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) 15:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Lisburn F.C[edit]

Sporting Lisburn F.C (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)

Amateur football club with no significant reliable coverage in third-party sources. Plainly fails the notability test. Pichpich (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete : Might even qualify for WP:A7 Coderzombie (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the team has competed in a national competition. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hauser[edit]

Mark Hauser (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:GNG/WP:BIO. Kleuske (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Article was created by a confirmed Sockmaster. Jb45424 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed, fails GNG and BIO. Nothing else I can add. South Nashua (talk) 01:16, 24 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) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take The State[edit]

Take The State (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)

Article about a newly formed PAC. I am unable to find a single independent source. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 23:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had just hit the Twinkle button to AfD this myself and was beat to it. I couldn't find any independent sourcing on Google or Google News, either by searching for the org name, the org with the founders, or the founders names individually. Fails GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) 23:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush Inn[edit]

The Bush Inn (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 issue tagged since 2016. Sources are mentions in guidebooks. The presence of the Pub on the St Hilary, Vale of Glamorgan page could seem enough or be expanded there if necessary. The building is a Grade II Listed building (the lowest rank, for special interest buildings; buildings dating from before 1700 seem easily listed as such...) darthbunk pakt dunft 22:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are around 350,000 Grade II listed buildings in the UK. I can see four (including a Red telephone box) from our bedroom window. This pub may or may not meet GNG but it certainly shouldn't purely because it is listed. If it was Grade II* or Grade I, that would be a different matter. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed; it's sometimes hard to convey to people in other countries—where "historic" status is usually more carefully guarded—just how freely listed building status is handed out in the UK. To put things in perspective, this pub is listed at the same level of historic importance as this fence or these gateposts. The pub may or may not be noteworthy—I don't know enough about the area to judge—but a grade II listing means absolutely nothing in terms of determining notability. ‑ Iridescent 22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree, but the Dutch have managed to pursuade English WP that ALL Rijksmonumenten are individually notable, and there are over 61,000 of them. It's the same with US national & state listings, which in many places automatically include all buildings before dates like 1880. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Grade II listing certainly does mean something; it puts the historic significance of the place out there. Not at all saying that all Grade II's are notable. But, hmm, look at the photo in the article. It's in Category:Thatched buildings, which is oddly small as a category. I think it is better to leave it tagged and encourage development on the historic specifics. Also, I don't see what is wrong with guidebooks. --doncram 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per doncram. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This ancient public house is notable as an example given in books of its type of historic building. See here and here, and appears in an inventory of ancient monuments in Glamorganshire here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Creek Middle School[edit]

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

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

No sources since 2012, only the School website. Notability issue tagged that same year and yet unaddressed. darthbunk pakt dunft 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable middle school per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we have considered most middle schools as being non-notable, and this one seems to be run of the mill, while notability is not inherited from a single marginally notable former student. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete normally I'm very open to redirection in these cases, but I can't find a clear target and the article has a promotional tone as well. No objection to creating a redirect after deletion if someone can find something to point it towards. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 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 redirect to Magic: The Gathering. (The redirect was a misclick.)  Sandstein  20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magicthegathering.com[edit]

Magicthegathering.com (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 topic is not covered by reliable, secondary, in-depth source (that is, also not in-passing mentions) in any degree sufficient to justify a standalone article. All of the sources in the present article are primary. All of the sources presented as possibly indicating notability in the previous AFD are weak or unreliable. A brief review today also indicates a lack of the sources necessary to write this article.

A "redirect" result is not particularly objectionable (presumably to Magic: The Gathering), but given the previous AFD survival, a bold redirect might have been undone, so I'm skipping that step.

For reference, the pair of searches reviewed: [1] and [2]. Izno (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suspect a redirect is the right choice here. This is no longer in active use as a brand. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to either WotC or MtG articles. I agree with Power~enwiki, that this does not appear to be current branding for the product line. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City 7 TV (Ireland)[edit]

City 7 TV (Ireland) (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 TV channel, Finding everything for the Dubai TV channel of the same name however can't find anything for this, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Any updated relevant information about this channel should be moved into City Channel. Since neither the channel nor the parent company articles seem to be up to date, I can't really find any information about it other than it was planned for launch around 2009, not sure if it ever launched based on information in City Channel article. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazingly the little paragraph at City_Channel#City_7 seems to be more up to date than the entire article!, Anyway there's not really anything to be merged, Suppose it could be redirected if really desired, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH, and related guidelines. I had considered suggesting merge/redirect, for WP:PRODUCT reasons, and as there is no content here that can't be dealt with in the article on the parent entity marketing this product/channel. However, after looking around to see if GNG/SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH could be established, I can find no indication that the subject entity/product/channel ever actually existed. If anything it seems to stand as an example of why we have WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON guidelines (in that we created an article about something that was proposed to happen in the future, didn't then happen, and now we've got a less-then-useless article cum press release about a project that was never realised.) Best to just delete. Creating a redirect is just kicking-the-can to a later WP:RFD. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree as per nom WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ekman-Larsson[edit]

Kevin Ekman-Larsson (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 search of Swedish and English news sites makes it appears that he currently fails WP:GNG per only routine sources and being noted in his recent signing due to his relation to his older brother. Currently WP:TOOSOON to meet any criteria in WP:NHOCKEY, he needs over 100 games in the AHL to reach that level. Could be suitable to redirect to Oliver Ekman-Larsson#Personal life until when or if Kevin ever reaches notability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree that it's WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:ATHLETE. No starts in the NHL, only showing minor league play. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Was unaware of the notability guidelines for ice hockey players when I created the article. As per WP:NHOCKEY guidelines he has 90 games played in the HockeyAllsvenskan, Sweden's second-tier national league. He would require 110 more in the American Hockey League to fulfill the 200 games requirement or a callup to the National Hockey League (which, if it's acceptable to put an opinion in, an NHL callup is extremely unlikely). Clarktricia86 User talk:Clarktricia86 09:40, 23 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) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Mastery[edit]

