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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehman Azhar

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

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why ? --Saqib (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel like some case needs to be made here. The article has been the subject of several edit wars but no real change over the past 5 years. There are no links cited as references but 13 links at the end of the article, none currently useful. The article reads as a personal bio. Overall, it's a very low-quality article, and should possibly be reduced to a 1-paragraph stub. But I can't support a case for deletion of this article unless somebody who reads Urdu can check for notability in that language. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If he is notable, it is not verifiable at this stage. If an Urdu reader proves this wrong at some point in the future, then this article can be re-created. It does not appear to have an Urdu-language Wikipedia article and I cannot find sources to verify notability, nor is notability clear from this article. MartinJones (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - none of the references point to anything notable if to anything at all.--Rpclod (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment after a few more weeks of the AfD process, I no longer support my previous Keep vote here, and remain neutral. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 29 May 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. SoWhy 13:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Ayaz

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

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no references and I can find none in English other than editorial credits ^[1]. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is Ayaz Gul, not Gul Ayaz. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if those refer to the same person or not. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:37, 14 May 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. No reason given to keep the article. Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saadia Afzaal

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

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why ? --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Doesn't pass GNG, it could go either way on NJOURNALIST, but more refs are needed. This is one of those "it could be notable with some more work, but the odds are probably that it isn't and it isn't as it's written now." South Nashua (talk) 02:22, 16 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhruddin Sajid

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

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability as a poet. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we need expert opinion on this one, but as of right now, I'd start from scratch. The only source in the stub can not be translated by a machine. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After three relists, there is still no consensus whether the sources demonstrate notability and there is no indication that another relist would lead to a clearer consensus. SoWhy 12:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahima Naz

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

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep not internationally notable, but [1] suggests that there's local notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unreliable source. --Saqib (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - local notability, no matter how well deserved, is not the same as WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Added 2 reliable sources and removed some un-cited content. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - one link is dead, another just mentions the subject as a bystander quoted for an article. One article does not create notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequate sources found to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The one Pakistan Today article is all about her and is enough, in my view, to establish notability for an author working in a non-English area (we may surmise that more coverage exists in local languages).  Sandstein  08:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Muhammad Soomro

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

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Urdu language wikipedia article on him even has a navbox for him, with links to individual works, etc. Yet Gscholar has absolutely nothing on him in English. And when I do a Gsearch for the name in either Sindhi or Urdu, there's nothing, again. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment -- He seems to have been very prolific, but only being an assistant professor does not fill me with confidence as to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - fails NOR. Sources do not need to be online, but there do need to be sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:34, 8 May 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 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soomran Jo Shujro

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

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

A non-notable book about the Soomra dynasty and/or the Soomro, created by an editor who's created quite a few Soomro family-related articles. I can't find anything on this book -- and the references on the article are of no value. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indications as to why this entry should be included in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable book. --Saqib (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- an ADVERT for a NN genealogy book in a foreign language, probably Urdu. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NBOOK. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:35, 8 May 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) feminist 02:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Soomro

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

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly the strongest of the Soomro-related articles at Afd that I've seen to date: there Sindhi and Urdu Wikipedia articles on him, there are at least non-reliable sources about him, he even apparently gets a passing mention in South Africa's DRUM magazine. But despite this, he seems to fail both GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I did some digging and this poet meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, with sufficient coverage to support this determination (including coverage of him in The News International, the largest English-language paper in Pakistan, and the BBC World Service). In addition, well-known Sindhi poet Tajal Bewas read a paper about Soomro's poetry at the Pakistan Academy of Letters, a singular honor for a poet in that country. I have reworked the article to make it meet Wikipedia style guidelines and have added a number of citations which prove the subject's notability. I should also note that this subject has entries not only in the Encyclopedia Sindhiana but in the Sindhi and Urdu Wikipedias. If Soomra is notable enough for the Wikipedias in his main languages, let alone the Encyclopedia Sindhiana, it seems a bit silly for English-language editors who can't speak those languages to go against this. Just saying. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Additions by SouthernNights have greatly improved the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes and I've struck through my !vote above, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 9 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faqeer Muhammad Soomro

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

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing on him in Gnews. Nothing about him in Gbooks, from what I can see. Created by an editor who's created a number of Soomro family articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is [2] the same person? I don't know how I would be able to tell. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO. that is different peron. Look at the photograph. --Saqib (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V. We can't locate even a single source. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Muhammad Amin Soomro

