Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles

Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

Aron Anazia

Aron Anazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aron Anazia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable individual. All sources are written by subject. All meaningful contributions to page made by SPAs. —Laoris (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of the number of animals in Italy

List of the number of animals in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of the number of animals in Italy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Well, does this need an introduction? Winged Blades Godric 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sadie Vidal

Sadie Vidal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sadie Vidal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:Politician. No evidence of any notability. No evidence that this candidate has even been selected by the Conservative party. No reliable and independent references except that she exists and has been elected as a councillor for a ward in Bridgend Council  Velella  Velella Talk   14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Iinazuke Kyoutei

Iinazuke Kyoutei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Iinazuke Kyoutei" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "許嫁協定" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not a notable manga; coverage is lacking in either Japanese or English. An English search resulted mostly in scanlation sites or manga profiles, while the Japanese search resulted mainly in sites selling the manga or manga profiles as well. Does not appear to be licensed either. No prejudice against merging or redirecting to a list of manga published by Kadokawa, if such a list article exists. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No JA Wikipedia article either. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pavlo Barbul

Pavlo Barbul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pavlo Barbul" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

His company may be notable, but I can't really seem to find anything saying that he is. bojo | talk 13:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Psychosophy

Psychosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Psychosophy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Definite WP:NOTDIC violation, potential WP:GNG violation, the article describes the word word, rather than the concept it describes. I would personally suggest moving some of the content in the article into Wiktionary. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

KeyCDN

KeyCDN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "KeyCDN" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Typical promotional spam. Forgot that WP is not an advertising medium. Winged Blades Godric 12:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Igor Burger

Igor Burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Igor Burger" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The four cited sources only mention his name, with no biographical detail, and my searches haven't found anything. John of Reading (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  13:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  13:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Alex Moreno (DJ & music producer)

Alex Moreno (DJ & music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alex Moreno (DJ & music producer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:ARTIST notability. The article is chock full of unsourced claims. A search does not reveal any available sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - MrX 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956

Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Contested prod. A list of paintings at the Rijksmuseum is of course important, it is one of the major museums of art, but it is very unclear why the list of paintings in the 1956 catalogue would be worth a separate article. This specific selection of paintings is not especially notable (again: the paintings are notable, the museum is notable, but the paintings on display in one particular year?) Fram (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about the year, but about the group of paintings on show in the post-WWII years in the Rijksmuseum and this is the year of the catalog edition used. I believe the selection of paintings on show during directorships of top museums are notable, especially those selections for which tourist catalogs have been published. This list is representative of the paintings on show during the directorship of D.C. Roell and therefore notable as a historic record of the taste in painting at that time as well as being a record of the attributions and catalog numbers per object (the current catalog numbers were devised in the 1970s). This is data that is referred to in art history publications of the period circa 1930- circa 1975. All catalog numbers have since changed, many attributions, and some paintings have been sold or restituted to heirs of rightful owners. Jane (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So then the article title has been so chosen because it's all from your single catalogue source? We don't title articles in this way, in my experience. I see you've also created 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum, based on another "a booklet of illustrations." Surely we're not going to spawn multiple list articles based on different catalogues and booklets. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Like I said on your user page, it is much better to present articles on the collection of museums based on periods and regions, not based on date of display / catalogue, which is not a defining characteristic. A list of Dutch Golden Age paintings at the Rijksmuseum can include the 1956 catalogue number and attribution, and can list those paintings that were in the museum collection at some time but no more. That would be a perfect list (though perhaps this specific example would need to be split further), on a notable subject. The 1956 catalogie though is referenced in many other publications (I presume, I haven't checked, I do see that there were other editions fairly frequently), but is not as such the subject of significant independent attention. In short, I don't think this is the right way to present this information at all, and is not helpful to readers (people would to browse to multiple similar catalogue lists to see the changed attributions and the changes in taste which you want to show with this list, so it defeats its purpose). Fram (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Repurpose this and 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum into a retitled list that meets our list naming policies, or delete. While I appreciate the work that has gone into these, they would set a truly terrible precedent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, or maybe move to Commons I don't think the precedent is too alarming, if only because few people have the patience to produce such lists. But I agree we don't want too many such lists. Still-life paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720 is a somewhat similar article, recreating an exhibition in Amsterdam & Cleveland in 1999/2000. I think the case for that is stronger. We don't have a list of the current catalogue, which would be more useful, if probably a lot longer. This could be expanded to that, with a field for those in the 1956 one. That would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • a) Exhibitions (at least major ones) are a different kind of beast, since these are temporary by definition, and often have many more reliable independent sources about the full exhibition. b) Some of these lists are relatively easy to make with Wikidata queries, so the patience needed to produce them has bveen vastly reduced. No objection to a move to Commons if this kind of list / gallery is welcomed there of course. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ned Lander

Ned Lander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ned Lander" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

BLP article that has been prodded twice, with no sources. scope_creep (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Emily Owen, Labour candidate for Aberconwy

Emily Owen, Labour candidate for Aberconwy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Emily Owen, Labour candidate for Aberconwy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Political candidate, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:1E, got some coverage (mainly tabloids) because she received sexually explicit messages while running as a political candidate. Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

VISTE

VISTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "VISTE" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

non-notable local voluntary organisation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad Khawas Khan Golra Awan

Muhammad Khawas Khan Golra Awan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Muhammad Khawas Khan Golra Awan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

no reference cited. Saqib (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I searched for English language references and didn't find anything that shows he may pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - References are already a problem, but the last chapters don't make any sense.Your welcome | Democratics Talk 12:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Evolver One

Evolver One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Evolver One" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence to support WP:BAND. Article seems to be created solely to create an argument for keep in another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulsa Pittaway Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear evidence to support WP:BAND. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" WP:BAND#1. Article has multiple sources that independent and reliable and provide coverage of Evolver One. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." WP:BAND#2. Article has a verified claim on national charting. Article was not created to CREATE an argument for keep, it was created when challenged for evidence of the bands notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of The Crystal Maze episodes

List of The Crystal Maze episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of The Crystal Maze episodes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Other lists of gameshow episode articles have been deleted so this should be no different. Already has descended into made up stuff (improvisational lore) and inaccuracy (using rounds instead of zones). Fails W:NOTSTATS Dougal18 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sheryl Nields

Sheryl Nields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sheryl Nields" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence of notability. Some of the sources cited aren't independent, some don't even mention the subject. Among the acceptable sources, I have found just one word "stylistically" that is about the subject. I've looked for better sources, and failed to find any. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep The article as it stands has a nasty taint of the promotional bio, but she has received media coverage over several years, with a couple of articles in American Photo magazine and some other coverage, as well as a lot of shorter articles on her photoshoots and famous images. None of it is super-lengthy, but I think there's enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I am not convinced by the notab. arguments.Pure promotional work. Winged Blades Godric 12:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • strong keep The sources make it clear that this person passes the GNG. Any additional promotionalism (and some has been removed) can be (and is being) dealt with via normal editing. There is no policy-based reason to delete here. The sourced awards alone are sufficient to establish notability. Softlavender put it well above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Rogers Blood

Rogers Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rogers Blood" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unfortunately, he doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Neither a Silver Star (at the cost of his life) nor a ship or two named after him suffice. A merge and redirect to USS Rogers Blood seems appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - disagree. Having a vessel named in your honor should be a sign of lasting notability. SOLDIER doesn't trump GNG. Having a named vessel leads to ongoing coverage (in books, articles, etc.) of the namesake.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. That hasn't been the case in the past, including at least one Afd I started. Also you can't inherit notability from coverage of your namesake. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I dont see anything that would pass a threshold for a stand-alone article, a mention in the ship article would suffice. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Deleteas unsourced original research and a tribute page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge into ship article per nom. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Icewhiz. Having a warship named after you is sufficient to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jan (Space Ghost)

Jan (Space Ghost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jan (Space Ghost)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Delete or merge to List of Hanna-Barbera characters. Doesn't merit to have separate article. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Casio AW-49

Casio AW-49 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Casio AW-49" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable. Doesn't merit to have article. just specifications of product Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Angel of Anywhere

