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) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MultiLing – Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan

MultiLing – Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan (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)

Single academic unit within a single department. The department is not notable, and neither is the center. This is basically a directory listing by a declared paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't seem to be independently notable to the extent that it merits a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE). If its parent article, Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies is kept (it's also at AfD), then it may be worth considering whether the Center is worth mentioning there, but I don't think this article title is a sensible one for a redirect, generally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. No redirect required. --Bejnar (talk) 02:25, 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 delete.  Sandstein  16:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies

Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies (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)

Individual academic departments are very rarely notable, and there is no evidence that this one is. (normally, the standard is among the few best in the world, with multiple famous professors. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability independent of the institution such that it merits a stand-alone article. Delete rather than redirect because the department name could easily be shared by departments at other institutions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sig cov justifying standalone article. Neutrality^talk 05:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 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. Consensus suggests that the content as it stands doesn't appear to support a proper article or the topic in consideration and this article should be deleted. A better structured article may be created later, possibly one on the law itself. —SpacemanSpiff 01:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle beacon lights in India

Vehicle beacon lights in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

i don't think that an article just on the use of beacons in india is really notable. maybe redirect to the law that was passed to ban them, but i think that is unlikely as well -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agrees with nominator, not notable topic, too niche. Information should be merged or deleted. 05:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Emergency vehicle lighting, which has sections for such lights by country. bd2412 T 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on TNT grounds. In a country of more than one billion people, federal law that affects both state-owned vehicles and private vehicles is almost guaranteed to be notable (I won't say exceptions can't exist, but such a thing is definitely not a niche topic), but this isn't an article. It's just a list of affected people and their cars. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 27 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  16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Dogmatism

Anti Dogmatism (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:NALBUM for lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NALBUM. Also hard to read due to poor syntax. Author should consider contributing in their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My initial thought was to look at WP:ATD alternatives to deletion, and redirect to Moein Mohammadi, the artist. However, this is a potentially ambiguous title, so I think deletion is preferable. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons listed. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 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) Winged Blades ^Godric 15:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Strauss (industrialist)

Michael Strauss (industrialist) (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:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. Notability is not inherited. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the person has an entry in Hebrew Wikipedia, he is a well known industralis and valid person for an entry and the refferences and more details about him will be addedd asapSelten99 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. https://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/81/biz_06israel_Michael-Raya-Strauss_HWNX.html--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve: significant coverage online in WP:RS. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Any cursory WP:BEFORE (which you are supposed to do before AFD!) would show an abundance of sources. This is the owner (and former long-time manager) of Israel's second largest food company (and at the time - the only private company - Tnuva was owned by the Kibbutzim back then). Strauss is included today in TA-35 - Israel's leading stock index, and was a very significant company when Michael Strauss was chairman and CEO. Plenty of WP:RS available.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Icewhiz: could you link some sources? It's just that I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions, apart from Forbes. No doubt there is plenty of Hebrew material, which I will have missed because I don't speak the language and cannot analyse the sources' reliability. Quasar G ^{t - c} 15:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Quasar G.: I added some English language sources (google books actually led to some English results - when intersecting with Dairy. Michael Strauss by itself is a bad keyword) + some Hebrew. It should be well sourced enough to pass Afd. This is a major figure - not someone obscure.
      • @Icewhiz: thanks for your improvements, the Hebrew sources were key here. I'll let the AfD run its course, but he seems to pass the GNG now. Quasar G ^{t - c} 19:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Quaser G.: I'm joining into looking at Selten99's Strauss group and Ofra Strauss PROMO which created this article too. While both Ofra and Michael are significant and should pass GNG, Michael is the really significant figure achievement wise... He turned a medium sized company into a giant. Ofra, on the other hand, was groomed for the role which was handed over to her on her father's retirement and in a business sense has not really achieved much.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this well sourced, apparently notable, cogent article. --Lockley (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is notable, article is well-sourced.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:03, 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Dhiman