Hakeem Muhammad Amin Soomro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not reliable enough. Saqib (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing on him in Gnews. Created by an editor who's created a number of Soomro family articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete wikipedia is not a webhost for family histories. This person fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Fails NOR. Three of the four sources are broken, but looking them up on archive.org, they don't seem to have anything to do with the content. The fourth source is royal ark and only discusses Mir Ali Nawaz Talpur and not Soomro. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sourced nearly well enough to get over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is a strong enough notability claim to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrable GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A noble effort that seems to have been written in good faith, but the sources cited aren't substantial enough, or in a diverse enough array of reliable and mainstream publications, to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 11 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto Nerayo

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Possible WP:HOAX. Neither a scientist nor nutritionist. Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails BIO, by miles. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim of notability, all sources are web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 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.  Sandstein  16:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynosure FC of Port Harcourt

Cynosure FC of Port Harcourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non Notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL scope_creep (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable football club Seasider91 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whilst they may have played in the Nigeria Cup RSSSF shows only that they have played third tier football in a non-nationwide division. Seems to fail WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn H. Greenberg

Glenn H. Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Non notable finance man. Some coverage, but mostly stop tips. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTINHERIT - his father and wife are notable, I see no evidence he is Power~enwiki (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Large notable hedge fund manager. [3] [4] [5].Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 15 May 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 Marine debris. (non-admin closure) feminist 02:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marine plastic pollution

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

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

This is copied word-for-word from the cited source, a journal article. Although not a copyright violation (the journal is apparently Creative Commons), Wikipedia should not be a publisher (or republisher, in this case) of primary research reports. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Peacock (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article is an unencyclopedic essay, and the subject is covered much better at Plastic pollution#Ocean. Quasar G ^{t - c} 13:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteRedirect, as above, this is not our job, and the article is an inferior WP:FORK of the existing Plastic pollution#Ocean and Marine debris. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marine debris. This is content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above; exactly right.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 12 May 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 Closing per agreement between filer (me) and the student's adviser that further work will be done. Nobody else has commented.. I hope there wasn't some formal requirement that somebody other than the filer close. Somebody had better tell me off if there was. Under the circumstances, I thought it reasonable to do it myself. Bishonen | talk 09:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feminization (sociology)

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

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

The article seems to have been created by copypasting from academic sources in excellent English, combined with short presumably self-written bits in very poor English. Please look at this version, from before I started to remove copyvios and incoherence today. I gave up in frustration because I couldn't access the other sources, but I bet they've been used in the same way. Perhaps somebody who has access to Jstor could check out this, this, and this, to see if the relevant article sections have been lifted from them, as seems likely? The subject may be notable, but surely this article had better be deleted per WP:TNT and a new one written, if anybody's up for it. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There looks to only be two links posted, so I checked those. Offhand it doesn't look like there's anything closely paraphrased or outright taken from the articles from what I can see, but a second look from another person would definitely be a good idea. It looks like the copyvio was recently posted by a student in one of my WikiEd courses, so there should be a clean version to go back to with this edit. I agree that the topic looks like it should be notable and I think that doing a revdel of the edits back to the version I posted above would be the best option here. I'll send a version to the student and ask them to work on re-writing the content to remove the copyvio/plagiarism. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Shalor (Wiki Ed). You mean doing a revert to the version you suggest, rather than a revdel (revision deletion), I think? Good idea. I hope your student responds and gets on well with rewriting the article. It's not exactly only the copyvio/plagiarism (which needs to be rephrased in the student's own words) even though that is the most important thing, but there are also problems of coherence and grammar in the bits that aren't copyvio. Could you tell your student that as politely as possible, please — I have no tact. :-( I'm quite willing to revert the article as you suggest and withdraw this AfD, so the student doesn't have to work under the sword of Damocles. Would that be the best way of handling it, in your opinion? Bishonen | talk 23:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• I was thinking of a revdel to be on the safe side, but I have no problem with just reverting the content since that would be easier for the student. I'll also approach them about the clarity of the content and offer my help with this process. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's reasonable to let the student have access to their own (and others') old revisions, as material to work with (well, they can do that provided they know how to use the history to see old revisions and comments). OK, I'll close this AfD, without prejudice to starting another one at some future date, and revert the article to this version. Happy editing, all. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 7 May 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.  Sandstein  16:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbagh Singh (singer)

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Brand new singer, may make it, with WP:TOOSOON. But may not. scope_creep (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An Afd was done and concluded a month ago, please check history. This is pure bullying. You can't keep tagging a page for your personal agenda. Here's the link--> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dilbagh_singh User:Mandeep_Singh — Mandeep Singh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep According to the link above, the Afd was alreadg conducted once. Also, there are quite a few eligible links here which shows the subject's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantly Maters (talk • contribs) 17:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes Notability clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankawiki100 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Afd are already closed a month ago. It classifies on the basis of links provided. Gurdeep Kaur