Angel of Anywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Angel of Anywhere" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

unremarkable film. Zero news hits. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RIJHAY SAMPSON

RIJHAY SAMPSON (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "RIJHAY SAMPSON" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails notability. On googling found 2 pages of his own accounts on various social media Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Aksh Baghla

Aksh Baghla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aksh Baghla" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I was tempted to speedy this vanity page, but it's conceivably notable, so it's here instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete no claim of notability. The references are to low-quality domains like "mensxp.com", and the Youtube numbers claimed (and uncited) aren't impressive. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Kuwaiti Football Records

Kuwaiti Football Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kuwaiti Football Records" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No context, no sources, no inclusion criteria Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tinko Simov

Tinko Simov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tinko Simov" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) If the individual played a major role in Bulgarian politics, it's not forthcoming from the article's sole source. I didn't find anything substantial in database searches for the English-language name. If his role is worth mentioning and if there perhaps are some Bulgarian-language sources that bear it out, it would be more appropriate to write an article on anarchism in Bulgaria or section on the region's history than a dedicated biographical article. Ultimately, there isn't enough reliable sourcing to describe the topic in encyclopedic depth, nevertheless to do basic justice to the topic. There are no worthwhile mentions to use as redirect targets (article is orphaned). PROD'd in 2010. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 05:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Frederick Barton Harvey Jr.

Frederick Barton Harvey Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Frederick Barton Harvey Jr." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Only one source, and fails WP:GNG. This article was created by User talk:Hyungjoo98, who has created promotional articles for the Hill School, such as History of The Hill School, Wolfeboro Camp School, and numerous alumni pages. Dozens of his pages, including this one, have been nominated for speedy deletion, and he has deleted all of them. Peapod21 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Regene Lim

Regene Lim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Regene Lim" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This AfD is created in relation to the AfD that I have raised earlier, for more information please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Teo. In the earlier AfD, the page Damien Teo was deleted as the notability of the individual in question failed WP:GNG. I have also nominated other individuals, who are also non-notable child actors in Singapore, in the AfD and they have all been deleted as well. However, after the closing of the AfD, I realised that I have accidentally missed out another related individual, Regene Lim, who is another non-notable child actor in Singapore whose article should be deleted as well as she also failed WP:GNG. Therefore, I am relisting this AfD again, in relation to the earlier AfD to facilitate the deletion of the page Regene Lim on Wikipedia.

The reasoning and justification for this AfD is duplicated from the earlier AfD as it is the same, as follows:

A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, she is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actors' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability. DerricktanJCW (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Frederick Barton Harvey III

Frederick Barton Harvey III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Frederick Barton Harvey III" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Only one source, and fails WP:GNG. This article was created by User talk:Hyungjoo98, who has created promotional articles for the Hill School, such as History of The Hill School, Wolfeboro Camp School, and numerous alumni pages. Dozens of his pages, including this one, have been nominated for speedy deletion, and he has deleted all of them. Peapod21 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wolfeboro Camp School

Wolfeboro Camp School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Wolfeboro Camp School" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No media coverage and no inherent notability. Fails WP:ORG. It has little to no media coverage, and is not any significant academic institution. It feels promotional, and the article was created by the same author Hyungjoo98, who has written dozens of articles promoting the school. He has received multiple speedy deletion tags on his pages, and has deleted them all. Peapod21 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Spalding

Tyler Spalding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tyler Spalding" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

An unremarkable entrepreneur and co-founder of a private tech company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes are are trivial mentions or PR driven. Created as part of a walled garden around Raise.com, which also includes another co-founder, George Bousis. Deleted in 2014 and recreated in 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Stevan J. Korda

Stevan J. Korda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stevan J. Korda" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No sources; a bunch of WP:FRINGE content on the page. A PROD was declined in 2009 on the page. I only find coverage in biographical listings or in sources that appear to be copied from Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

AutoKey

AutoKey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "AutoKey" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 08:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

David Friel

David Friel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Friel Stats)
(Find sources: "David Friel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Self created article referenced only to IMDB; list of credits there shows only minor roles, nothing to meet WP:NACTOR and nothing in article to suggest meeting WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 08:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Task Force Tips

Task Force Tips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Task Force Tips" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not very notable can find passing mentions: Bloomberg, bought the company mentioned in local paper and some articles: 1, 2 3, 4 None of these sources are in the article, do we think they are good sources, and do they demonstrate actual notability, as opposed to just something to write about for NWItimes? The article is no good, but that can be dealt with somewhere else. I did have to use some advancedsearching. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete ...not notable Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep there are a lot of search results that could be used to source a decent article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger, please research and cite sources so that we can be sure they meet the criteria for establishing notability. The only ones I can see fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing++ 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
      • For starters, this says what the company does--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
      • here is something about the history of their production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
      • here is something about their modern production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I could go on but this entity seems to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks TonyTheTiger. For the purposes of finding sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this says what the company does but fails WP:ORGIND. This says something about the history of their production process but fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND (and not independent). Finally, here the Fotune article which says something about their modern production process] but fails WP:ORGIND. Note, finding sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability is different than finding sources to establish facts. -- HighKing++ 22:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
          • HighKing, Not a single one of those sources fails WP:ORGIND. Reread that section and you will see that these do not fall under the exceptions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
            • TonyTheTiger ORGIND addresses the "Independence of sources" and states: A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.. You say that "not a single one of those sources fails" and I think we'll just have to disagree with each other. For me its very clear. For example, the nwtimes article is an announcement from Madison Industries that they've acquired a controlling interest in the company - and goes on to use extensive quotes from Madison Industries. Clearly not independent. Similarly the machinedesign article uses a "case study" from a supplier of Task Force Tips. Again, not independent. Finally, the fortune article on the rise of robotic usage simply repeats quotes provided by the CEO where the company "talks about itself". -- HighKing++ 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
              • It seems that you fail to understand the difference between journalism and a press release. The nwtimes article is not an annoucnement from Madison Industries, it is what we would term journalism and is presumed to have been published through the desired editorial process. I have posted a clarification request at WP:RSN on this point. Let's see what the experts on RS say.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing++ 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • delete fails gng. The links in the AfD but not in the article do not convince me.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am re-opening this discussion following a conversation on my talk page where an editor expressed concern that they might posses evidence that will establish notability. I am therefore restoring the article and relisting this discussion for another week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment At WP:RSN, it is consensus (third party commentary by Only in death and The Four Deuces) that the sources I have presented are WP:RS, which debunks HighKing's argument that they are not. This does not mean the subject is notable. WP:GNG requires a significant coverage from RS. Here we must judge what constitutes significant coverage. I could likely produce more RS, but my point is that there are RS and that the article should be kept because there are multiple RS. I don't know how close multiple RS is to significant coverage by RS, but what I have shown definitely gets you down that road toward significant coverage. In most AFD debates, this is sufficient although RSN commentary makes it clear that multiple RS is not automatically significant. I just clicked on the "find sources" search links above and found three quickly. I think we all are capable of clicking on the search links above and seeing several RS now that we should all understand what an RS is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Response Please point out anywhere in my comments where we had a discussion about the reliability of the sources? I know you enjoy creating strawman arguments but it's rich when you don't even bother to read my responses. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Do you wear glasses to read (and keep forgetting to put them on)? Or perhaps English isn't your first language? Regardless, please pay attention to what is actually being said and it would also help if you actually read (with comprehension) what is being said. -- HighKing++ 12:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Track and Field (band)

Track and Field (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Track and Field (band)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

2nd Article - The Plight

The Plight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Plight" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Two versions of the same band. Notability is not inherited from one non-notable band to another. A slight step above WP:YAMB Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep has coverage such as BBC, Huffington Post, Allmusic bio, MOSH referenced in the articles, just passes WP:GNG