Sunny Dhiman (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:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails any criteria for BLP .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for holding roles in student government, and nothing here is a strong enough claim of notability to make him more notable than other student government figures. Further, the referencing here isn't strongly enough about him to confer a WP:GNG pass in lieu of not passing any subject-specific inclusion standard — it consists almost entirely of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage in which he's the subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Television

Driving Television (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)

Minimally sourced article, with some advertorial tint, about a television series. While this aired on a national television network, and thus would qualify for an article if it could be properly sourced, there's nothing here that would exempt it from having to clear WP:GNG -- but on a ProQuest search, all I was actually able to find was one article about its premiere in a newspaper owned by the same company that owned its parent network at the time (thus not a fully reliable source, because it represents internal corporate cross-promotion rather than independent coverage from a media outlet without a vested interest), one article which confirmed that it aired as a paid program (i.e. the same class of programming as infomercials) rather than as one that the network purchased per se, and a bunch of glancing namechecks of its existence in articles about other things (mostly "Zack Spencer is the host of Driving Television" at the bottom of articles in which Zack Spencer was the bylined author and not the subject.) For added bonus this was heavily tarted up with unsourceable insider baseball from the producers themselves, and once I stripped that because WP:NOTADVERT and WP:COI there was almost no substance left except "this exists". There's simply not enough meat, or enough legitimate sourcing, to deem this notable per WP:TVSHOW. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- strictly promotional with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Side note, I was also surprised at the quantity of trivial mentions in my searches. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:55, 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) 22:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Desjardins

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

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

WP:BLP of a broadcaster, who has a valid potential claim of notability for her association with a nationally distributed sports channel but lacks the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG for it. The only references here are a blog entry in the context of her past work as a local radio host, and a glancing namecheck of her existence in a newspaper blurb about her joining Sportsnet -- a job, for the record, from which she was laid off just one year later. And I can't find the depth or breadth of reliable source coverage about her needed to salvage this, either -- even on a Google search, I get namechecks and blogs, not substantive reliable source coverage about her. As always, simply existing as a broadcaster is no automatic guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia -- the existence of reliable source coverage about her, sufficient to clear GNG, is what determines whether a Wikipedia article gets to happen or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I note [1] and [2] as newer references. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's not the subject of the Globe and Mail reference, but merely has her existence glancingly namechecked in an article about something other than her — and MarketWired is a press release distribution platform, in which the "coverage" was written by her own employer rather than by an independent source. So no, neither of those sources counts for anything at all toward getting her over a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a nn TV personality; sources above do not meet the WP:SIGCOV bar and are passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement Remixes

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

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

I'd actually love to see a Wikipedia article about this topic, but there's no independent coverage about it beyond a Know Your Meme entry editorEهեইдအ😎 17:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability, no independent sources, and it appears to be a copyvio of http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/replacement-remixes . There are lots of online music sites that can be used as sources for the existence of replacement remixes of particular songs, but we need sources that talk about the phenomenon of replacement remixing itself. I didn't find them, but to be honest I didn't look very hard. This is yet another "I read something on the internet so I'm going to make a one- or two-line Wikipedia article". As with the other such articles, if this survives it will only be because other editors have taken the topic over and written enough to get it to at least a viable stub. Meters (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)![reply]

Delete as per reasons above. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:46, 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 no consensus. Merge proposals etc. may be evaluated at talk page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 07:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Lesotho Defence Force helicopter crash