• Keep legit links are their. Should not be deleted. HennaSingh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.233.162 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: and forbid further AfDs for six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 14 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Hattangdi

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom, most mentions in sources are trivial, and all are in the context of InnoVen. WP:NOTINHERITED. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete the only coverage of him (as opposed to his company) is a "40 under 40" style article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He appears to not be notable enough. The CEO of the whole company, maybe, but he appears to just be a national manager. In case I am wrong, I will assess the article anyway as a part of WikiProject Biography. Firstclass306 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is the CEO of entire India operations (InnoVen Capital) and the COO of the Group, and makes strategic decisions regarding investments made in leading startups of the country. Tamma07 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Direct news links/press coverage talking about him have not been published but his notability on the basis of the role he plays through his company InnoVen Capital cannot be denied. Tamma07 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So that is no sources then, for a WP:BLP article, where new rules mean sources must be very strong. scope_creep (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - granted that he is a CEO of a large subsidiary in one of the two largest countries on the earth, I'd like to see good sourcing that he even exists. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 22 May 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) 08:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya A. Joshi

Aditya A. Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and possibly WP:FILMMAKER scope_creep (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I can find no reliable sources about the subject. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TNT too many problems to be salvagable. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:27, 13 May 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. No reason given to keep the article. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Kapos

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

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

promotional article with insufficient references DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:BIO for many passing mentions and blogs, but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Writing or stories by the subject may be notable, but there's no good sources about the person. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 22 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UNIMAS Student Representative Council

UNIMAS Student Representative Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable students' union. This article should be merged into Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this is the only good source I can find, aside from passing mentions. Not really worth merging unless the material can be sourced. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, there are no significance importance of the university's students' union. QianCheng_虔诚 08:26, 8 May 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 Malaysian Americans. It may be duly noted that an AfD is not the appropriate venue to seek a merge. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 18:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Islamic Study Group

Malaysian Islamic Study Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organisation. This article should be merged into Malaysian Americans. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some of the content, although it will have to be supported mainly by primary sources: a restrictive Google search reveals only three passing mentions. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:53, 6 May 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) Winged Blades ^Godric 17:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind Champion of Champions

Mastermind Champion of Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not cite any sources. Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. BangJan1999 (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NTV. Quasar G ^{t - c} 12:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added sources. Mortee (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the article creator hadn't been told about this, so I added a notice to Wonderwizard (talk · contribs)'s talk page in case they want to contribute. Mortee (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems notable, with new sources, and comparable to other prog pages. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Parris

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

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

Of the seven references currently provided in this article, the subject is not mentioned anywhere in references 1 or 2; #3 and #4 are both profiles rather than news articles; #5 is a link to a publisher's website; #6 is a primary source; and #7 is a personal blog without an editorial staff or oversight. There is lots of evidence that this person exists, but there does not appear to be enough evidence to substantiate a notability claim. Article was created by an SPA. KDS4444 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to agree that there's limited evidence of notability. The main item would be the author's book, Wade of Aquitaine, except it was self-published 9 years ago, and despite claims of initially being highly ranked on the Kindle, only has 22 reviews at this date. If you take away the book, it's even harder to demonstrate Mr. Parris' notability. I'm putting a delete vote on the book article as well. Timtempleton (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a biography of Ben Parris, which can be found at this link--(one of the references): http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Ben_Parris He is notable, not only for his novel, but he has won national awards. SFrancis1608 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide a link to any reference that mentions a national award and Mr. Parris' name. The article as it stands only asserts this, but provides no evidence of it being true. KDS4444 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do when the online source that the article relied upon for years is no longer maintained? There must be many articles for which references aren't maintained--does this mean that they are no longer notable? I can provide you with a greatly reduced version of a bit of the information, about the Unisys Prize for Online Science Education 2002: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=edtech&month=0204&week=a&msg=pLLX/s639z6aldCAVzBdgg&user=&pw= but the reference wasn't maintained. SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Director of the "Long Island Museum of Science & Technology" certainly sounds like a claim to notability, except I can't fina bluselink. The place doee have a webpage [6] but no gNews hits [7], and to have been subsumed by or merged into the Cradle of Aviation Museum. Taking a fresh tack, I ran a Proqeust news archive search on "Ben Parris" Bingo! He and his museum were notable, Newsday: "LI Science Museum's Parris Becomes a Space Ambassador" Jackson, Tommi, 07 Oct 2002: p. A34. [8]' "COOL2KNOW," Washington Post; BY CARYN EVE MURRAY. Newsday, 13 Feb 2008: B.3. , [9]. More sources found. There's enough here to keep, article needs a good editing/editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per E.M.Gregory's excellent research. bd2412 T 01:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete article is on him as a self-published author. I'd probably support keeping a heavily edited version of the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:30, 13 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Kittrell