List of Canadian women government ministers

List of Canadian women government ministers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Canadian women government ministers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not a useful list. This is serving only to replicate the contents of Category:Canadian women government ministers -- but the standard needed for a list and a category to coexist is that the list is doing something different: extended content about the overall concept, providing a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories instead of directly containing all of its potential entries, being more completist than a category can be since a category can't hold entries that don't have articles to file, and on and so forth. But this list isn't doing any of those things: it's just listing the exact same entries (and not even all of them), which means it isn't serving any purpose that the category isn't already fulfilling. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original editor has been blocked for misbehavior, created a lot of articles requiring cleanup, and I see nothing in this particular list worth saving. --Lockley (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Canadian women government ministers. The nomination misstates what CLN says, and the difference from the category comes from the inherent characteristics of the format itself (CLN lays these out, in addition to noting how some editors/readers prefer one format over another so don't delete either just based on your preference for one). You instead need a special reason why a list shouldn't exist in tangent with the category rather than special justification for it existing. Notwithstanding that, the nomination also fails to consider the list's potential for annotation, direct sourcing, table formatting and sorting, and other alternate means of organization, all of which are functions a category cannot perform, and this consideration of potential is required by WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. "Delete because it has not yet been developed" is simply not a valid position at AFD, yet that's what I read above. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Delete -- the category is sufficient in this case and is more useful anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Database of Recorded American Music

Database of Recorded American Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Database of Recorded American Music" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence of notability. feminist 16:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. feminist 16:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Appears to be the subject of some discussion at the intersection of music studies and library science. There's a fairly brief bit in the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, the American Library Association-published Guide to Developing a Library Music Collection, and similar works. Billboard's article on digital music services for libraries (2010-12-11, p 12), provides only a bare mention of DRAM, but does give a sense of the cost of the service to subscribing libraries. I suspect there's quite a bit more in sources I don't have ready access to. There appears to be a 2003 article about the inception of this database in The Gramophone, for example, and potentially some coverage in scholarly articles in Internet Reference Services Quarterly and Music Reference Services Quarterly (both Taylor and Francis publications). I don't find any silver bullet sources to firmly demonstrate notability, but that's not uncommon for library science resource topics. My opinion from what I can see is that it narrowly clears the bar. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:ADVOCACY, with copy such as "....a continually growing, online resource providing on-demand, high-quality streaming media access to nearly 9,000 essential musical works...". And it goes downhill from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of winners of the Åke Blomström Award (ABA)

List of winners of the Åke Blomström Award (ABA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of winners of the Åke Blomström Award (ABA)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

no indication the prize for beginning journalists is sufficiently notable to have this list. I'm not even sure that any of it is suitable for merging in to thearticleo n the prize. I point out there is no article on the prize in the svWP. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, none of the names are notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Note that we now also have the articles List of Requirements for participation in the Åke Blomström Award (ABA) and List of International Cooperation and Financing of The Åke Blomström Award, which seem even less notable. Manxruler (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, Since this is an international prize, there is no point in creating a specific swedish wiki article. The winners, and the selection committee, are from many different countries, and most people don´t speak swedish. I have no affiliation with any of the involved organisations. I created the WPsw article about Åke Blomström as a consequence of contributing to the wikipedia article about my father. Not creating a swedish article of the prize was a natural choice. Swedish wikipedia has not deleted any article concerning the prize, that I know of. It is not inconceivable that all, or some, of the winners may merit a wikipedia article WP:CREATIVE, although this is beyond my current knowledge. Therefore also WP:DEMOLISH. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment I see the none of the recent prizewinners has an article on either the enWP or the svWP, and that many of the earlier awards are merely travel grants for travel to other competitions. I do not see how an award almost exclusively given to non-notable people can be notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC) .
Comment I don´t agree. The Fields Medal e.g. can be given to a young person who is not notable, but has done something important. I refer to this article as an example of the importance of the prize : http://www.rte.ie/about/en/press-office/press-releases/2013/0306/374455-prestigious-international-award-for-documentary-on-one-programme/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123johanlindeberg (talkcontribs) 21:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

George Farha

George Farha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "George Farha" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No independent evidence of notability. Written partly in the first person in a self-promotional style. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Belaruski Chas

Belaruski Chas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Belaruski Chas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Contested CSD. The article, created by a user currently blocked for sockpuppetry, doesn't contain any sources or external links to prove its existence, and an attempt by myself to find sources has failed. For this reason, the article might fail WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG. Jd02022092 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not a contested CSD but a declined A3 nomination as there is enough content and context in the article to determine what the article is about. I also looked to see if G5 would apply but could not determine if the creator was evading a block when they created this as there isn't any information that I could find about what other accounts they have used. I have added a couple of sources and a link to their website, but I do not have enough knowledge in Russian to determine if they are notable or not. ~ GB fan 11:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, with very slender evidence of existence. --Lockley (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ruediger John

Ruediger John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ruediger John" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Page was flagged for notability 4 years ago, and no substantive improvement since. Additionally the history shows repeated IP edits, that were reverted or significantly pruned by experienced editors (with some colorful edit summaries). failed projects 02:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cimmeron Show Review

Cimmeron Show Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cimmeron Show Review" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The band fails WP:GNG; the band does not appear to be notabe outside of their hometown during that time period. The article also appears to violate WP:PROMOTION as two of the bands songs are featured in its entirety on the article. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Yoshiman6464's contention that the band was not notable outside of their hometown. The Cimmeron Show Review was a well-known group on Wisconsin's touring circuit of roadhouses, dance halls and college campuses during the 1970s. That, and that they released two singles on vinyl, suggests this entry should remain as a resource for record collectors and fans of Wisconsin rock music of the 1970s. evandad (talk). 17 June 2017

@Evandad: There are a ton of artists who released singles and records on vinyl who are featured on Discogs. However, most of these bands are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, this band is one of those bands that has a Discogs page and yet is not notable. In order of a band to become notable, individuals / critics from reliable sources must talk about the band in great detail. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any of that. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ghaby

Ghaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ghaby" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I found nothing to show notability for this musician. The subject of the article is the creator. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Crossed Loves

Crossed Loves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Crossed Loves" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The series was never produced. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Programs renamed by Modi Government

Programs renamed by Modi Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Programs renamed by Modi Government" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, We already have List of government schemes in India. RazerText me 04:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge. There is public interest to learn about this. I suggest we merge this into List of government schemes in India subins2000 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

DeleteBy and large all government policies are based on similar principles of social justice and empowerment, however this does not mean all policies can be rolled into one and called copies of each other. Most of the mentioned sources do not in any way substantiate the claims of rename as alleged by the page. E.g. the Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account differs significantly from the Jan Dhan Yojna in terms of its execution parameters. VIz. The former was largely an advisory issued for PSUs wheras the latter firstly extends to the Pvt Sector as well and contains well defined targets and timelines. 2) Ultimately even though the former was in action since 2005, there was no action on the grounnd and no tracking mechanism to count the number of Accounts created. Till date there is no reliable citation to ascribe the accounts created under this scheme. There are such differences across multiple dimensions on several such schemes as claimed t be renamed. Hence there really is no reasons for this kind of work to exist on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amathur2k (talkcontribs) 13:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The article mentioned by proposer User:Razer2115 doesn't capture the act of renaming by the current government. The number of Pageviews to the article shows that there is public interest to learn about this. Chirag (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, moreover why a simple list is being viewed and vandalized so much? -- Absharaslam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed This page captures important information and it should not be deleted. Though it can be expanded to capture name changes by other governments ago. Maybe it should be name as "Government Programs renamed by Indian Government" -- Hargup (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The notability of the subject of the article must be established in accordance to wikipedia's guidelines. As of now there are only a few independent sources given to support the claim of notability. Note that according to WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Four out of five articles cited to establish notability of the article are by the same author. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep. This page specifically talks about program changes by the current Modi government. This is unique, not covered by any other page and the title of the page itself suggests that it is limited to changes by this Modi government only and not by others. For other govts, some other page can be created by others. As explained by Chirag there are enough pageviews to show that there is genuine public interest served by this page. This page must stay. hardthinker 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardwaj.ankur (talkcontribs) Bhardwaj.ankur (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This page should stay up. It keeps people informed. This page must stay. KeralaBlaster 11:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)50.64.160.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This page should stay. There is absoultely no reason for it to be deleted. All arguements against keeping the page seems to be highly illogical. What does it mean when someone says it's not just renaming but a lot of other things too. While I really don't agree, isn't name change also a part of it? And how does it change when we call a spade a spade?203.99.204.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Remove. I don't quite see the purpose of this article. Although unstated, the implication is that changing the name is the only thing that has been done to these programs, which is incorrect for most programs listed on the page. Further, many of the sources listed are either not reliable (opinion pieces) or do not support the claim that the program was simply renamed. If there has been significant revamping of the program, I don't think it makes sense to say that a program has been "renamed" just because an old one was replaced with a new one having similar goals. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge. This is another political propaganda page as can be seen from it's biased introduction and the title. It violates the general naming convention of a Wikipedia article (list) . What is this "Modi government?" WP:NOTNEWS - "Modi government" is an unofficial word used by *national* media outlets in India to Direct BJP government. The right reason for a deletion is WP:CFORK, a name change is not credible enough to have a separate article (list) on it. Mention of the name change in the parent article (list) does the work. FWIW, the above keep !vote gives an argument which we generally avoid on Wikipedia, *keep the article because it has views*. Jim Carter 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
In addition to what I said, the sources mentioned below are not actually sources but tabloids and opinionated press release which does not merit WP:RS. It is okay to have it mentioned in a section called "controversy" but it is not okay to have a standalone article per WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:CFORK. "Sonia-says-in-Maharashtra", "says-congress" in the given sources are enough to understand. Jim Carter 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment I see quite a few PIB links being quoted. This is a new article, and some time must be given to the author to come up with proper links. In my simple understanding, reliable sources can be added in due course of time. But deleting a new unreviewed article without giving time to add proper sources would be WP:ZEALChunnuBhai (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment If "Modi government" violates naming conventions of wikipedia, wikipedia community may consider renaming the article to "Schemes renamed by Modi ministry". However, a bad title cannot be an argument for deletion. Remedy to a bad title on wikipedia is a better title, not deletion. If the article is a propaganda, then propaganda material be removed and the article appropriately tagged.ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