2017 Lesotho Defence Force helicopter crash (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)

To quote the person who Proded this article- "No evidence that this accident is noteworthy for a stand-alone article, helicopter crashes are not rare particularly military operated ones. Really needs to be the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature to have an article." This crash is tragic but not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, and as I explained on its talk page, I fail to see where we have an explicit requirement that such articles need to be 'the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature' - that seems vague to say the least. If you look at our 2017 and 2016 articles for aircraft incidents, you will see quite a few that are just AS notable as this one. I understand why private planes and helicopters don't fit the shoe, but in this case it's a country with a very small air force, and one where accidents don't generally happen that often, so there is some notability to it IMO. The other articles serve as a precedent, so unless there is a specific rule that I am missing, we either have to enforce the same rules to all older articles and lose a LOT of them, or come up with some sort of compromise. Just my two cents. Skycycle (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is WP:AIRCRASH and precedents don't count for much (WP:Other stuff exists); however it being a country with a very small air force counts as another notable feature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Hawkeye7 stated - see WP:AIRCRASH. As these being part of the Lesotho Defence Force - sorry, I don't see how this counts for much. The Lesotho air wing is really just a general aviation wing that isn't expected to carry out any role in a war (As Lesotho is landlocked and surrounded completely by the much larger South Africa - in any conceivable military conflict with South Africa, aviation wouldn't last for more than a day (the ground forces might do marginally better, and might be able to put up an irregular/guerrilla campaign afterwards) - it might carry out some role in an irregular conflict with local rebels, but otherwise seems to be mostly geared for regular governmental transport - it is borderline itself for an article (which it doesn't have - is included with Lesotho Defence Force - a small organization overall - as per article 3,100 personnel). Being part of a marginal, non-useful (in any organized international conflict, possible use vs. internal rebels), military of a marginal country - doesn't make this crash more notable than others - if at all less notable. Police helicopters crash all the time - if the crash isn't notable in terms of damage on the ground, specific fatalities (notable victims), or a large amount of victims (e.g. a Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion or Boeing CH-47 Chinook which can lead to a high double-digit body count) - it isn't notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The crash of an aircraft belonging to a very small air force which resulted in multiple fatalities is likely to have lasting notability. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per Nick-D's comment the incident had a big impact on Lesotho's airforce and with the investigation ongoing there is a strong possibility the content of the article will be expanded soon. If the final discussion here is more leaning twords delete than keep, I'd advise the closing admin to please consider a Mergeing of the content of this article to the Lesotho Defence Force. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no significant ongoing coverage, just news reports and then silence concerning the subject. It might be worth mentioning in the Lesotho Defence Force article (and I am not sure that it should be), but it certainly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. YSSYguy (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my statement when I proposed deletion "No evidence that this accident is noteworthy for a stand-alone article, helicopter crashes are not rare particularly military operated ones. Really needs to be the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature to have an article." Nothing has emerged since that shows anything noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no societal impact or lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as per Nick-D. I think it would be appropriate to include this incident in Lists_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft. Whilst this event probably falls fractionally short of WP:AIRCRASH, it is nevertheless brief, well written and appears adequately referenced. Whilst I'm unaware of any policy encouraging comparison of short factual articles like this one with innumerable and lengthy ones about trivial fictional characters or C-grade social media personalities, I think it just about stands up to scrutiny against them. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or better Merge the content of this article to the Lesotho Defence Force. I think some of the arguments for deletion have a big country bias. It is significant for a small country's defense forces to be sure but it is hard to see why a single helicopter crash should have an article of its own. It will have a proper context in the Lesotho Defense Force article Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lesotho Defence Force. It is a significant incident for the Lesotho Defence Force, but doesn't require its own article. Better to move the contents.Seaweed (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per comments above Nördic Nightfury 13:35, 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.  Sandstein  13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cargo Carriers Flight 1260