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

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

Non notable subject with a few references to unreliable youtube and twitter. Also refs to few other unreliable websites. Notability is not inherited. Article refers to comments made on a twitter account that may or may not be written by article subject. Ar best the twitter comment is self published, at the worst it is considered unreliable because it is not known for certain who posted the comment on unreliable twitter, whether it be the subject or another party. Article and subject fails WP:GNG and has not proven N notability. Article was tagged for notability, but another editor objected and quickly removed the tag citing some alphabet tag. I have heard that failing argument before, thus bringing to AFD to attempt to gain a consensus decision from any group of editors. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Qualifies under WP:BASIC. Brycehughes (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the sources provide the indepth coverage needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I can find plenty of passing mentions, as well as gossip magazines commenting on her being transgender, but not enough coverage in reliable sources to keep the article. Fails WP:BASIC. Quasar G ^{t - c} 12:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - everybody's got a YouTube channel, nothing notable here. Montanabw^(talk) 10:33, 14 May 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) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Stan Ekeh

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

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

The article has no references and most of the claims have been tagged since 2012. From looking through "news" articles, they are either interviews or WP:PRIMARY sources or they reference the alleged fraud WP:ONEEVENT. The entire article reads like a CV. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a glorified CV. No indications of notability or significance; associated with a nn company. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: An individual with a national honour, OFR suggests some claim of notability. These things are not given to just any successful businessman. Darreg (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: @Darreg: that true. Am in support.--MKJ6006 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: we are now seeing keep !votes from editors with no other edits on en-WP than creating promotional articles about non-notable Nigerian bloggers, rappers etc, and !voting keep when articles of that kind created by others are nominated for deletion. Making me believe that we're seeing a group of people engaging in paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have enough information to suggest paid editing? This sounds like WP:BADFAITH to me. And I hope I'm not part of the "editors" you're implying are engaged in promotional editing, WP:COI and WP:PAIDEDITING is something I've never violated since joining here. Darreg (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep the article needs improvements in quality more than it needs additional references/proof of notability, IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The article needs work, but a BEFORE convinced me he is notable. Covered in Nigerian and international press.Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Darreg. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 17 May 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) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christina El Moussa

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

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

The article has been on AfD in 2015, and the decision was merge as the subjest is not notable. Today an account with 27 total edits restored the article, claiming the individual is notable because of her diviorce, and indeed added some info about the divorce. The article is slightly different from the version of two years ago, and therefore AfD seems to be a suitable process to delete it, rather than CSD. Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and Redirect: Divorce section contains copyvio WP:G12 of People's article. Even without the details in Christina El Moussa#Divorce being copyvio, that section needs to be nuked from orbit for weight/NPOV/BLP and sooner rather than later. The couple divorced; that can be dealt with in half a sentence at Flip or Flop. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up: Speedy struck on the presumption of revdelling. Re WP:OSE, the same case applies for for keeping Tarek El Moussa as a separate article vs redirecting to Flip Or Flop as it does to Christine El Moussa. The issue with both is that their individual notability does not appear separable from each other, nor does their combined notability appear separable from Flip or Flop. Almost all of this article is actually about the couple and their combined activities, as is, for instance, the provided story. Considering the three possibilities (1: separate pages for each + separate page for Flip or Flop; 2: combined page for the pair plus separate page for Flip or Flop; 3: combined detail at Flip or Flop)... Option 1 results in blanket duplication across at least two pages. Option 2 would allow duplication to be avoided, which I find an acceptable compromise, though some might find this awkward given the personal split although they remain a professional duo. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I've fixed the copyvio and improved the tone of the divorce section. Otherwise, the subject has vast coverage in sources. Most of this is, admittedly, in the context of Tarek El Moussa or Flip or Flop; and published by notoriously unreliable celebrity gossip newspapers like The Daily Mail. However, it demonstrates a significant fanbase, which means the subject passes WP:CELEBRITY. Digging deep enough does find reliable sources (e.g. [10]) which suggest that the individual passes WP:GNG. Quasar G ^{t - c} 13:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Quasar G. and the article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Redirect to the show, Flip or Flop; the article is promotional with content such as "The couple leads Success Path Education" (ext link to commercial web site), etc. I also note that Tarek El Moussa is now a redirect to the show, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek El Moussa from 2015. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @K.e.coffman: remember WP:OTHERSTUFF, and a bit of promotional material does not warrant deletion. Quasar G ^{t - c}