Digital Mastery (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:NOTWHATEVERTHEHELLTHISIS TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally impenetrable mess of buzzwords. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - crazy mess and needs to be cut down... or possibly merged. Way too long.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down to to what? Two of the sources are broken, one is Wikipedia, one is a power point (we'll get back to that later), and most of the rest don't use the term at all, not even in passing ([3], [4], [5], [6]). One source actually does ([7]), and it's pretty much empty jargon all the way down (e.g., lets talk about vision... and pretend like its a term that has some sort of well-defined substance when it obviously doesn't).

The term itself is so exceedingly vague that its really fundamentally impossible to tell if sources "using it" are actually using it, or just using those words in that order, that is, unless it somehow traces back to this single book, which appears to be the crux of the whole thing, and is the same actual source for the power point and the one interview that seems to be using the term in this particular way.

The only thing of any encyclopedic relevance I can see this ever turning into is an article on the book itself. It might actually be notable, but it's hard to tell. A lot of the sources are "about stuff" and mention the book, and vaguely about concepts related to the person, or book, or something... and some of it is so ... honestly patently cringe worthy in the sheer magnitude of the corporate circle jerk that it's hard to read (e.g., Successful digital transformation is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. [8]). If you made some of this stuff up as a parody of corporate cruft it wouldn't be believable.

But even if the book is notable, this article isn't about the book, and clearing away all the gory borderline advocacy-like uncritical acceptance of the book's concepts, and all the obvious original research along with it, we're pretty much left with Digital Mastery is a concept coined by some guy in some book. TimothyJosephWood 12:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- poorly sourced original research which also comes across as WP:ADVOCACY for something, I could not figure out which :-). Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 25 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 Nostalgia Critic. (If someone wishes to simply redirect without merging, that too is acceptable) (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Walker (actor)[edit]

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

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

Not notable independently of Nostalgia Critic, where most of this info is already stated. Delete or merge back into Nostalgia Critic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nostalgia Critic. Love the guys work but he's not independently notable outside of the series.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge to Nostalgia Critic. By the way, I love his reviews. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect . He does not seem to meet notability guidelines in his own right, being only notable for his presence in the web series. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Nostalgia Critic - not notable except for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Nostalgia Critic. He's only notable for one thing. I don't see much information that could benefit for him having a standalone article that could be inserted/used in the Nostalgia Critic article, either. --ZLMedia 23:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azariah Soromon[edit]

Azariah Soromon (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - perhaps WP:TOOSOON, article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY but can easily be recreated if and when subject meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 07:29, 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 delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Patrick[edit]

Gregory Patrick (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 NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No current indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - perhaps WP:TOOSOON, article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY but can easily be recreated if and when subject meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Looks like it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per exactly what User:Inter&anthro said. Also, I believe there is consensus against age group squad templates? If so, that might want a tfd. ClubOranje^T 06:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 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 delete.  Sandstein  11:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster-of-the-Week characters in The X-Files[edit]

List of Monster-of-the-Week characters in The X-Files (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:FANCRUFT. Just a list of "villains of the week" in chronological order by episode. Any pertinent information should be included in the episode or series articles. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Completely agree with the nominator's comment; this information can be included in the appropriate episode/series articles. This appears to be an example of fancruft and is more appropriate for a Wikia. I also doubt anyone will type in this exact title in the search bar so I do not believe a redirect would be particularly helpful in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another plot device article that's as it is on bad children's sitcoms, more appropriate for the show's Wikia. Nate • (chatter) 04:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It duplicates content in the articles for the episodes/seasons. Additionally, there's an element of original research unless references can be provided for the assignment of each episode to the "monster-of-the-week"/"mythology arc" category; the division isn't so clear or important that we need an index of this sort anyway, and it's not (as far as I know) done for any other show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Completely agree with the nominator's comment; this information can be included in the appropriate episode/series articles.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, otherwise duplicates content in the articles for each episodes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - personally, I liked these episodes, but we are not a web host. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Shame, though. One of the better images (File:Thehost.jpg) that adorn a Wikipedia article. alas, it's still WP:FANCRUFT. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 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 keep. Wizardman 16:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia national baseball team[edit]

Serbia national baseball team (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)

Much too small, too small even for a STUB. Sorry to the page creator. GermanGamer77 (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should expand it, or delete it. GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The team is ranked by the WBSC [9] and is a national team. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Duly expanded to an acceptable level. No such user (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Too Small is not a good argument for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep National teams officially recognized are notable. And as others have pointed out, "too small" is not an argument for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a national sports team, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nominator has not supplied a valid reason for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedCompany[edit]

TrustedCompany (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 did not go for G11 to have a debate before deleting it on grounds of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVERT and failing WP:COMPANY in current form Devopam (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. The article page is nothing more than an attempt to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as "minor-tech-startup spam". Just a client / investor prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 IIHF World Championship Division I[edit]