his article is part of political propaganda that seems to downgrade working of present government. although it is the fact that new scheme by Modi governmet subsumed the older scheme, but to claim that they were only renamed is far from truth. Just to give one example Jan Dhan yojana went far beyond the mandate of Basic Saving bank deposit of previous government. It actually forced banks to open no-frill accounts and link them to Aadhar card. Also in terms of success two could not be compared. And it should be kept in mind that it has always been policy of Indian government to subsume all the related schemes in the new ones, and this could not be termed as mere renaming. The title of page is defamatory and misleading. The linked provided as reference also does not claim renaming.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep The list is unique and the contention that Central Govt led by Narendra Modi has been renaming and repackaging schemes has been covered in the Indian media on and off. for example [1][2][3] etc. In fact renaming old schemes was an election agenda in 2014 and a part of election speeches. [4]. In case the article veers towards a biased propaganda like language, it should be edited and propaganda material removed. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://factchecker.in/agriculture-ministry-old-schemes-renamed-other-misleading-claims/
  2. ^ http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/280516/modi-government-just-repackaging-upa-schemes-says-congress.html
  3. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/All-Modi-has-done-is-rename-our-schemes-Sonia-says-in-Maharashtra/articleshow/44787320.cms
  4. ^ http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/centre-may-widen-scheme-names-outside-nehru-gandhi-family-114091700026_1.html

comment votes have been deleted on this page. Admin please note. The article has a listing of facts. With citations.

Keep. This is a useful list that accurately represents the policy debate in India. That several schemes have been renamed has been pointed out by several commentators and economists. Do note that there is a significant difference between stating facts in a neutral tone and political propaganda. One of the Remove comment above indicates that this is downgrading the work of the present government. Such language itself is an indication of bias, and is not rooted in facts. Where schemes have been renamed with changes, such changes can be presented in a separate column. However, this list itself is an important compilation of information and falls under a larger set of renamed institutions, towns and infrastructure projects in India. Multitrackdrifting (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Multitrackdrifting (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. It needs to be documented. All the references were given properly and it qualifies as a list type. --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep; this appears to be a reasonable topic for a list, especially given the current or recent furore on the subject. Of course, the current list looks rather bad; I'd be open to supporting a TNT delete for this specific page on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no particular interest in this debate. But I want to note here that the people who are asking to keep this page, should seriously put some effort in fixing the article, if they think that its worthy of existence. The article in its current state contains a lot of WP:OR. As I have said here in the edit summary, the sources should clearly state that the new programme is synonymous to the older programme. As for the article's WP:GNG, there have to be some considerable number of reliable, secondary and independent sources that say in their own voice (not in opposition's voice, because any opposition is not a secondary & independent source) that, 'Programs renamed by Modi Government/Ministry' is a notable issue or subject. There are currently no such sources present in the article, and this is a big problem. To those who want to keep this article, you must work on finding such sources. Or else, no responsible editor who has been here for a while, accepts that this article can continue to exist, no matter how many people out there are interested in this subject. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are just a boring encyclopedia who completely rely on quality sources and our policies & guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:V etc. Also, given that this article is being used for publicity on online forums (TBH, I came to know about this article from that Facebook page itself), it would be a gross violation of Wikipedia's principles to keep this article just because there are a number of keep votes. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Just adding to the above point here. I agree that there must be more independent sources that show the notability of the subject for this article to stay. It seems that some sources have been added to the article to this effect, but, as of now, three out of the four articles presented in the lead to show notability are written by the same person. Two of them are actually just the same exact article reproduced on two different websites.
I added around half a dozen new citations. The point about independent voices is well taken. The new citations should take carr of it. Given more time, I'm sure more editors will contribute to increase the number of entries and also enrich the article. Chirag (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that the notability of the subject of the article is still under question. You can add half a dozen new citations but if all of them are from the same source, it does not help establish notability as according to WP:GNG multiple articles by the same author or organizations are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think most of these sources cited are citing govt data and reports. Apart from that, there are other citations from Govt run websites which should butress the notability argument. Chirag (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
You are not even addressing the issue we are raising here. Notability isn't about whether the sources are valid or not. Notability means whether the subject of this article deserves an article on wikipedia. Please refer to WP:GNG and read Tyler Durden's comment above. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bad faith creation. S. No. 9 in the list 'Neem Coated Urea' is a type of fertiliser. There has never been/never will exist a program or scheme by that name. What the author has done is equate the 'Growth Claims' by the current Indian Government to the name of a fertiliser, essentially calling it shit. A clarification was sought on the author talk page, no response yet. 49.207.55.113 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a rather harsh judgement for not responding to your comment. There was an edit war happening (the page was unprotected then) and I didn't wan't to get into it. I don't do this for a living, so I can't respond to all comments as soon as they are posted. Coming to the matter of bad faith. Considering the speed and frequency with which the article was being blanked by anonymous/newly created articles, I can easily imagine that there is an organised campaign to suppress this page. So, editors/admins should consider the bad faith aspect of some of the editors requesting deletion of the article. Chirag (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. The article was never being "blanked by anonymous/newly created articles". Only those entries of the list that failed verification based on the source were removed in good faith because content on wikipedia must be verifiable. That most of the entries got removed in such a process is a testimony to the poor quality of the article. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
There were 7 instances of blanking and numerous instances of vandalism. Mixed in was large scale removal of content, where seeking more references would've been warranted.
Nevertheless, removing content that fails verification from a wikipedia article can't be claimed to be evidence of bad faith. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Organised mass action can be seen as evidence of bad faith. Chirag (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
A wikipedia article on a politically colored subject, with more than half of the claims failing verification, and widely circulated on social media can also be seen as evidence of bad faith. Please, I am trying to be as civil as possible with you and giving you the benefit of doubt. I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me (and others). Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
You responded later by saying "Boo Hoo. I'm not fixing it." That's beside the point; you still haven't clarified why you inserted the name of a fertiliser as a government program and the new name of that program as "Growth claims". 49.207.55.113 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I also urged you to fix it. Please go ahead and fix it. I've left it for you. Chirag (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Why should I fix your childish vandalism? You should be blocked from editing for doing that. 49.207.55.113 (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Come on guys, what the heck is happening here? Do you people realise that you're on Wikipedia? This is becoming a street-fight. Please take WP a bit seriously, at least for a while. Someone who knows what exactly the problem is, kindly go ahead and fix it. And IP, that's not how Wikipedia:Blocking policy works. And you should avoid using the word "vandal". Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: This page is being widely circulated in Web forums and talk board. I hate to say this but the page has become a political propaganda tool. Most of the sources cited are unreliable or doesn't mention in the news report that the scheme was renamed. Another problem with this is that most of the claims are alleged as its is nearly impossible to determine weather the scheme was renamed or completely relaunched from scrap. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia is not the right place for an article like this.RazerText me 07:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we have to debate whether the content is factual and fits in Wikipedia, not the way it is being used by whom. For eg List of renamed public places in Tamil Nadu exists. And there are many such lists. Chirag (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete WP:WWIN, bad faith, politically motivated article. Doesn't add any value and is un-encycleopaedic. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I haven't come across any valid arguments on why this article should be deleted. References can be improved for some items, and any items which do not belong to the list can be removed. But in my opinion there is no reason to delete the article completely. Aurorion (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination: besides the prose and source quality issues, this topic makes for an indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't significant in the least that a newly-elected legislature goes around tweaking and rebranding existing government programs, that's basically the only thing that elected officials do in any democratic environment. It's furthermore not significant in the least that opposition parties whine about it, that's their job. If there's a significant controversy broiling about this (I don't observe from given sources that there is, beyond routine government criticism) then that controversy will probably be covered in an article about this administration, but a point-by-point list of every program they've supposedly changed the name of (debated by various pundits) is unwarranted and unencyclopedic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep- 1, 2, 3. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - References/sources are irrelevant. Why is it notable that names of organizations were changed? If the organizations have their own pages, discuss the name change there. If the organizations don't have their own pages, then it's not notable information. None of this seems significant. He changed the names, but why does that matter? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Draftify-There seems to be a good bit of media furore about the fact that the Modi government (Indian slang for Government of India under the leader of Modi) is renaming a lot of schemes under the earlier governments and saying that he was the first to think about them. Reliable sources may be found.On the other hand the topic is slightly politically coloured leading to vandalism. Thus let the user have the article in draft space to be put back when reference and copyedit etc have been done .FORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources are failing verification and much of the list is rather a guess, WP:OR. Capitals00 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The bottom line is that the list claims that the name changes are because the Modi government is trying to claim more than it has actually done but linking name changes to that claim is WP:OR. At best a couple of lines in Premiership of Narendra Modi (The government claimed this but the opposition claimed that they just renamed all the programs - that sort of thing). --regentspark (comment) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this very reluctantly because I have doubts we will be able to reach a consensus given the sharp divide and already heavy level of participation. But heres hoping...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do