Air Cargo Carriers Flight 1260 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tragic but not notable cargo plane accident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing in the refs cited show that this is anything more than WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Very common occurrence with no lasting effects beyond the deaths of the two people involved. No more notable than any single car collision with a stationary object that kills two people. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under category G5 of the CSD as a creation by a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick with no substantial edits by others - all edits by other users have been to fix mistakes by the creator or related to notability and this AfD. If speedy deletion is declined, then it should be deleted for lack of notability as per the two persons' arguments above anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - iregardless of who started the article the event is still notable, aircraft accidents do not happen every day. Happening as recently as it did and with the investigation ongoing there is no reason not to expect an expansion in content in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the size of the aircraft makes it relevant. Wykx (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All aviation accidents should be added to Wikipedia for further reference in the future for other future Wiki Users.GoMan195531 4:31 PM (MT-Mountain Time), May 7, 2017. —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None of those arguments hold water. "Keep because it might become notable in the future", "Keep because it's bigger than some smaller aircraft", "Keep because Wikipedia should document every aircraft crash ever" - no. YSSYguy (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, those are all very spurious arguments and not based upon policy or guidelines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't report on every accident that happens, just on ones that have some sort of lasting effect in terms of changes to procedures, airworthiness directives of similar. We don't have articles on every boating accident, car accident or train accident. Why not? Because they are very common occurrences, just like this accident. - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been only 2 accidents of plane of this size so far this year so it is not so common. Moreover in large aviation accident, there is always an inquiry with some recommandations to the industry. Wykx (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a large aircraft. Large aircraft are defined as having a gross take-off weight of 300,000 lbs of more, the Shorts 330-200 is 22,900 lbs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been at least fourteen accidents involving aircraft of this size this year and every aircraft accident is investigated regardless of how small the aircraft is; and nowhere on Wikipedia does it say those arbitrary criteria establish notability. YSSYguy (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt meaning Heavy (aeronautics) whch doesn't even include some A300 or A321. At least Shorts 330-200 is definitely a medium and not light. Size of the aircraft implies that the number of passengers potentially impacted in a single-flight is higher and thus is notable. This is for example notable that such an aircraft type doesn't have recorders. Wykx (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The carriage of flight recorders is mandatory for certain classes of aircraft engaged in certain types of operation, therefore the lack of recorders means that the FAA decided in advance that it is not necessary to conduct a detailed investigation in the event of this aircraft crashing. YSSYguy (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it is because this particular aircraft was built before 1997 but for the same models built later on I think it is mandatory to have one. Wykx (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Short 330s built post-1997, production ended in 1992. YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - not a private plane. All cargo accident are important even if with a small number of deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on 06:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Deaths in an accident", "owned by a company" and "in commercial use" do not automatically confer notability, what counts is that there is significant coverage; this crash has not generated such coverage, there has been more discussion at this AfD than of the event itself. YSSYguy (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the US networks/newspapers have reported it and even following steps of the NSTB investigation, with articles during the last four days. Isn't it enough?? Wykx (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. That Wikipedia policy spells it out, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So does it mean we have to delete all articles that are not at least one year-old to check enduring notability? There is not only news coverage but also specialized aviation sites that are highliting this crash. Wykx (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that only accidents that have enduring notability are kept on Wikipedia. We don't have articles on every car accident in which two people are killed, nor boating accident, nor bicycle, train, or any other kind of accident, unless there is some indication that something changed as a result of the accident, like procedures, laws, regulations, products recalls, airworthiness directives or something similar. Why would we treat aircraft accidents as if everyone is notable when no other transportation accidents are treated that way? Just because the media loves sensationalism and jumps all over every aircraft accident doesn't mean Wikipedia does, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Despite your claim that the aviation media is covering this accident it is telling that in fact the world's lead aviation media sites, including www.avweb.com, www.aopa.org and www.flyingmag.com have not covered this accident. - Ahunt (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avweb publishes only these informations a month later... AOPA is centered on smaller aircrafts. Another site like flightglobal has reported it on [3]. Wykx (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Avweb publishes only these informations a month later" - no, that is not correct. For instance they published the much more notable ICON A5 crash the same day it happened, as did AOPA and Flying. The reason none of those leading aviation news outlets didn't cover it is precisely the same reason we are debating deleting the article here, because is is a commonplace event with no lasting effects and not notable. The Flight Global article you cited also shows that there is nothing notable about the accident, no indication it will lead to any changes in anything. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it may be too soon for this article to appear on Wikipedia yet. Very little is known about the crash yet (such as mechanical faults etc), and even if these are revealed, it's not going to be anything more than a tragic accident, and nothing more than newspaper filler. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for reasons explained by Eugεn S¡m¡on and Wykx. Ouseriv (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Nothing, as yet, to indicate it was anything other than a routine accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dont see anything noteworthy in this accident that would pass the bar for a stand-alone article, light cargo aircraft crash rather frequently so would need something out of the norm to be included. Might be worth a mention at List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft but that list if a bit neglected. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are lots of accidents involving small aircraft like the Short 330 and are mentioned on the Short 330 and Short 360 pages. There are also lots of other small planes that have been mentioned but not had actual articles written about them. This should be deleted as it doesn't differ from the other crashes and there is nothing out of the ordinary about it. Somebody created this article straight off the news without researching it properly and if this crash results in a big revelation or change to the aviation industry it could be considered for re-entry but at the moment nothing warrants an article on this crash. Flashjacket348 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As WP:AIRCRASH explains it, articles related to incidents are best dedicated to those that result in changes in design, prodedures, or regulations. While notability can be largely subjective, change is not something that cannot happen during (or right after) an investigation. However, a deletion will not make this content disappear, as it is linked to two different cargo airline articles; its content can be included there. -SteveCof00 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough - per reasons given above. K347 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Sario528 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH has been cited here several times now. However the lead of that essay clearly states:

"This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles.

By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." (my italics)

I think that because this accident can certainly be included in an airport, airline or aircraft article then the question of whether a stand-alone article should exist in addition to these is about the general notability criteria and I think this article can be kept.K347 (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what about all the Shorts 330 and Shorts 360 crashes that are similar to this one? They haven't been included as full articles but are mentioned on aircraft and airline pages, with a few involving Air Cargo Carriers. Why aren't these included as articles? Why aren't you creating pages for all of them? If you check you will find at least 5 similar accidents. If any important details or major safety changes come about as a result of this accident, then it can be re-included. For the time being it can just be mentioned in the accidents and incidents sections on the Shorts 330 and 360 pages, and various airline and airport articles. It could also be included on the list of commercial cargo aircraft accidents and incidents but it depends on the criteria. Flashjacket348 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : WP:AIRCRASH, though only an essay lays out sensible criteria for aviation accident articles. This clearly falls outside that essay's bounds. Actual policy WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER clearly place this article in Delete--Petebutt (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After all the discussion above, Petebutt gives the most cogent and succinct argument: fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chellaul Corporation

Chellaul Corporation (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:NCORP and WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources (a news search on Google returns no results). Quasar G ^{t - c} 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 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) 01:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamas Nawab Siddiqui

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

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

Notability is not inherited from family members per WP:NOTINHERITED, and I don't see in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON, only one film that he has made. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we almost uniformly delete the biographies of film producers, who are quite run of the mill, unless they show significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that must be reliable by way of editorial independence. I don't see how this person [[WP:NOTINHERITED|inherits any notability from one of his family members or with whom he works]. I also don't see how producing a single film (which by the way, appears to be a vanity project) makes him notable. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bred 4 War

Bred 4 War (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:BAND for lack of sufficient independent sources. - MrX 16:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A non-notable band that was formed just last year. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could not find significant coverage either; subject does not appear to meet WP:BAND at this time.  Gongshow   talk 03:15, 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. Michig (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M J Khalid

M J Khalid (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)