2018 IIHF World Championship Division I (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)

Article about a sports tournament that will not happen for nearly a year. Consists of empty tables and closely connected sources. This stats page is WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NOTSTATS. - MrX 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Trying to understand the nomination; calling it a stats page, when it does not yet have stats is puzzling. It displays how the teams involved qualified for their respective tournaments. It also briefly discusses the nominations for hosting. The referencing could be better, but having an independent page for explaining qualification and hosting, that will later fill up with stats, seems perfectly reasonable. As for TOOSOON, the hosting was news now, seems appropriate to explain it now. Perhaps redirecting until main page is too cumbersome could be appropriate, but it seems rather big already in my opinion.18abruce (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I called it a stats page because it has empty tables for the stats that will exist almost a year in the future. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac for events that haven't even happened. The title should be redirected until there is meaningful content with WP:INDEPENDENT sources. There are currently meta discussions about forbidding recent news events from being added to Wikipedia until well after the events have occurred. Adding far future events is magnitudes worse in my opinion. - MrX 20:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that if you read the page, or read my comments, you would know that what is being discussed is current events, that affect the future. The standings tables are not necessary right now, but that is only one part of the page. Explaining the effect of what happened in late April, and what was voted on last week, do not in any way constitute an almanac or being a "stats page". If you need assistance understanding the content please ask.18abruce (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned above, it helps to have separate pages to explain qualification and hosting, which have already been decided. Smartyllama (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: No part of WP:CRYSTAL this violates. Ravenswing 20:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Far future event in 2018? Try to read 2026 FIFA World Cup or 2028 Summer Olympics. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not crystal as it is discussing current events that will effect a future event. -DJSasso (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I say keep as it's not crystal and there are reliable sources dated for the future event. Matt294069 is coming 03:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Feels like snow in here... Kante4 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per 18abruce and Smartyllama. Rlendog (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep: per other comments on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 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 delete. No one's recommending keeping, and this has been open 11 days. Deor (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon of Amsterdam[edit]

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

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

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

This look like a non-notable list. The only cited reference is the web page of the contest itself, which is offline now. I can't find any other reliable sources with significant coverage. Google News Search returns no hits [10]. Similarly, Google Books search returns only one, self published book.[11] Vanjagenije (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - can you comment on the Dutch spelling of the subject, Canon van Amsterdam? I haven't had a chance to look very closely, but google news and books give results for that spelling. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no problem accessing the website [12], but that is not an independent source. The cited further reading book source is also available: De canon van Amsterdam and is, itself, cited in several Amsterdam guides, e.g., Imagining Global Amsterdam: History, Culture, and Geography in a World City and Amsterdam: A History of the World's Most Liberal City. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This appears to be a list of 50 topics related to Amsterdam, selected by the authors of a book as "windows" on the city. Many are significant (and have articles) but the selection of this (rather than some other) 50 is the author's and is ultimately a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron's reasoning and because the whole thing seems so promotional in spirit. --Lockley (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upon reflection, I agree with Peterkingiron. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:12, 31 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 is for deletion and that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VirtoCommerce[edit]

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

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

This article's sources are all either affiliated with the company, re-postings of press releases, or blog posts. The award listed on the site is a second place mention from 'CMS critic', which appears to be a non-notable blog. I've looked and I haven't found any better sources, so I believe this article does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for software. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article sources are not all affiliated with the company.

  1) The first link is the link to our license as we state in our article that our software is open source. Thus we need to mention the license.

  2) The second link is the link to GitHub where we host our open source code. Again, it's a separate website where developers host their open source projects.

  3) CodeProject - again, it's a repository of our code but on another developer community platform.

  4) Habrahabr is the hugest IT community in Russia with the strong moderation system. They posted our article about the system. This website is not affiliated with us and to post on it you have to have the high rating. It's not a blog post or press-release, it's a description of the system on the high-quality resource.

  5) This one is wrong link and can be deleted.

  6) This is a press-release, can be deleted.

  7) It's a list of code contributors to our product. Can be deleted, but I don't understand what's bad with it?

  8) Yes, it's a press-release which explains how the product was created. We can provide more written proofs for this.

  9) This is not actual, can be deleted.

  10) It's a featured app in Microsoft list. 7th place.

  11) It's a personal view of the moderator for CMS Critic. This site is ranked high in Google for ecommerce, just one example - https://screencast.com/t/JHpoVlx6V7W.

  So, I agree with some comments from the moderator above, but the GitHub links and some other point for deletion can't be treated as negative from my point of view.

It's also important to mention that this moderator never gently told me what exactly to fix and never helped me, just deleted, marked and replied "I will say simply, just stop spamming". This is not a way polite people help each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrei Iunisov: Independent reliable sources are needed to prove notability (eg. reviews/articles in published/online magazines, books about article subject etc.). Press-releases are OK for plain verifitability of undisputed content, but their abundance is often sign of lack of better sources. Pavlor (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, but why not just deleting the press-releases only? Why do GitHub links or license is treated badly? The moderator doesn't understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 09:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is not that these primary and company written sources should not be here or should be 'treated badly', the point is that certain types of sources are required to have an article, and none of the sources currently used in the article are the type that satisfy the article inclusion requirements. We need those sources in addition to what is already there. - MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KonaKart - these guys are published and also have no sources. What's the difference between their page and our page? Andrei Iunisov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a tag on the top of the page saying that that one probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines either. I'm sure someone will get around to nominating it for deletion eventually. Wikipedia is a big place with a lot to do, and there are only so many volunteers to do the work. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Per nom, sources are user-editable, blogs, or not independent. A search turns up incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG as lacking in WP:RS.Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there sure is a neat and keen wall of text and citations above to defend this advertisement, but I don't see reliable sources that discuss the subject matter in depth. We are a charity not a free web host for others to profit from generous American tax laws. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability published by reliable secondary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 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 no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy[edit]

Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy (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)

We have three articles: Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy, Ukrainian Medical Stomatological Academy, and Ukrainian Medical and Dental Academy. By name, the first and third are apparently about the same organization (differing only in the "and" in the name), and I would just redirect one to the other. But by content, Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy appears to be about Ukrainian Medical Stomatological Academy, so I would just merge and redirect that way. Given "Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy" seems neither to be a distinct topic nor the name of a distinct entity, I propose deleting it altogether to avoid confusion.