• Clarification: The subject lacks individual notability, apart from the show; hence my "Restore redirect" iVote. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Still is not notable. She is famous for her role on one show, which nearly doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:ENTERTAINER, - Galatz^Talk 23:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's some data to support the claim. Christina's individual notability has increased outside of the show. 'Flip or Flop' on Google Trends shows top 'related searches' are 'Flip or Flop Christina', 'Christina El Moussa', 'Christina' (Source: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=flip%20or%20flop ). The data shows when people are searching for the show, they follow up to learn more about Christina specifically. Google Trends data also shows a spike in searches for her around the same dates of her divorce. The data supports that her notability and her celebrity status has increased outside of her show and users are interested in learning more about her personal life and background. There's also articles about her personal life written from sources such as 'People', showing increased notability. That's why I'm proposing a 'keep'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocean4 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also agree with Quasar G. and yes, the article passes GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep being on the cover of People magazine gives the presumption of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or Redirect to Flip or Flop, no need to create a redlink, and the show, such as it is, confers adequate notability. Montanabw^(talk) 10:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Do I think she should be notable? no. Is she notable? yes. The sheer amount of Google-news hits (and skimming over them) - confers notability. Reality TV stars gain notability with time - and what was true in 2015 (AFD - two years into the show), is not true in 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As it currently stands, the reliable and verifiable sources about her support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. She's now hot in the celeb press, in addition to everything else. 2600:1002:B111:2A77:D4BC:601B:1BEE:35FF (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Zero interest to me personally, but the sources are sufficient to meet our notability guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article needs a lot of work, but AfD isn't cleanup and notability is there. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entangling Love in Shanghai

Entangling Love in Shanghai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no citation India1277 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article needs citations, but the topic is definitely notable. The TV drama has been broadcast nationally in China. -Zanhe (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the page history we can see the nominator spent less than a minute to review the article, do WP:BEFORE and finish the AFD request. Very efficient. Timmyshin (talk) 05:41, 29 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Scheu

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

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

Does not meet GNG, NGRIDIRON or NCOLLATH John from Idegon (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but will support re-creation if he plays in a professional league or if sources prove notability in the article not in this AfD.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At this point he fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NGRIDIRON. None of the coverage appears to be the significant (i.e., non-routine) independent variety required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 11 May 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.  Sandstein  14:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell International Affairs Society

Cornell International Affairs Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable student organization. All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers. In short: fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks much better, definitely a notable student organization as they're listed on the Cornell overview page of the US News Best Colleges List^[2], the Cornell Chronicle (not student run)^[3], and Best Delegate^[4] Colestefan (talk) 5:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

US News is trivial mention. Cornell Chronicle is not student run, but it is the in-house newspaper for Cornell, so roughly the equivalent of a PR source. Being noted on a model UN organization's blog also doesn't satisfy our general notability guidelines, and the coverage combined is certainly not up to the standards or WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you originally marked it for deletion because "All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers," which is no longer the case. It seems to be up to the standards set out by WP:ORG and is certainly a notable organization from the viewpoint of someone involved in the Cornell community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources added are pretty far from what we would normally expect from an organization under WP:ORG: they are trivial or non-independent mentions in publications that would not be considered reliable sources. The same case for deletion remains: this is a student organization that is very good at what it does apparently, but is not notable in the sense of the word that we use it on Wikipedia. It could very well be noteworthy at Cornell, but that is not the same as saying it should have a separate page in a general reference encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you ought to go through and delete hundreds of student organizations that are similarly notable. Georgetown's International Affairs Relations Association only has references from Best Delegate, their own website, and their school paper. Yale is pretty much the same. No one has ever questioned those. You, Tony, just happened to find this page when there were very few references and now have placed a target on its back despite it being up to par with similar organizations. Wikipedia is not a finite or physical encyclopedia; something that is notable at Cornell, notable in the Ithaca community, and notable in the Model United Nations world has a place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ORGDEPTH. There is significant coverage from reliable sources such as Oprah and problems originally cited by the complainant have been resolved (can't keep changing the benchmark). References are comparable to existing articles for similar organizations. Colestefan (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question is whether this article meets WP:ORGDEPTH, which it doesn't in my view as I have explained above. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, mine is also an argument regarding WP:ORGDEPTH, as I explicitly stated. There is significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources. Period. You first said above that "All references are either self-published or from student papers" which is simply false now. When possible, editing should be done to improve the page instead of cavalier deletion as per WP:DEL-CONTENT. This has been done, so I rest my case. There is not consensus on this. Colestefan (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- sources offered at this AfD are either passing mentions or not independent of the subject (Cornell). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken, we could mention every source in the article in this Afd, but that would not be productive. The article and its 17 sources speaks for itself now. They are independent of the subject, because it wouldn't make any sense to include all of this information in the Cornell page, thus it should have its own. 128.84.125.2 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Austin[reply]