Possible WP:HOAX. Can't find any stories he as written, and refs seems to be mix of blogs, dead ends and odd listing. Refs are not consistent. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is noteworthy here that any addition or deletion has its relevance,meaning and impact in the case of Wikipedia.In my opinion there world should be told about a genuin, living and working journalist who is approved by Govt of India and has a commendable share in journalism and writing.It is also worth mentioning here that not a single source has been brought on record from any BLOG.The person has aplace in WHO IS WHO directory published online by Sahitya Academy, one of the highly reputed organization of the country, being part of Ministry of Eduacation,Govt of India. Marc —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - light on for references, not notable individual. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - everything referenced is self-promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a journalist, with WP:PEACOCK prose and poor references. Being a recognised journalist goes with the trade and is not in itself an indicator of encyclopaedic notability. Regarding the Sahitya Akademi and their "Who's Who of Indian Writers" (ref 1 and mentioned by the article creator above), their site invites self-submission (here) so also fails to be a WP:RS. Fails to meet biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 14:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per AllyD. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiruy Amanuel

Hiruy Amanuel (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)

Little coverage in independent third party sources. Most coverage seems to be in passing mentions; the company Gebeya may be notable but Hiruy Amanuel does not appear to be. -- Dane ^talk 16:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I concur with OP, Gebeya might be notable, but Hiruy Amanuel definitely doesn't have enough coverage. Waggie (talk) 00:08, 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 Keep as another week has no disputes about the current sources, thus solving "no sources" and the two prior deletes gave no other objections and these also differ from the nomination's then-current examination (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Kinney

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Of the 13 references listed, 9 are from an "interview" for which no link is given. Jb45424 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of sources. Could change if sources are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete article in its current form. Sources are all dead links or subject's own statements. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. The article is a bit bloated and badly sourced in its current form but she appears to pass WP:GNG for her film choreography (e.g. see Washington Post, Style Weekly). There's also passing book coverage of her in connection with Twyla Tharp [4] and the Robin Williams Popeye movie [5] which adds depth to her story despite not really being enough by itself. And the American Dance Festival Distinguished Teaching Award [6] also looks significant, although (despite its name) not really the kind of endowed chair recognized by WP:PROF#C5 (it's an award by a dance festival, not a funded professorial position at a university). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - due to lack of sources and reliability issues Inkedotly (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Inkedotly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Weak Keep the additional references seem sufficient for GNG; the article is still almost entirely based off of a personal interview, which as a primary source should be somewhere other than Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is poorly sourced but appears notable per Washington Post and Style Weekly; the article should be rewritten to incorporate additional sources and downplay the interview, but the appropriate course is to flag the article for additional citations rather than deleting it. Newimpartial (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as the Post and other sources are added. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Chaubey

Jatin Chaubey (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 casting director fails to pass our general notability guideline. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only significant coverage about them is a Tellychakkar.com article whose reliability hasn't been established. Fails WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:19, 28 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) 01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George I. Mott

George I. Mott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:BLP1E. Other than their death there is nothing notable about this person. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to spontaneous human combustion - probably not enough material for an independent article but should at the minimum be a redirect. Artw (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't consider a book titled "Real-Life X-Files: Investigating the Paranormal" to give notability to people that it references. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 14:04, 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 redirect to Richard A. E. North. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flexcit

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

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

The subject matter concerned does not warrant a specific article, there is nothing that discerns this from the article from other areas where the UK's possible future membership of the EU is considered; including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area#Possible_Withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_UK_relationship_with_the_EU. Neither does this article warrant merging as these issues are already considered in more detail at these pages. The creation of this article is an attempt to tie the idea of joining the EEA to a specific person, Richard North. The fact that he advocates joining the EEA upon leaving the EU until a further deal can be reached is already referenced in a concise manner on his biography page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._E._North#European_Union EU explained (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. The term "Flexcit" does not seem to be widely used, other than by the author. Additionally, there is not sufficient content to justify separate articles for specific proposals for the UK's deal for a future relationship with the EU post-withdrawal. If there is any salvageable content it should be merged to Brexit or Continuing UK relationship with the EU. If these articles grow then it could always be WP:SPLIT in the future. TDL (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems pretty clear to me, not sure why this has been relisted. Delete per WP:NEO Euexperttime (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge this neologism that fails WP:NEO to Richard A. E. North. ( Not seeing sufficient use of term ot justify a redirect to Continuing UK relationship with the EU.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's about the proposed plan and not the word, and the references show that it is one of the few external suggestions that is used in UK Government planning for leaving the EU, a process which is hardly one that needs less coverage. JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single passing reference in a WP:RS to the plan being "perused" is not sufficient to demonstrate that the plan meets the WP:GNG of "significant coverage". I can find only a few other mentions. WP:BLOGS aren't reliable, and can't be used to establish notability. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to be promoting blogs. TDL (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Richard A. E. North; not independently notable. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. Would be preferable to a 'merge' outcome is the article is largely unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this nattering non-notable neologism. --Lockley (talk) 01:00, 30 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 Society for Creative Anachronism. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 06:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estrella War