Looking further, all three are tagged {{expand Ukrainian|Українська медична стоматологічна академія}}...the same article even in the native language. And no apparent independent refs make me uncertain we can even support two different articles, or even any at all, but I don't know enough about the topic to make a case for/against WP:N overall. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at least this one. As I read the title of the Ukrainian article they want to expand (disclaimer: don't expect much more than a transliteration of the title, as I don't have any Ukrainian), it's the "Ukrayins'ka Medichna Stomatologichna Akademiya", which suggests that the "Stomatological" academy's article is the one which should be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect all to Ukrainian Medical Stomatological Academy, which seems to be the correct name. Based on [13], the other titles are used as well, though the English is not very clear. The fact that they were created though should mean that they are valid {{R from error}} redirects.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Railways Carriage Factory[edit]

Pakistan Railways Carriage Factory (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)

Article, under the title Carriage Factory Islamabad, was deleted through a prod last month. It has now been recreated under this name, and the original name has been recreated as a redirect. Searches turned up very little on this company. No indication it passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Both should be deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the recently created redirect to the main article under nomination for deletion:

Carriage Factory Islamabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, but this is about trains......Choo, Choo!! Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same position as of proposer. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 25 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egg, Inc.[edit]

Egg, Inc. (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:SOAPBOX , non conforming to WP:NN in current form Devopam (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are 5 different criteria under WP:SOAPBOX. Which one do you think applies? -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't see the soapboxing and see no indication of why the current sourcing is not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand the claim to WP:SOAPBOXing, but if its in there somewhere, it'd be a minor thing to be fixed through cleanup, not a reason to delete. The subject appears to meet the WP:GNG. Of the sources already in the article, Pocketgamer and Gamezebo are currently considered reliable sources, and found this dedicated article from RS The Verge as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or speedy keep this). Disagree with nom's rationale, it's clearly not a promotional article. It was created by KAP03 (talk · contribs), who, as far as I can tell, does not have any ties with the developer. It could use some editing, but that's basic WP:BEFORE stuff. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could an admin close this as keep. It has been 7 days already. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:48, 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 Delete. I will consider restoring as a redirect if someone wants to merge it somewhere else, but I suggest they come up with some references first. This close doesn't preclude anyone creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.5 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karone[edit]

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

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

No references at all, tag pending since Dec 2009 Devopam (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article makes no claim of notability, and cites no sources. --Slashme (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article was merged and redirected into List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters by me per request(s) at the Merger noticeboard and per precedent for fictional, non-notable characters, as discussed here and elsewhere. Merger was reverted by @Emir of Wikipedia: with no improvement to the article. This article is a horribly written, plot-only article with no encyclopedic value, no notability, and no referencing or citations (absolutely zero) and has been sitting as such for over a decade. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted as the discussion at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Lost_Galaxy_characters#Merger_proposal, which was the discussion mentioned in the tag, had no consensus. Richard3120 and Atlantic306 also commented in the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite well written and I voted against merge in the hope that someone who knew the subject would add real world information and references but unfortunately nothing happened in the next 8 months Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly are an optimist. The article had ten years to collect notability references and just couldn't. Largely because the subject is wholly non-notable, especially for a stand-alone article. Keep looking up! GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/soft delete by redirecting to Power Rangers. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Do you not think a redirect to List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters is more appropriate? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:37, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MD Asif[edit]

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

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

Notability concerns since 2014, I see three roles in his filmography, only one with anything resembling a named role, in Thuppakki. I can find no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources to suggest notability as an actor per WP:NACTOR, or as a martial artist per WP:NSPORT WP:MANOTE. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above. With respect to martial arts the criteria is better served with WP:MANOTE which he does not meet.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, rationale updated. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article reeks of paid promotion or autobiography, given that this guy pulled a mostly-formed article out of thin air. I do also notice this slightly-older Md Asif article, which seems to have been created by the article subject via (at least) 2 different Wikipedia accounts. I would not be surprised if "Rocky Sharma" was MD Asif. Anyway, getting to the stronger deletion rationale, I don't find any significant coverage of this person via the Indian newspaper search engine. I mostly see stuff like this, which is about a Pakistani cricket player. Searching the engine for his name plus Thuppaki (you know, one of the major films he was in where he played "second in command of the sleeper cell", "opposite superstar actor Vijay"[14]) produces no hits, which strongly implies that no reliable source was interested in covering him. References like this seem like little more than press releases. Seriously, how can the subject be a renowned actor with only two films under his belt? Article seems like fluff and APN News is questionable as a reference as their About page seems like a vanity project itself. There are no significant Google News hit for "MD Asif" kamasutra or "MD Asif" Thuppaki. There appears to be no record of him in reliable mainstream sources. Far too soon for article, and this has vanity written all over it, especially since in the Career section we're expected to assume success-by-association. His non-major role in Thuppaki contributed to Thuppaki being the highest-grossing Indian film of that year and his minor role in Kamasutra 3D resulted in the film being eligible for Oscar consideration. The confusing language "Kamasutra 3D was retained for nominations of the 86th Academy Awards in three categories" was especially perplexing, as it suggests the film was actually nominated, when in fact it looks like it was submitted for consideration. Unless I'm mistaken, this looks like puffery. Delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see evidence to show he meets WP:GNG. I also didn't find anything that shows he meets the notability criteria for actors or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 19:30, 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) 01:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motion RC[edit]