The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

As Winged Blades of Godric described here, none of the sources is reliable and independent, and the book does not seem to be notable. Many of the sources are on a website of an organization that the author has a connection to. KSFT (t|c) 02:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

DJ Dero

DJ Dero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "DJ Dero" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable musician. - TheMagnificentist 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Whifler

Graeme Whifler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Graeme Whifler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable. Single reference is LA times article that refers to work done by subject that is unverified/not cited elsewhere. Lorfuzbot (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of housing cooperatives in Canada

List of housing cooperatives in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of housing cooperatives in Canada" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not a useful list. Canada literally has thousands upon thousands of housing cooperatives, since virtually every city of even moderate size will have a few dozen, and even smaller towns will often have a handful too -- but as things stand right now, just six of them actually have their own standalone articles, all six of them are already filed in Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada, and this list just replicates those same six rather than aiming for anything more comprehensive. While it's true that lists aren't automatically deemed redundant with categories per WP:CLN, it's also true that every category doesn't automatically need to be paired with its own matching list of the same contents -- to warrant maintaining both, the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do (such as being more completist, or actually containing written content about the notability of the concept, or being a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories). But if all the list is going to do is replicate the category contents with no added context for why the list is doing something different than the category is, then we don't need the list. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada. The nomination misstates what CLN says, and the difference from the category comes from the inherent characteristics of the format itself (CLN lays these out, in addition to noting how some editors/readers prefer one format over another so don't delete either just based on your preference for one). You instead need a special reason why a list shouldn't exist in tangent with the category rather than special justification for it existing. Notwithstanding that, the nomination also fails to consider the list's potential for annotation, direct sourcing, table formatting and sorting, and other alternate means of organization, all of which are functions a category cannot perform, and this consideration of potential is required by WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. "Delete because it has not yet been developed" is simply not a valid position at AFD, yet that's what I read above. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The nominator correctly understands what CLN says: it does not say that lists and categories should always coexist with each other, but specifies that while sometimes there are valid reasons why a list and a category should coexist, there are also sometimes valid reasons why content should be organized in one form or the other but not in both. Table formatting and sorting, for example, are formatting matters for how a list should be organized, not reasons in and of themselves why a list needs to exist. What other criterion, besides alphabetizing their names as the category already does, do we need a list of six entries to offer alternate resortability on, for starters? And what further annotation needs to be provided here, and what additional sourcing needs to be added besides what's already present in the articles themselves? Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Your nomination claimed that "...the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do..." Those formatting and annotation possibilities for development provide just that (and the annotations could include year of founding, specific location, size, notes on history/special features, etc., and direct footnotes for all of this). Your position, whatever its merits, that the list isn't required to coexist here is also not the same as arguing that it isn't permissible, so whence deletion? postdlf (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a big proponent of CLN here, but with the list creator indef blocked (in part for persistent bare-minimum page creation), and the nominator the most likely person up here imo to expand the list and turn it into something useful, I've no objection in this case. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Maple T.A.

Maple T.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Maple T.A." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Does not meet the notability guidelines for web content(this being a web-based program). The only source offered is the website of the company that created it. I could find no sources offering in-depth coverage of this software. It was tagged with an A7 deletion request(importance) in September but it was removed. The proposed CSD was contested with the explanation "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this page is intended to be an information source about a product (Maple T.A.). This was the first bit of information created for this page and more content is to be created in the future." which is a promotional purpose- also suggesting that the page creator has a COI. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • If you are looking for articles on Maple T.A., they can be provided. Am I to include them as reference, or here, or both? RochelleAngyal (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Either would be satisfactory. They will need to be independent reliable sources(please review if you haven't yet). 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, here would be preferable, as you should not directly edit articles about your company or its products per the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is an article from a digital testing consultant in the Netherlands discussing digital testing with Maple T.A.[1] Additional academic research publications are coming.RochelleAngyal (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Conference presentation from TU Delft on their assessment practices. [2]RochelleAngyal (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.methakamminga.nl/MapleTA/TheTenPitfallsOfDigitalTesting.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.maplesoft.com/Whitepapers/DelftseToetspraktijkUK.pdf
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

B4bonah

B4bonah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "B4bonah" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Speedy deletion tag removed multiple times from page creator and IP. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 23:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 23:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
More hostile activity here. Meatsgains (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment If he has had a hit in Ghana, then he's notable per WP:MUSICBIO. But I can't find any sources to back up that claim. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - (talk) he has had a hit song and has also collaberated with africa biggest artirst Sarkodie (rapper) and dr cryme, this are all major artist from ghana.. also his music's are on itunes.. u can also check .. 'b4bonah on iTunes
Do you have any reliable sources covering his hit song? Meatsgains (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • IMPORTANT NOTICE

Meatsgains (talk) please am really new with all this technicalities.. but I will be glad if you could help me review the pages rather than nominating them for delation.. thank you ref Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers .

Don't pull the innocent card here and stop attempting to remove the AfD tag. Meatsgains (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - all am saying now is that i want you guys should help improve the article b4bonah .. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acyd101 (talkcontribs) 11:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete There is not sign of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. All significant coverage appears non-independent. WP:CHARTS does not list an "official" chart for Ghana but the claim "his hit single "Dear God" which was able to top charts" requires some form of source and none is in the article or apparently available through searching. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Alisports

Alisports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alisports" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

All information is regarding Alibaba group. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Support- this could be summed up with a single SHORT paragraph on the Alibaba main article El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Francis Moraes

Francis Moraes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Francis Moraes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

It's quite clear that this is a vanity article by a crank designed to legitimize his psuedoscientific quackery concerning drug addiction. A quick scan of the edit history for the article shows that Francis doesn't even hide the various sockpuppets he uses to engage in edit wars over this peacock article. Speedy delete now. 107.3.56.202 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I remain neutral at this time. --Finngall talk 03:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

From the note of the article and the lack of notability of the author, it seems it was just created to promote his vanity press. Nowhere in the article or on the internet could I find anything that suggests the subject has particular expertise in the neuropharmacology/psychopharmacology of drug addiction. His work sounds very fringe to me. 198.246.186.210 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Regional Political Parties in Gorkhaland

List of Regional Political Parties in Gorkhaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Regional Political Parties in Gorkhaland" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Author already inserted same information in Gorkhaland Territorial Administration. Doesn't merit to have a separate article Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge as suggested by nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Author is acting in good-faith to try to get information into Wikipedia but doesn't have a clue and needs advice. Author also created a list of the parties with Goorkhaland misspelled. I changed it to a redirect to the article. Author obviously thinks it is important to get the list (and the list is a useful addition to the encyclopedia) but is trying cluelessly. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Laksa Kedah

Laksa Kedah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Laksa Kedah" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article has only recipe. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. I can find references for the dish in cookbooks, such as this one at Page 233, but the fact remains that this article is nothing but a recipe. Geoff | Who, me? 21:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Garaj Komik

Garaj Komik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Garaj Komik" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

133 sources, and not one of them seems to be at the same time independent, indepth and reliable.

The article starts with 2 facebook posts, and 90% of the sources are similar self-published or closely related sources (like the sources from Geekcon).

Of the reliable sources, most don't mention Garaj Komik[4][5][6][7] or at best give a very passing mention[8].

While I haven't opened all 133 sources, it looks as if the impressive number of sources needs to hide the fact that this comic hasn't yet received the necessary attention in reliable independent sources to get an article here. Fram (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete - yeah, this is a weird one. Seven citations for the first release date? Citations for random tidbits like synonyms for minicomics? The excessive citing of each issues content is a red flag. For some reason the creator for a story and the story plot are sourced to different places. There are three citations (49, 50, and 51) that Lupis has no cure because it's mentioned in the plot summary. The user's only [contributions] have been on this article or information about it on other articles. The closest claim to notability the article makes is being the 26th most recognized brand of comic in Malaysia. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Supply evangelist

Supply evangelist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Supply evangelist" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This concept does not appear to be notable. The term is not used in the one source cited, and a search does not suggest that the topic has been the subject of significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- some sort of WP:ADVOCACY & a personal essay. Not evident that this concept even exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Possibly original research or self-promotion. Definitely not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Moglix

Moglix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Moglix" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

An unremarkable private tech company with insignificant funding. Significant RS coverage that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is largely PR driven and relates to funding and company aspirations, such as: "Garg, a former Google executive, is positioning his e-commerce firm Moglix for the GST's launch on July 1"etc.: [9] Sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiranhota whose other contributions outside this topic have an appearance of being promotionally driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Government and binding theory

Government and binding theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Government and binding theory" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Term that seems to be only supported by one source. Turns up very minimal results at best, nothing beyond the Chomsky source. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - in my experience with the linguistic literature, GB is by far the most common name for the theory (if one can call it that), even among its critics (see Martin Haspelmath's critiques of aprioristic approaches to syntax, for example). There's another name, the Principles and Parameters approach, but I don't think the name is as common as GB. In any case, I would support a merge with Principles and parameters. Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep and trout for the nominator for not doing elementary WP:BEFORE (or for misspelling it as "governement" in their search, in which case Chomsky's Pisa lectures are almost the only thing that comes up.). GB was the dominant syntactic framework of the 1980s and early 90s. There've been thousands of published papers elucidating one or another aspect of it, and it has been the main subject of dozens of introductory syntax textbooks. If I recall correctly, Principles and Parameters is its successor theory that came to the fore with the Minimalist program of the mid-90s, and at least at first blush I don't see a good reason for merging. – Uanfala 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaori Yamagata

Kaori Yamagata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kaori Yamagata" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "山像かおり" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable voice actress. JA Wikipedia shows a credits dump. ANN has no notable articles to cover her career, just cast announcements. No major roles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears she was Anna in a Tekken OVA. Is that considered a major role? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Anna is a major character in the franchise, but she's supporting in Tekken: The Motion Picture. But go ahead and count that one as a major role. Any others? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Major role" I suppose refers to WP:NACTOR, #1, but I do not agree that our policy's idea of "role" easily translates to a voice artist. Without reliable sourcing, the GNG is not met: delete. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Bandung

List of tallest buildings in Bandung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of tallest buildings in Bandung" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Prod removed by page creator without comment. My concern was Buildings simply not tall enough to make this a notable list Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Probable delete It's not really the height that matters, it's the notability. There's lots of articles online and published about tall buildings in London or Doha, to take 2 examples, but not much about Bandung; the article is largely cited to a database of construction projects. Almost none of the buildings have Wikipedia articles, so it couldn't even function as an index/list of notable buildings in Bandung. I realise there may be sources in Indonesian, Sundanese, Javan, or other local languages, and that we need to improve Wikipedia coverage of non-western nations. But it doesn't appear to be a notable topic for a list. I'm happy to be proved wrong with references and citations. Any referenced content could be merged to Bandung, but there's a lot of unreferenced entries. Could redirect either to Bandung or List of tallest buildings in Indonesia (which includes a lot of notable buildings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, got to agree with Colapeninsula with regards to notability. None of the buildings are notable and the only sources that are provided to affirm height are primary sources, no indication of importance of the list article in general nor any of the entries. Ajf773 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Also nominating this list of non notable buildings
List of tallest buildings in Medan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I hate the constant drip, drip, drip of AFDs about individual tall buildings and about lists of tallest buildings. This process of considering, and sometimes deleting, isolated buildings or lists seems guaranteed to ensure uneven coverage in Wikipedia and legitimate frustration on the part of contributors. I particularly hate the deletion of lists, because having lists helps by heading off creation of separate articles about buildings. There needs to be a good RFC or other discussion about the big topic area, towards ensuring consistent editing. --doncram 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Bandung's metropolitan area has population over 8 million, bigger than that of most cities in the U.S. and U.K. (where most AFD editors probably hail from). The list has multiple buildings over 100 metres (330 ft) which is a significant threshold. It is pointless and wasteful to delete list-articles like this. The topic of "tallest buildings in ..." is well-established as notable. One could quibble you want to merge this into List of tallest buildings in Indonesia but that is not proposed and that would not be an improvement, as there is enough separate info about Bandung alone. It is clearly better to have a list-article than separate articles about each of the buildings. There is no controversial or contested information in the article, so I do not see any problems with the sourcing, either. Does anyone seriously dispute whether building X is 128 meters tall or whatever? --doncram 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Selective merge to Bandung - I'm not seeing much, if any, coverage about buildings in Bandung specifically. However a short section on Bandung's article probably wouldn't hurt (as long as it isn't given too much undue weight), and would probably be a better alternative to complete deletion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Gbawden, whats your point? It seems you are suffering from obsessive Deleting disorder! I am creating a page and you are adding in AFD, one by one! Look at the list of tallest buildings in some western cities like List of tallest buildings in Cardiff, then compare how your views justify discriminating cities from other parts of the world. Dont forget Indonesia is the 7th largest ecnomy of the world. Both Bandung and Medan is large metropolis with huge numbers of colonial buildings and high economic activity. They deserve to be included in the list. The list of tallest buildings are not about heritage, its about height! That's why it has the word tallest!
  • Bandung is the 2nd most populous city in Indonesia. It has many high rise building already. The city is going through transforming its skyline for last few years. Most of the high rise were built after 2014, as there was height restriction in the city. It needs time and patience to create a new page.There is a page in Bahasa Indonesian 'https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daftar_gedung_tertinggi_di_Bandung'. But in my opinion, the topic needs a page in English. Thnx.