Estrella War (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)

Sourced entirely to websites of the people who put on the event. I was able to find one independent reliable source covering this; not enough to show notability. Should be deleted or merged into Society for Creative Anachronism. RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Society for Creative Anachronism. There are no significant, independent sources at this time for independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Septagram (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Society for Creative Anachronism. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 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 speedy keep. The nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in a comment in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ma-Tsu Temple (San Francisco, California)

Ma-Tsu Temple (San Francisco, California) (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 Google search returns many results but these are superficial mentions such as in tourism guides, or the temple's own website. I found one book, "Chinese Religions in Contemporary Societies" that has a chapter on the establishment of this temple. This falls short of multiple, substantial references though, so I am nominating on the grounds of notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A full chapter in an academic RS plus multiple tourist guides establishing its status as a notable sight should actually already suffice, but I also just found another academic book with substantial coverage (and expanded the article based on it). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this HaeB (talk · contribs), I don't get to vote as it was my nomination, but given the additional solid reference you've added (thank you) I would happily withdraw the AfD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 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 redirect to Nelson, New Zealand. Consensus is for redirection. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Region

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

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

There's no such thing as the "Nelson Region". Tasman District and Nelson City are two distinct administrative entities. They are unitary authorities and as such are not part of a combined region. Some government agencies regard Nelson City as "The Nelson Region" (e.g., Statistics New Zealand, but they do not include the Tasman District as part of it. To try to group these two separate entities together is incorrect and misleading. The term is sometimes used, with a lower-case "R", to indicate a vague geographical area, but that would hardly form the basis of an article (Tasman District covers that pretty well), but it is not one of the country's official administrative (capital R) Regions. Even the hatnote on the article admits as such with its comment For the current top-level subdivision of Nelson in New Zealand, see Nelson, New Zealand. If the city's the top level adminstrative subdivision, then, by definition, this article is about a non-existent place. Grutness...wha? 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the creator's talk page, the article was created as a content fork as part of an edit war. See also Talk:Nelson Province Grutness...wha? 14:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for deletion of this page does not stand for several reasons. Yes, "Nelson Region" is not a region in the same political sense as Canterbury, Otago or Taranaki. However, people outside of the Nelson / Tasman area rarely understand that local residents and many visitors still refer to the whole area as the "Nelson Region". This reference is more like Central, East, and North Otago or New England whereby the name pertains to a geographical rather than political region. Any claims that the "Nelson Region" page should be deleted would require the deletion of the Otago and New England pages on the same grounds. A quick search of Google identified numerous organisations that use the term "Nelson Region". These included: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand^[1], The Nelson Mail^[2], Nelson Regional Development Agency^[3], The Nelson-Marlborough Institute of Technology^[4], and Lonely Planet^[5]. --125.236.176.24 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)— 125.236.176.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Let's have a look at your points one by one:

1) 'Yes, "Nelson Region" is not a region in the same political sense as Canterbury, Otago or Taranaki.' Exactly.