Motion RC (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)

Another cookie cutter hobby store who do not assert notability like every other WP:COI article about businesses. Donnie Park (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed most of the article's contents as it was unencyclopedic and its only purpose was to serve as free marketing for the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article contains no claim to notability, merely describing a company's business, nor are my searches finding anything better than routine listings and customer reviews. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jordan[edit]

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

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

Non-notable wrestler. Lacks GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant reliable independent coverage. Nikki♥311 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable wrestler who competed for a number of indepdent British promotions. No indication of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and nothing to show he's a notable entertainer (which is the SNG pro wrestlers fall under). Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bikash Pokharel[edit]

Bikash Pokharel (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 general notability or biographical notability. Google search finds no independent third-party coverage (only vanity coverage). Has promotional tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possible autobiography as per creator's username; also fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Bikash113 promoting a "social activist" and sourced to social media and primary sites. I am seeing nothing to suggest encyclopaedic notability whether by WP:BASIC or WP:GNG criteria. AllyD (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herr beach[edit]

Herr beach (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 geographic feature as per WP:NGEO; named based on colloquial opinion. Any genuine content (with supporting references, which this article doesn't have) would be better inserted as a sentence in Blackrock, County Louth Nick Moyes (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:NGEO doesn't seem to be met. WP:GNG also a significant concern. (A Google search for "herr beach" louth or "herr beach" blackrock returns zero results). Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant coverage or mention of the beach in doing some Google Searches. Is There a list of Irish beaches it could be added to if there are sources to support it? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:43, 23 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) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Murovich[edit]

Tyler Murovich (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Undistinguished NN journeyman in the mid-minors, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 10:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (ice hockey)[edit]

James Martin (ice hockey) (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the AHL games needed to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY criteria #3. Gab4gab (talk)

• Delete - does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of sources cited in the article are press releases from Martin's various teams, so don't qualify as independent coverage. Google search for ["james martin" marlies] turns up nothing indicative of general media coverage. Searching the website of the Toronto Sun for ["james martin"] turns up only three articles on our subject, none of which seems to offer in-depth coverage. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 14:47, 3 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. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Dian[edit]

Sandy Dian (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:GNG and WP:ANYBIO for lack of reliable independent sources. - MrX 14:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Significant coverage of the topic is only found in self-published primary sources, such as the subject's youtube and facebook pages. I should note an article on the topic exists in the Italian wikipedia, but even that article is created recently, and, perhaps more importantly, poorly sourced.--Dps04 (talk) 08:38, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Larracuente[edit]

Brandon Larracuente (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:NACTOR, he has only two (arguably insignificant) roles in TV shows Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: After assessesing the sources, only one mention that appears to be insufficient coverage. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 2 major TV roles (both ongoing, although one does ends in May). Also has a significant role in the Will Smith movie Bright (released later this year). These three roles, in particular), are a good sign of notability, but some more references would be better, so I agree it does need a little work, but nowhere near a delete. Somethingwickedly (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this seems excessively deletionist. Hopefully someone who has watched Bloodline or 13 Reasons Why can give a more informed opinion. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looking through his IMDB page, he's been in a number of productions, several of which are major. I think he fits the criteria for being notable. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sekulich[edit]

Daniel Sekulich (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 writer and filmmaker, who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't reliably sourcing them. Of the four sources present here, all four represent classes of sourcing that cannot be used to establish notability: a Q&A interview on a blog, a primary source "staff" profile on the website of a radio show with which he has a direct affiliation, a piece of media content in which he's the bylined author and not the subject, and a piece of media content which glancingly namechecks his existence but is not about him. And on a Google News search, he gets just four hits not already cited here, all of which are also bylines or namechecks rather than coverage about him. As always, neither filmmakers nor writers are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - notable enough for ABC News to interview him as a "piracy expert". I reviewed this brand spanking new BLP, did a bit of online research before I gave it a green-go, and as you stated above, the potential is there. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to dig for more because we're trying to catch-up on a growing backlog at NPR, and I'm currently in transit internationally, so my time is limited. Bearcat, just curious - did you try to find any sources that would establish his notability, or did you feel that because the cited sources didn't pass that it was best to delete the article? Perhaps it should've gone to the article TP first? I came across a few other articles with questionable notability - not even with the potential of this BLP - and they survived AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters being the interview guest does not assist notability at all, because if he's talking about something other than himself then he fails to be the subject of that coverage. The only kind of source that can assist notability at all is where a reliable source is publishing or broadcasting content in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And secondly, as my nomination statement already plainly demonstrates, I did undertake a search for the necessary type of sourcing — but I came up completely dry for anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addional sources have been added, and there are more but I'm comfortable with what's there now as having satisfied N. He clearly meets N as a "creative professional" (filmmaker, director, author, expert on piracy, etc.) PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials.) ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the new sources you added are virtually all still either primary sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. The only one that counts for anything at all toward getting him over WP:GNG is in his hometown newspaper — but one piece of media coverage is not enough to claim GNG all by itself, and it doesn't support anything that would constitute an automatic pass of any SNG. His hometown newspaper might very well still have covered him if his only claim of notability was "owns a coffeeshop at the corner of Wellington and Pim", so the fact that one article exists in his hometown newspaper is not a GNG pass in and of itself. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence — creative professionals do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their work exists, so the fact that "PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials" does not exempt him from having to pass GNG just because one of his films aired as a PBS special. His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments for deletion are contradicted by WP:N and the reasons follow:

1. You stated: "His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test." Please see the ABC News article which is hardly trivial mention about Sekulich's expertise on piracy, and his book "Terror on the Seas: True Tales of Modern Pirates." One of the sections begins "Sekulich has little sympathy for the plight of the pirates, and he doesn't exactly buy their tale of losing the fishing industry or their claims about rampant pollution from outside ships." There's also the Variety review about the film Sekulich directed, Aftermath: The Remnants of War, which further serves as verifiability in an independent RS and includes information about him, such as "Helmer Daniel Sekulich follows the grim work of Valery Shtrykov, who is trying to identify and reclaim the remains of the battle’s dead, both Russian and German." Hotnews.ro, is an international news source that was cited in the article, and it states: "Piracy is today a multinational entity that produces billions of dollars of income and affects the security of the global economy," says Daniel Sekulich, a Canadian journalist who has been pursuing the phenomenon of global piracy for years. What is Pirateria SRL, which are the most dangerous oceans, why some of the pirates believe modern Robin Hood and how to manage some people in tiny boats and boats to capture thousands of tons of superpowers, Sekulich tells us in an interview with HotNews .com.." When major news sources are writing articles and interviewing a person about their work, and consider them an expert in their field, WP:GNG considers the personal notable. Being notable is not the same as being famous. When you stack the multiple sources about Sekulich and his work, it's rather obvious that he passes GNG.
2. You stated: "Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence." Well, WP:NPOSSIBLE disagrees, and specifically states (my bold): Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Look again at what editors have already sourced with limited searching.
3. You even agreed in your deletion request: "who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't reliably sourcing them.". Sekulich is a new article created 10 May 2017, and should not be deleted if we're following WP:PAG.

Again, it's rather obvious that he easily passes GNG based WP:CREATIVE and RS media coverage to satisfy verifiability including ABC News, Variety, Hot News.ro, and local media such as Sault Star. I'm changing my position to Strong Keep. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of the sources, not by being one of several soundbite-givers in an article whose subject is a topic that is not him. The ABC News article falls in the class of "glancing namechecks of his existence", which is not a class of sourcing that assists in showing notability. Variety also namechecks his existence, but is about the film rather than him. HotNews.ro is not a reliable source at all, so it counts for nothing. And the Sault Star is local coverage in his own hometown, in which again he's providing commentary on an issue rather than being the subject of the coverage. So the ABC News, Variety and Sault Star sources would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts within a mix of much more solid sourcing than the article is showing — but none of them is substantively enough about him to bring the GNG in and of itself.

2) You're misreading what that criterion means. The possibility of improved sourceability existing despite one's own lack of finding viable sources on a search does not create a blanket exemption from an article having to be sourced properly — and it pertains mainly to historical topics who might not turn up much in Google searches because they didn't get media coverage during the era when that media coverage was reliably locatable on the web. If he'd lived and worked and died 100 years ago, then one would have to dig deeper into news retrieval databases before going ahead with a nomination, because 100-year-old media coverage won't Google properly. But for a person who is currently active in his field and producing current work, Google is a reliable judge of whether the necessary level of sourcing exists or not — for a contemporary topic in the era when all media coverage that exists at all is always web-accessible in some form, it's quite literally impossible for any valid sourcing to somehow still exist outside of the ability to locate it via a Google search.

3) Notability criteria are not passed just because their passage has been asserted — lots of self-promoting wannabes try to get Wikipedia articles for publicity purposes by hyping their notability claim past the actual or sourceable reality of the situation (e.g. a musician falsely claiming to have achieved a higher chart position in Billboard than he ever actually did, a writer claiming to have been "nominated" for a major literary award for which she never actually made the shortlist just because her book was submitted by its publisher for consideration, a filmmaker PR-bumfing himself as "award-winning" without actually naming or sourcing what awards he won, etc.) So the mere claim to passing a notability criterion does not constitute a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have a WP:GNG-satisfying level of reliable source coverage — the claim still has to be supported by a stronger volume of coverage than anything that's been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Notable journalist and award winning film maker. One of his films picked up 9 awards. Quoted and referred to in many books relating to various issues. Easy keep for me, but I have to point out that the page needs some improvement here and there and a bit of a tidy and re-arrange. Karl Twist (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what properly sourced evidence is there of his winning any award notable enough to confer an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass because award? This article, as written, claims no award wins at all — it claims one honourable mention for a non-notable literary award, and one nomination for an award at a local film festival, neither of which is grounds for a CREATIVE pass. For a nomination to be enough in and of itself to get a person into Wikipedia, the award has to be on the elite level of the Oscars or the BAFTAs — and outside of the elite Cannes-Berlin-TIFF-Sundance tier of film festivals (which Hot Docs is not in), even a win of a film festival award still wouldn't confer an automatic CREATIVE pass in the absence of a demonstrated GNG pass. And his IMDb profile lists no awards at all either — literally the only sourcing I can find for his winning any award at all, let alone any award that would actually be notable enough to constitute a valid notability claim in a Wikipedia article, is his own self-published elevator pitch about being "award-winning".

