name throws lots of news about his winnings in some programming competitions and his startup ezSec indeed seems legit as it was refrenced on the innovation facotory website, which is related to McMaster Innovation Park, the same startup ezsec seems to be listed on the forge, the mcmaster university accelerator, linked to Ontario Centre of Excellence. The guy seems like he is a little smart man and indeed his refrences are solid and can't catch any talk but no walks on his page. Would be cool if we remove the IEEE refrence, he made, tho as so far only the IEEE student brach has mentioned hime and that is not a conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.109.216 (talk • contribs) — 130.113.109.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~@David Eppstein hello professor. this article should delete as soon as possible.regards~~Amirdaeii (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Amirdaeii, Kurt logann, Dave linc, and Mehdikhan20 have all been blocked as socks of Amirshahat (talk · contribs). !Votes stricken. GAB^gab 15:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:05, 13 October 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshadi Himasha Chavindi

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

Fails WP:GNG, references provided do not work or are selfpublished and do not meet WP:RS --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 00:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in the article are non-RS and all that turns up in searches are more of the sort: e.g., social media, IMDB, passing mentions of what dress she wore to a premier, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Upcoming made her debut in Wassanaye Sanda in 2016 not notable at this point a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:27, 14 October 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 because is sufficient coverage in WP:RS to establish notability of this subject. (non-admin closure) Kagundu Talk To Me 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIITJEE

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP:COMPANY. The Google news link actually gives only routine coverage. G11 was overturned in June. Previously kept in 2009, but that was due to reasons that need to be re-examined. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - although some of the sources referenced are indeed just passing references, a look at the last two sources (nos 5 and 6) seem to be more than just passing references. Seeing as a previous AFD in 2009 resulted in a keep vote, I'd be very surprised if things have changed enough to warrant the deletion of the article. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 07:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen many of these institutions when I visited India. Dial911 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep FIITJEE is one of the most well known coaching institutes for Engineering entrance exams in India. It is not one single institute but rather a chain of institutes. Their branches are present in every single Indian city and is a household name among most Indian families.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to my vote, FIITJEE has been in news multiple times. [44], [45], [46], [47] are some of the most recent ones.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:11, 9 October 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.