• Keep Per Colestan and the IP. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• L3X1 can you explain how it meets NORG and GNG as your edit summary implies? The only source that gives it in depth coverage is Cornell's equivalent of a PR press. The other sources are a passing mention in the US News profile of the school and a blog post about a conference they hosted from a Model UN training organization. The only independent professional journalism source in the article is about a high school going to a conference, not actually about the student organization. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Really Tony? What you're saying is simply false. If you look at the sources there is more than that. From your original reasons to deletion to now, you've been underselling the sources in order to help your case. Do you have some kind of vendetta against this org? It seems like you're not arguing in good faith.

• No, I don't have any sort of vendetta against this organization. I believe I randomly discovered it in the new pages backlog. I'm actually quite open to withdrawing an AfD if I have missed something, and have done so several occasions in the past. My only dog in this fight is that including non-notable organizations undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted. L3X1 is the first non single-purpose account to express an opinion otherwise at this AfD, so I was asking them to elaborate given that their rationale was not very lengthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, I should be able to respond in less than half an hour. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Tony, I'm not a single-purpose account. As for "to express an opinion otherwise," that's clearly a tactic to make it seem like the "consensus" is on your side and it's not appreciated. As previously mentioned, this is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since you brought it up by saying "A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted," I'll mention it again. Similar clubs at Georgetown and Yale, with a similar level of coverage (arguably less), have not been deleted, so again it seems you're lying to help your case. And agreeing with the previous anonymous poster, you continue to undersell sources in order to help your case. The independent professional journalism you mentioned talks about the student organization and the conference they run. Colestefan (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyBallioni They are referenced (in the title) as their president being the chair of UNESCO. They have also done a lot of work with the UN 2, 3, 4.CMUN coverage 5. Combined with the various posting by sources affiliated with Cornell, I believe there is enough coverage to count as Notable. While it is very hard to completly satisfy both the independent requirement and the GNG, what I read both int he article and in other non-RS covers for it. Personally, I would edit out the Structure sections, as it is a unnessecary list. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• L3X1, that is Model United Nations: a student competition where high schoolers and college students that is not actually connected to the UN. The actual head of UNESCO is Irina Bokova. The other sources are either an advertisement for their conference, self-published (keynote speaker's personal website, and Odyssey.) The final source you provided is about a high school student winning an award, not about the organization itself. Thank you for responding (even if we disagree on this.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you, L3X1. I concur with your general sentiment and would also like to add, with regards to the GNG, that the organization is the successor to the organization that "attended the first [ever] Model Assembly of the League of Nations (at Syracuse University) in 1927 and subsequently hosted their own assembly, believed to be the second ever conference, the next year," backed up by two sources. I agree that the structure sections could be changed. Colestefan (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable independent of the university. Second option would be to merge into a list of Cornell societies, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG per searches, and clearly doesn't come close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. References are either non-independent or trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 26 May 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 History of Bielsko-Biała.  Sandstein  09:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bielsko municipal election, 1936

Bielsko municipal election, 1936 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable local election. PROD was declined with the following reasoning: "Elections in German-speaking parts of Poland during the 1930s are of more historical interest than typical local elections, so this has plausible potential utility". No explanation on the Talk page as to why they are of greater historical interest.