2) 'However, people outside of the Nelson / Tasman area rarely understand that local residents and many visitors still refer to the whole area as the "Nelson Region".' Actually, if they refer to it by that or a similar name, it is as the Nelson region, lower case r, in the same way they might refer to the "Kaikoura coast", as a rough geographical area with no defined boundaries. Some of these areas do have articles, sure, but in those cases the areas have significant differences to the Regions and Districts they cover. In this case, almost everything that can be said about the Nelson region is said in the articles on the Tasman District and Nelson city.In any case, locals often refer to where they live as a "region", irrespective of whether there is any official designation as such. So we have information on jobs in the Alexandra region, crime in the Timaru region, and so on.

3) 'This reference is more like Central, East, and North Otago or New England whereby the name pertains to a geographical rather than political region. Any claims that the "Nelson Region" page should be deleted would require the deletion of the Otago and New England pages on the same grounds.' See my previous point. None of these areas (areas - none are listed as Regions) can be effectively covered in articles for either Otago or the individual US states without overloading the main articles.

4) 'A quick search of Google identified numerous organisations that use the term "Nelson Region".' All of them, except in their headers, use the term "Nelson region", and use it in a vague, loose sense. In the case of the Nelson Regional Development Agency, the first major section of the document that is linked in the article is about how to combine activities of two distinct, non-overlapping authorities, those of Nelson City and Tasman District. The Nelson Mail uses the term in the same way as mentioned above for Alexandra and Timaru, or in the same way as Invercargill, if you prefer. Lonely Planet also uses the term in a very loose sense, also referring to places such as the "Queenstown region" and "Rotorua region". As for the Nelson-Marlborough Institute of Technology, it's probably worth noting that Nelson-Marlborough does not have an article, even though it is a commonly used term.

Nothing that you have said in any way indicates that this article serves any purpose or is worthwhile - or belongs as a standalone article in Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wha? Do want you wish! Your attitude confirms that Wikipedia is dominated by liberal biased administrators. Just remember Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun125.236.176.24 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Grutness...wha? 10:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council the closest thing there ever was to a Nelson Region. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Or redirecting to Nelson, New Zealand per Gadfium and Stuartyeates would work equally well. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Nelson (geographic region). 222.153.82.76 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (first edit to WP)[reply]

• Redirect to Nelson, New Zealand and tweak Nelson to remove reference to region. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nelson, New Zealand per Stuartyeates.-gadfium 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nelson, New Zealand makes most sense to me. Schwede66 04:53, 20 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 regarding the school and delete regarding the series. If someone thinks there is material worth merging, leave me a message and I'll temp-undelete the series's article for that. Regards SoWhy 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Oil School of Racing

Lucas Oil School of Racing (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:NOTABILITY. Prodded, but WP:SPA creator removed with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are tightly linked:Peter Rehse (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Oil Formula Car Race Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Support I agree that this page is also non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notification per the notification language after updating information and adding another external reference. Apart from age of the organization, this article is no more or less subjectively notable than articles for similar organizations, Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving or Skip Barber Racing School. The latter has had outstanding issues noted as of 2011/2012, but no action has been taken on it and it has not be nominated for deletion. The Skip Barber Racing School article is also several years out of date, with dead links and fewer references than the Lucas Oil School of Racing article. Altemus Prime (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Altemus Prime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. Could you please comment on how you feel it meets WP:NOTABILITY? And do you have a connection to this company, as I see all your edits have been on this topic? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the school, delete the series. The school has attracted articles in NBC Sports, Road & Track and Digital Trends. The race series: [sound of crickets]. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the school Del the series per above. School is notable. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as spam. Just advertorial pages on unremarkable business / promotional activities. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per WP:NOTSPAM. The sources provided are human interest pieces that don't have critical commentary on the business. Weighing the totality of WP:ORG, which tells us to consider the type of coverage to determine if it meets GNG. I don't consider the coverage to be substantial enough to overcome the promotionalism concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep school, delete or merge series per Clarityfiend's argument. -ZarosFlok (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  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 [7] 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 [8] 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. [9] [10] [11].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.