Secondly, a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by being "quoted" or "referred to" in coverage of other things that aren't him. But nobody's shown any evidence that he's the subject of any degree of reliable source coverage — this is based almost entirely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not on coverage which has him as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• His Aftermath: The Remnants of War is an article that I see I created back in 2009. It won a handful of awards -- but nothing that would satisfy CREATIVE, on their own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep surely he meets WP:CREATIVE according to the third criterion, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work [...] or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews [emphasis added]." Clearly his documentaries have been the primary subject of multiple articles AND reviews, whether or not these are cited in the article in its current form. Newimpartial (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep career as a journalist and author are readily source-able, (WP:NOTCLEANUP]]; both books got come media coverage, especially the second book (pirate!). Serious journalist, respected writer, patent notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He garners just six Google News hits total, of which five are glancing acknowledgements of his existence, usually as a soundbite-giver, in articles whose subject is something other than him, and the other is a blog — where is there any evidence locatable that he or his books have been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG? Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the films, first. Aftermath: The Remnants of War has a wikipedia article, won awards in 2002 (Gold Camera Award US International Film &Video Awards; Special Jury Award Houston International Film Festival; Wilbur Award Best Theatrical Documentary; Bronze Plaque Columbus International Film &Video Festival; Special Prize International Environmental Film Festival in Barcelona; UNESCO Prize/Jury Prize Brazil International Environmental Film Festival) and was independly reviewed, e.g. <http://libweb.lib.buffalo.edu/emro/emroDetail.asp?Number=1052>. Per WP:CREATIVE anyone who creates a notable work is notable, whether or not their name receives hits on Google News. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Newimpartial --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Satisfies WP:CREATIVE#3 criterion. I have added the link to his Contemporary Authors entry. They have strict criterion for inclusion. His works have been extensively discussed. Bearcat, Google News doesn't cover everything. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 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 delete. SoWhy 07:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul E. Marek[edit]

Paul E. Marek (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 blogger. No evidence found of WP:BIO. Sole "claim to fame" appears to be an essay that was republished widely online and a few independent books, and discussed mainly on blogs and user forums. A few mentions in unreliable user forums, and op-ed contributions, do not satisfy WP:JOURNALIST. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Writing an essay isn't proof of notability at all, and that seems to be all the subject has. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - his essay may be notable if it were the subject of reviews and commentary (but probably not), but Marek himself does not seem to be covered in sufficient reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:56, 31 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 01:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sid's new glasses[edit]

Sid's new glasses (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)

Article doesn't appear to be notable. I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating anything other than the film's existence. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Zero sourcing and there is a hint of WP:COI. This probably could have been speedied but this AFD is okay as well. MarnetteD|Talk 04:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above - no coverage found in independent reliable sources; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.  gongshow  talk  05:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This does not pass WP:GNG and has no WP:RS User:Matthewwells55 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and everybody else. --Lockley (talk) 22:22, 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 delete. SoWhy 07:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miyako Taxi[edit]

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

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

Delete because it fails WP:CORP. This article appears to be the result of a couple of articles that appeared after Miyako Taxi of Kyota launched a new policy where its cab drivers would no longer engage their passengers in conversation. There is not any of the in-depth coverage required by WP:CORP. Miyako Taxi of Kyota is only a relatively small Japanese taxi company. "Miyako Taxi" is a name used by a number of local taxi companies throughout Japan; see Talk:Miyako Taxi#Possible confusion. In fact, the Japanese Wikipedia article about Miyako Taxi is about the one in Miyazaki City. Perhaps it deserves mention in an article about Japanese transport, although I note that taxis are not discussed in the section Transport in Japan#Road, nor anywhere in the Transport in Japan article. --Bejnar (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the article makes no claim to notability, and consists entirely of a description of a marketing gimmick. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this seems to be a WP:ONEEVENT sort of case, where there was a very brief flurry of some media interest, followed by nothing. It would be good to have some information on the Japanese taxi industry somewhere, and this event might justify a brief mention in said article, but there's no real valid merge target at the moment and the content in this article isn't so extensive it couldn't be easily recreated from scratch. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weyoun[edit]

Weyoun (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 Star Trek character. No works discuss his significance/impact/influence; all I see are plot summaries. I suggest a soft deletion by redirecting to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(T–Z)#W, where the lead of the current article can be added to the relevant entry in the list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep discussed in detail at Understanding Religion and Popular Culture pp. 47-49, [15] (another 3+ pages of discussion), and [16]. Three scholarly analyses, two on religion, one on sexuality, extensively discussing this characters: GNG is met, article should be kept and expanded with the included material. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, PhD theses are acceptable, these theses are Masters and Bachelor-level. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the first reference is disappointing, the entire section on him, while spanning three pages, is a plot summary. I don't see any analysis of his real world impact. Second link is broken (The Flinders University webpage you were looking for cannot be found) and since you did not provide a title or such, there is no way I can even discuss the source. The last source provides us with the following useful content: "Weyoun is typically portrayed as a diplomatic and jovial character, but his loyalty in the Founder means he disregards morals for the sake of faith as a conscious choice. His faith leads him to commit terrible acts in their name and at their command, such as ordering the execution of innocent individuals and also committing genocidal purges.75 His story and eventual downfall, as he dies protecting a Founder, demonstrates the lengths a person is willing to go to for the sake of one's beliefs". Useful, but I don't think this is sufficient for a stand-alone article. I still think this doesn't need anything else than 2-3 sentences in a relevant list. Soft deletion through redirect with no prejudice to merger, as I wrote above, would be totally fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Piotrus, the problem with your 'no prejudice against a merger' argument is that it's not binding on other !voters or the closing administrator, as we've seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). Since there are no outright delete votes, why don't you withdraw the AfD, merge the content, and we can close this discussion as 'consensus to merge' if anyone disputes it? The content gets merged, the allegedly NN article no longer exists as a standalone, and the contribution history is preserved in case someone comes up with more than you or I did and wants to expand it. What's wrong with that approach? Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. It means I have to work to save content that I don't think belongs here. Given that this is already better described at MemoryAlpha, I don't see why I should waste my time trying to do so. Even if this is deleted, soft or not, it won't be a loss to anyone. I have better things to do than saving fancruft like this. If the community agrees it is a problem, the article will be deleted/redirect with no loss to anyone. If the community decides it should be kept, then I'll learn from that outcome. I don't see any reason I should be the one to spend time doing the merging - this should be left to someone who cares about the given topic more than, clearly, I do. PS. I really do think that in cases like EA we should be using soft deletion, and you are welcome to ping on me in any relevant discussion about undeletion/soft redirecting/changing our policies to make it so (pun intended). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you do nothing to follow WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD. Your contempt for the content and the people who contributed it is as palpable as it is elitist. You admit you don't care, but belittle ("Fancruft") those who do. Oh, "Memory Alpha"? That might pass WP:ELNO #12, but most fictional elements won't have an appropriate destination, and even if they did, then that destination would likely not be suitable as an external link. Real problems like POV pushing, astroturfing, and a dozen more serious issues pervade wikipedia, and yet you focus on destroying things that are, at worst, non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Flinders reference has been repaired. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens - according to my reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, neither of the theses are of high enough quality to count as sources. Could you please address this? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. Not enough sources to support a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. I did some reference checks, no references seem to substantiate him as significant. I'm a bit of a trekky, and I like the Weyoun character (and Jeffrey Combs is an excellent actor!)... but don't see this character as significant enough to warrant his own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - satisfies WP:GNG per above. Merge at the very least. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pretty significant recurring character who justifies their own article. Artw (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Weyoun is the driving character in several episodes. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:21, 25 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 J. P. Dutta. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarhad (film)[edit]