The only source on the page is in German, and is a book with no preview. While this is perfectly within policy it is not helpful for the average enwiki editor in terms of determining notability. Can't find any other books mentioning these elections as being abnormally significant. Admittedly though I don't read German so there could be German sources I'm missing. Finally, I am not opposed to merging; if there were a general article about similar elections I would merge and redirect, but I don't even see any other similar local election articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm the admin who declined the PROD request on this. In response to "No explanation on the Talk page as to why [elections in German-speaking Poland in the 1930s] are of greater historical interest", I would have thought that would go without saying, but if you're really not aware of the background: "the rights of German-speakers in Eastern Europe" was the proximate cause of the Second World War, and these immediately pre-war election results are the closest thing we have to a survey of what level of support Naziism had in the areas Hitler claimed to be liberating. (In this particular instance, while support for pro-German parties outnumbered that for the pro-Poland bloc, the Young German Party—aka the Nazis—didn't have majority support in the German community.) I'm not saying these elections necessarily each need their own page, but the WP:PROD process is for uncontroversial deletions which, given the potential utility of this information, clearly isn't the case here. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Soman: Your thoughts as author? The article itself doesn't provide any context about the election. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What level of local government was Bielsko municipality? Based on other countries, if this was a second tier level of government, the article would almost certainly be deemed worth keeping. Number 57 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Notability isn't really the question when it comes to elections. I would be happy if the material could be merged into a larger article on the 1936 municipal elections, but I'd advice against deletion considering that the factoid given here can be difficult to recreate later. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the information, I just don't know that each individual election from the period is independently notable. If there had been an article to merge to, I would've done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to History of Bielsko-Biała. Local municipal elections that likely fail GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to either a more general Polish municipal elections article or to History of Bielsko-Biała. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:05, 15 May 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 Information management. Consensus is that this could be merged somewhere else, but there's no clear agreement where to and seemingly no great enthusiasm for doing it. This redirect is an interim solution.  Sandstein  10:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data gathering and representation techniques

Data gathering and representation techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No context for this at all, which means it contains pretty much no useful information. This is made worse by the completely mangled English ("The probability distribution techniques are utilized to portray that shapes compatible with the information created amid a quantitative risk analysis" - what?). I don't see that any of this article is useful. Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I declined a Prod request on this and a number of similar articles that cited the rough English, as I did not believe it to be totally incomprehensible. But most of these articles don't have enough content to make them worth keeping. Additionally most lack sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish a credible claim to encyclopedic notability. It might be worth an attempt to combine some of the others into a single AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, tentatively, to some general project management article ...see my comment, next. --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article has too general a title. It is apparently an attempt to cover the topic of data gathering and representation FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT, but it doesn't say so in the title and further it fails to go into anything project-management related (perhaps where data is about tasks and sequencing matters and so on, as needed for PERT/CPM modeling). It reminds me that I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2nd nomination), where "Keep" was the decision taken, and correctly so. It was agreed that it is okay/good to cover, within Wikipedia, the body of knowledge about project management that has been developed. With caveat: as long as it is written and organized encyclopedically, and that includes using article titles that make sense. It could be reasonable to have an article like this split out of bigger articles, but I don't currently see where this fits in, and since it has little real content I would be inclined to merge it back to wherever it does fit in. If there is a whole series of articles that have been split out unnecessarily, or set up independently, could we discuss that here, now? Rather than encouraging a slew of AFDs on them, I bet they could be addressed by editing, perhaps involving some merger proposals. And there could be some overall organizing discussion at some central location, perhaps Talk:Project management? I don't see a WikiProject specifically focused on this topic area (it seems to fall within WikiProject Business, WikiProject Computing / Software, WikiProject Engineering, and WikiProject Systems. AFDs would be unnecessarily adversarial, I think. Ad Orientem, could you comment more please? --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps redirect to Information management, as it seems to be the same thing as Project Information Management? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) feminist 02:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet potato salad