Judging importance of Bandung as an expanding metropolis where high rise buildings are flourishing rapidly, this page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.151.1 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • .Keep, as there are plenty of reference and Bandung is an important cultural, educational & economic hub in Southeast Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.167.150 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    • IP's 114.124.167.150 and 114.124.151.1 have made very little contributions to Wikipedia outside of this AfD. Suspect these are IP hopping by the article creator and both comments should be discarded. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full seven days for the second article added later and new comments on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This AFD is about "List of tallest buildings in Bandung" and there is no "second article". Upon close examination, I do see a later comment within the discussion suggesting another article for deletion. It is not hidden but also it clearly seems not part of this AFD, by my reading of the nomination and looking at the AFD as a whole. There's no amendment of the AFD statement at the top. No one noticed it and no one has commented. Okay, here is my comment: ignore that, please, and let this AFD be about just what it appears to be about. --doncram 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The second article AfD needs to be withdrawn by the nominator if we go down that path. I see that the AfD template has been removed from the articles author, I've replaced for now. Ajf773 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by CJON-DT

List of programs broadcast by CJON-DT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of programs broadcast by CJON-DT" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

List of programs broadcast by an individual independent television station. While lists of this type are permitted for national networks, I can't find any other evidence in Category:Lists of television series by network of them existing for standalone stations as well. And furthermore, while the station is nominally independent of Canada's national networks, in actual practice it doesn't buy standalone broadcast rights to any programming that's exclusive to it, but just sublicenses a crossnetwork mix of programs from CTV and Global — so it's still basically a dual affiliate of both networks nonetheless, with its only real point of "independence" being that it's not faithful to either network's standard schedule. The end result being that apart from its own local newscast (which doesn't have its own standalone article separate from the "news" section of the station article) and maybe a few syndication strips, pretty much everything listed here is already going to be in either List of programs broadcast by CTV and CTV Two or List of programs broadcast by Global anyway. All of which means there's just no need for this. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 07:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- 'cruft & unnecessary cross categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Would be a keep if it was actually maintained in any manner, but we're stuck in the 2014-15 season on this article, plus this can easily just be maintained as a mention of what's currently on in summary form in the CJON-DT article. Nate (chatter) 04:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Freddy Awards

The Freddy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Freddy Awards" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not a notable award. Local to a small part of two states of the USA, and at high school level. Sources are mostly primary sources lacking any real depth or importance. As well as this, a list of award winners is also up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past Freddy Award nominations and recipients Ajf773 (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. "An annual recognition of outstanding high school musical theatre in the Lehigh Valley area". Local coverage/importance only (The Express-Times). It's a shame to see a decent amount of work wasted, but I have to agree with the nom - this award does not seem to pass WP:GNG. This kind of content should go to a regional or theater wikia or such (maybe it could be copied to [10]?). See also Wikipedia:Notability (awards) for context. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the creator of this article. The Freddy Awards were the subject of a feature-length documentary film that was broadcast by the Oprah Winfrey Network. That alone means it satisfies WP:N and WP:GNG. The article as it stands right now is heavy on regional sources because they are the best sources of information. Even putting that aside, those regional sources ARE reliable sources (The Express-Times, The Morning Call, WFMZ, etc.), so the article passes WP:V and WP:RS with them alone. However, there ARE other non-regional reliable sources out there that discuss the Freddy Awards, such as the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the Tennessean, etc. The article as it stands now could be expanded upon and improved with more outside sources (including the feature-length documentary about it), but there is no deadline for such improvements, so it shouldn't be deleted for that reason. And even putting that aside, the article meets notability standards as it is. — Hunter Kahn 18:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- an unremarkable local award. The article has the appearance of primarily serving to house annual recipients of the award, which are also non notable. Such content belongs on the award's web page, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mt. Hood Independent Film Festival

Mt. Hood Independent Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mt. Hood Independent Film Festival" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Film festival that appears to have existed for only three or four years (it no longer appears on the website of its sponsoring organization). Sources in the article are limited to the sponsoring organization and local press coverage. Internet searching provided nothing more than additional local coverage and passing mentions. The festival is non-notable and does not satisfy either the general notability guidelines or WP:NORG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete All sources appear to be self-references or purely WP:LOCAL. No sign of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Nice essay. Of course, under it we can delete many topics without national headlines. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
(Find sources: "Hood River Film Festival" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "Oregon Film Festival" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan Union Norway

Pakistan Union Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pakistan Union Norway" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:GNG. Wholly unsourced article, apparently translated from no:Pakistansk Forening Norge, which is also unsourced. The organisation does exist -- it has a Facebook page -- but I haven't found any independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage therein. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom; no sources on the page and no reason to believe this group is notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. It lacks sources to establish notability under WP:GNG and I cannot find any WP:RS for it. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park

List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A list for a particular cricket grounds is over-specialization. I see we have others. I don't thing they make any sense either. A list by team, that would make much more sense DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your point is wrong. Citing the main international stats for a particular cricket ground is very precious. If you think it is no point, so according to your view, citing centuries for cricketers is also not worth. So delete all the centuries cited in each players' article. Providing centuries of each venue is worth just like a player scores a century to his career. Also, it is about international matches and international centuries. I don't think any bad about the articles. So keep them and edit in future. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Cricket statistics for particular grounds ("fastest century at X", "lowest score by Y at Z") are kept in the same way as they are for teams, due I presume to historical quirks in the different grounds, which would argue for notability to me. Whether it's an entirely encyclopedic subject I can't be sure, so I'm happy to be convinced in either direction over the course of the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It could be merged to Warner Park Sporting Complex; that's not true of some lists of centuries for other more frequently used grounds, for what it's worth. Afraid I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know 'other stuff exists' isn't usually an argument against deletion. However in this case it might be. There are umpteen lists of this nature, covering every international cricket ground I can think of (and lots I didn't think of). Many of these lists are long-standing. This suggests to me that there's a consensus that lists of this kind are appropriate for the encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I have not been able to find a similar AfD discussion related to international cricket centuries at a particular ground. Find one if you can. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not apply in this case. There are other articles too such as List of international cricket centuries at Lord's. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge I can see a lot of space on main article and we can keep this article on the main until it becomes large enough to separate. Greenbörg (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. While there is no precedent for these "List of centuries at x" articles, I propose delete based on WP:NOTMIRROR as this content can be uplifted from the ESPNCricinfo website. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Tend towards delete on the grounds of WP:NOTMIRROR, because I don't believe that a list of every century scored in international cricket is notable in an encyclopaedia, and because, in general, the content could be more usefully summarised at the article about the ground. Summarised rather than copied. Unlike the article creator I don't believe, either, that it is always appropriate to add tables of centuries etc... to articles about players - I would much rather see sensible prose summaries in the majority of cases. I could be convinced otherwise if someone can show definitive notability of a list of all scores of greater than 100 (and, by extension, five wicket hauls etc...). Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge into Warner Park Sporting Complex. Definitely NOT delete because the info is useful but probably in the wrong place. Jack | talk page 07:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug

This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete sources are almost exclusively self-cites: HuffPost blog by artist, record label, Bandcamp, etc. Only one that might not be is 404. No other evidence of coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Husch Blackwell

Husch Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Husch Blackwell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Sources in the article are all either primary, press releases, or trivial coverage. Sources on-line are a bit better, but I could find nothing more than passing references or more PR things. Hobit (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Forever Free (tribute album)

Forever Free (tribute album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Forever Free (tribute album)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A tribute album that has some notable punk bands on it (notability is not inherited) but lacks significant secondary coverage. I could only find this one review [11], nothing else though. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Joey B

Joey B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Joey B" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:ARTIST user is creating pages for his album songs. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 08:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The nomination of Joey B’s Tonga set tongues wagging since his song is perceived as being sexually explicit and the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards (VGMA) did not encourage songs with risque music. But Joey B has always insisted Tonga is not profane and he currently besides himself with joy that the song has earned him New Artiste of the Year at the VGMA hosted at the Accra International Conference Centre last Saturday. link.
K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