Sarhad (film) (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:NFILM. Although no sources to claim the existence of film. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to J. P. Dutta: Per this Mid Day article Sarhad was the directorial debut of J. P. Dutta. This film does exist but hasn't been released for the past 40+ years. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to J. P. Dutta as per Skr15081997 - no refs. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:11, 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 redirect to Ram Madhvani. (non-admin closure) feminist 05:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taalismaan[edit]

Taalismaan (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)

Nominating the film for deletion as it do not hold the significance as well as shelved for good. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indication that this can meet WP:NFF or WP:GNG.AllyD (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ram Madhvani (the director): Though the film has been shelved it was produced by Vidhu Vinod Chopra, who also wrote the story. Amitabh Bachchan played an important role in the feature. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Hut 8.5 20:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pappy[edit]

Young Pappy (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)

While tragic, all the press is related to his shooting, which would be a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as every person dying has some claim to fame. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as according to Vice which has an article here about his whole life not just his death he was famous before his death and had millions of downloads from Soundcloud (not that I understand Soundcloud) so it seems to be more than a WP:BIO1E. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - so you're basing your entire rationale for keep on a single source?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 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. Consensus is that the content/article in the current form doesn't belong here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters' rights under copyright law[edit]

Broadcasters' rights under copyright law (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)

Wikipedia is not a directory of statutes, nor is it a place to list case law or legal outcomes. Per WP:NOTESSAY, this article has no place on Wikipedia Exemplo347 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, with the caveat that Wikipedia should have articles about notable cases and important areas of law. But in this instance, we do - under Copyright law of the United States. If there is some aspect of Broadcaster's rights that bears discussion, it would be best to discuss it there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, the US article is but one example of the articles we already have on this topic. A comparative analysis of differences and similarities between the laws of these two countries might be worth exploring - but there's no real way to do that in an encyclopedic manner, within our rules. We don't analyze here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of view. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right which is separate from the rights of the copyright owner. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research. Srishti Singhania (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, what is stated here is an argument for importance, not an argument for notability. The notability guidelines say little, if anything, about important fields of study. Topics "worthy of research" are researched by professionals outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia only reports the consensus of professional results if there are independent, reliable sources indicating significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP This is a legitimate area of law. See [17]. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to the discussion going on, I would like to submit the following:

1. This article is on definitely a notable' topic. By notability, Wikipedia refers something as 'worthy of notice'. Broadcaster organisations' right is worthy of notice. In many jurisdictions, it is becoming a heavily litigated aspect of law.

2. It cannot be included in the same page as Copyright under US or Copyright under India law, as

(a) it is one of the neighbouring rights, distinct from the rights of copyright owners.

(b) This topic has its own set of controversies, and interpretations, that take heavily from technology and media industry.

3. In my quest to keep this page as neutral, I have limited my engagements with the arguments in this area of study. I have mentioned the important rights, the scope of rights, their exceptions and the important case laws.

Moreover, in consonance with the Wikipedia aim, I believe with eventual contributions and edits, this page will indeed be at a better position. I myself is engaging in editing the same. Yashasvi.law (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note We already have articles that cover this material at Copyright law of the United States and Copyright law of India so there's no justification for this. Notability isn't an issue, my rationale doesn't mention it. My rationale is based on WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a textbook, directory, or a place for essays. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This falls under WP:NOT. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the concept that a copyrighted work has separate rules regarding re-publication and broadcasting is probably notable. The article as written doesn't appear to describe that. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The article needs work but there's more than enough information on this topic to warrant keeping the article. The Copyright law of the United States article that you mentioned is excessively long as is, so a link to this article with {{main}} would be more appropriate than moving the content from here to there. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really think Wikipedia is a place for "Compare and Contrast" essays - complete with a conclusion? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be reformatted to bring it more in line with the manual of style. It should also include more worldwide examples and not just the US/India. Those are solvable quality issues and don't warrant a deletion. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not correct here. This essay should be deleted (start it again from scratch if you want to, per WP:TNT) because it's a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As noted above, we already have articles on copyright law in both the US and India. I can think of no reason why we would want to start populating Wikipedia with arbitrary 'contrast and compare' articles of this kind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 25 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Retail Academy[edit]

Fashion Retail Academy (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)

Appears to be a small non notable commercial organisation. Unaffiliated and with no evidence of any notability, this appears to be simple advertising. Does not benefit from assumed notability for schools - this is a commercial company. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]