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

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

Not that I can read the refs since my knowledge of Arabic is limited, but I see no claim of notability and I Wikipedia is not a recipe book TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone. In fact, this salad is very popular in the Arab world, especially in the Maghreb and in the Levant specifically in Lebanon, as you can see there are around 330,000 searches about sweet potato salad in Arabic, I know it is not notability as Fattoush, Tabbouleh and the traditional Arab salad but there are many types of Arab salads. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Well, I know that the article contains the ingredients, but I will be developing it in the future as other users will contribute to its development.--Canbel (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The references are easily readable for anyone using Google Translate: they do all seem to be of the online recipe or how-to-prepare video type. Maybe see if there are book references that describe it as a notable Arabic dish. Also puzzled as to why this doesn't exist in the Arabic language Wikipedia if it's so notable--or does it? Is there a Wikidata entry for this? I can find no match. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if it an Arab dish because it is also found in the sites in English, but it is not known what is its origin, even if it is a global dish, is still an Arab recipe. The Arabic Wikipedia lacks a lot of articles. Such the Matbucha available in eight languages but not available in Arabic. I suggest renaming it to Batata hulwa salad as to pronounce in Arabic.--Canbel (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, even searching for that name, I just can't see enough significant, non-trivial coverage to merit an article, sorry. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as reliable sources are lacking. The sources cited are, as noted above, recipes and/or "how to" articles/videos. Searches turn up mentions of versions of this dish in what may well be reliable sources, but which are clearly not the Middle Eastern version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a general, encyclopedic topic. The existence of multiple recipes out there attests to the notability of the topic; we can have an article describing what it is, without descending into becoming a recipe book. The article can/should be expanded to cover non-Arabic versions of sweet potato salad. --doncram 20:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Arabic sources into English sources. A reliable source of Arabesque book.--Canbel (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfied at least one of the sources is enough to provide notability. However all the links to recipes should be removed per WP:NOTHOWTO Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the links to recipes.--Canbel (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG as reliable sources are lacking. I like Arabic food and wanted to Keep the article if possible. It does not seem like sweet potato salad is a common dish name like the far more common "macaroni and cheese". There were too many slight variations of the term sweet potato salad in the sources given (such as "moroccan-ish sweet potato sunshine salad"). It seems like it is not a very popular/notable food dish. Knox490 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are plenty of sources available online and in cookbooks. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A quick internet search reveals plenty of articles on the dish and/or its variants which more than clearly establishes notability; it's also a dish that someone might hear a mention of on TV or the radio and think, "What's that?" and do an internet search wanting to find the answer. Libertybison (talk) 22:05, 8 May 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. SOFTDELETE per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Roy

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

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

Singer and actress who seems to be notable at first glance, but it isn't clear that she actually meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She does meet the guidelines. Is currently still a working actor in numerous notable TV shows with significant roles. You can see her on the TV show Underground currently airing now as well as upcoming on a very significant role on NBC's The Night Shift. Previous to this she has also appeared in NBC's The Michael J Fox Show, ABC's Black Box, MTV's Mary+Jane as guest starring roles and Switched at Birth as a recurring role. The page needs updating which will be done in the coming weeks. Please take this off the Articles for deletion. A2b3sing (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — A2b3sing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Appearances and one-off roles aren't "significant". Not all recurring roles are significant either. Please specify exactly what criterion in WP:NACTOR this person meets, and why. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pulse (group). Power~enwiki (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion despite three relists (a !vote without explanation does not count as discussion). The assumption of G5 eligibility is not sufficient grounds for deletion and other reasons for deletion were not mentioned either by the nominator or the sole delete-!vote. SoWhy 10:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Goddard

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

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

Page previously deleted as unambiguous promotion. Was recreated by a sockpuppet, which escaped notice for a while and has had enough edits by unrelated users to warrant a discussion. The recreated version is substantially similar to the deleted version, though not identical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:G5. With the exception of a sole IP edit (quite possibly block evasion itself) all other edits to the page have been typo fixes, dab fixes, template additions and other minor edits. There's nothing that wasn't created by the sockpuppet that's worth keeping. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix the promotion as necessary, as we could use more coverage of Trinidadian artists. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 13 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Lynn Jones

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

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

Seems too soon to have an article. Her only borderline-notable role was in Crisis, which unfortunately got cancelled after just 13 episodes. All her other roles were single episode guest appearances, brief cameos, and short films. She has not won or been nominated for any notable awards yet and coverage is minimal at the moment. If she gains notability in the future, someone can always recreate this article The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. Too few credits and too minimal press coverage to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.79.113 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 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. apparent consensus. I urge Icewhiz to continue to work on the article DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Farid

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

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

apparently doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not independent and reliable. clearly an autobio. Saqib (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but remove the "Philanthropy" and "Controversy" sections. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why keep ? please provide reason. --Saqib (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has way too much detail on these things. Co-founding a $500 million company is notable. Being a party to non-notable lawsuits is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Remove "Philanthropy" (or reduce - which I just did), but most definitely keep lawsuits - which is why he is notable. the "edible arrangements" by itself doesn't make him notable (though it is an interesting business and did get some coverage). His serial lawsuits (and coverage of) alleging discrimination against himself, Muslims, and Islamic institutions - quite a collection of cases - push him over the notability line. Convinced by going over Google news hits.Icewhiz (talk) 20:43, 16 May 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 University of Sheffield. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Clifford Dental Hospital

Charles Clifford Dental Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. hospitals are not inherently notable. the coverage is rather routine and local for Sheffield. let's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails GNG. a directory entry. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are very few specialist dental hospitals in the UK. This is one of the best-known and the teaching hospital for a notable university dentistry department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual evidence of being "best known ". LibStar (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]