L-Boyz Record

L-Boyz Record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "L-Boyz Record" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • weak delete - I found no sources to indicate that this meets GNG, or is notable by record label standards (notable artists, impact on genre or culture), but I note that sources are likely to be in Arabic, which would be difficult for me to find. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Megha Mathew

Megha Mathew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Megha Mathew" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Has supposedly acted in 2 movies - Aanandam in which she is not even billed and Oru Mexican Aparatha in which she had a very minor role. All the references are about the movies, and her acting career section is therefore just information about the movies - the directors, actors, producers etc. Then there is also a section of her personal life which is unreferenced. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 08:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Randall Hanke

Randall Hanke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Randall Hanke" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable basketballer. Going on the list of clubs provided in the German equivalent of the article, I can't see him meeting the specific NSPORTS guidelines for his sport. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

disagree, he has been mentioned as a potential Team GB member with a interesting background, has a Telegraph article on him Hyungjoo98 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Rohan Rangarajan

Rohan Rangarajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rohan Rangarajan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails GNG, NCRIC South Nashua (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, in those terms he would certainly meet NCRIC. It should be noted that I disagree with the way that NCRIC is written and would always look for the GNG in any deletion case surrounding a cricketer. I have no further comment in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss JTtheOG's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a question that probably merits an answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

3N170

3N170 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "3N170" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable product. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: The prod was denied for - "Widely used part, frequently used as subject in research papers, and at least four manufacturers all point towards notability." Being widely used and having four manufacturers is irrelevant to the notability guideline. I saw some research papers while searching, but those were trivial mentions and no papers were solely or mostly solely devoted to this product. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The article reads more like an ad than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Kishore Buxani

AfDs for this article:
Kishore Buxani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kishore Buxani" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

An unremarkable businessman; significant RS coverage not found. Article previously deleted via PROD; a related article Buxani was deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxani. Created by Special:Contributions/Sepialine with no other contributions outside this topic. Suggest salting due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt: Previously deleted as a result of the February AfD and now recreated by a new WP:SPA. Repeating my view from the previous AfD: "There is a FergusTan.net/Business Times piece on the subject's "passion for real estate" but neither that nor anything else seems sufficient to indicate the subject as more than a man going about his business or makes a convincing case for encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:BASIC or WP:GNG." I see nothing to negate that view. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 09:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan Women Muslim League

Pakistan Women Muslim League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pakistan Women Muslim League" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A political party estabilished 4 years ago. No sources for it (its members) winning any elections, participating in elections, having notable members, nothing except a source that it was established (rotted, archive: [12] - reads like a short press release). I am all for countering systemic bias etc., but political parties are not notable just by existing, and this one's total lack of coverage in the last 4 years suggests it is not yet (ever?) encyclopedic. Through a search through Pakistani sources could help? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, all I can find are article related to the party's existence or things like social media pages connected to it. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously Proded so not eligible for a "soft delete." Here's hoping for some kind of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

David Budworth

David Budworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "David Budworth" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Largely unsourced (the sources generally aren't about David Budworth) and apparently written by a family genealogist of the Budworths. Though I'm sure this is of great interest to David Budworth's relatives, it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG (and WP:V). Sionk (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 09:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Witold Chrabąszcz

Witold Chrabąszcz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Witold Chrabąszcz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

It is dubious he is notable and the article meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO. There is no in-depth treatment of his life, or anything but few mentions in passing. An interview in (reliable) Polish magazine [13] is not about him, but about the election. Not seeing anything better than few bio blurbs and such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Based on the current state of the article, has sufficient evidence of notability. Authoritative Wprost interview with him features 15+ questions that cover both biographical and campaign topics. (In addition to other Wprost mentions.) Substantiated by FEC records and authoritative publications. Google search for "Witold Chrabaszcz" comes up with numerous authoritative sources. Overall - more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.42.67.15 (talk) 03:14, June 10, 2017‎ (UTC)
    • Your best source is still the interview (with all the problems of WP:INTERVIEW), and again, it is not about the subject but about the US elections. The subject was asked a few questions about himself and answered it. This is hardly enough for anywhere near GNG. Btw, dear anon, are you the article's creator? Where you paid to create it? Please note that our policies (WP:PAID) require disclosure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
      • No need for baseless accusations here - this AfD will be decided on merit. I'm Polish, interested in the subject of big data in politics, and consider this entry both notable and valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E104:4800:7C4B:207D:BB45:DAE (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 09:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- interviews are not useful sources for notability; there's nothing better. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Parker Self

Parker Self (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Parker Self" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable trial court judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep non federal judge, but the references seem fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:NPOL-failing local trial judge (for non-U.S. folks, the fact that his jurisdiction covers more than one county/parish doesn't make him "statewide"; that's just how some states' trial-level judicial districts/circuits happen to be set up, and that particular chunk of Louisiana isn't large or particularly significant). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Alektra Blue

Alektra Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alektra Blue" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Hasn't improved since last discussion. Still fails gng and consensus us has hardened against marginal/incredibly thin awards as substitutes for actual rs. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as thousands of sources online[14] thus the subject meets GNG, It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources today however on the first 2 pages there's mentions and by the looks of it indepth coverage here & there, Dunno about PORNBIO however certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr. J Noxx

Mr. J Noxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mr. J Noxx" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Article now claims U.S. charting but checking what U.S. is linked to we can see it is reverbnation, a badchart. A bunch of links have been dumped into the page but none good, shops, reverbnation, youtube, event listings, datpiff. Nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was thinking of closing this as a soft delete but it's been Proded before so that's not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Asmaar Peerzada

Asmaar Peerzada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Asmaar Peerzada" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited ref are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Anne Seisen Saunders

Anne Seisen Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anne Seisen Saunders" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable priest. She founded a small retreat. She was the head of an organisation. She gets minor mentions in Buddhist publications. But none of that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.

1 Directory listing, Primary source
2 Tricycle: The Buddhist Review is written by the subject
3 Directory listing
4 Directory listing
5 Directory listing
6 Just a quote from her
7 Not in source, Source published 2004, She was certified in 2009.
8 Passing mention.
9 Passing mention
10 Link to below
11 Routine announcement of organisation, looks like press release
12 Appears to be small/self publishing, not a reliable source. No depth of coverage.
13 Exert of above, No depth of coverage.

There is still not enough coverage about her in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

David Wheeler (actor)

David Wheeler (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "David Wheeler (actor)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Lacks significant roles in notable productions, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, provided the article could be revised to meet Wikipedia standards and be sourced with neutral third party sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Last High

The Last High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Last High" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Bombarded with artist talking about the song, primary sources and passing mentions. Nothing independent of any depth about the song. Part of a mass of over exaggerated cruft surrounding this artist created by a SPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage for this song in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG.  gongshow  talk  02:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Turn Me Out (Logan Lynn song)

Turn Me Out (Logan Lynn song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Turn Me Out (Logan Lynn song)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Bombarded with artist talking about the song, primary sources and passing mentions. Nothing independent of any depth about the song. Part of a mass of over exaggerated cruft surrounding this artist created by a SPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage for this song in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG.  gongshow  talk  02:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

DHPOS

DHPOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "DHPOS" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Promotional tone has not been eliminated. Compared with the previous AfD, the software might still be notable enough for this page but from the looks of it would be very difficult to rewrite it to remove the promotional tone that has permeated this article all around. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I checked the previous AfDs and all the keep arguments fail based on today's standards. The subject fails WP:GNG and I can find no RSes to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This spam has stayed here for a decade. Let's not make it a second one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 11:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep My cursory reading up on this software leads me to think this article is notable. The article itself might be a bit advertising like and lacks sufficient references, but that can be fixed or the appropriate templates added. The software, on the other hand, does appear to be genuine and widely used. It's actually articles like this that make Wikipedia useful in the encyclopedic sense. I've nominated a lot of pages recently for deletion due to lack of notability, but I think this page should stay.13:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real software, should be re-written to not be promotional tone, but keep. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas

Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Scripps College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE James (talk/contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Notable that two colleges combine into one for athletics, but as noted above I think the info can be merged into the respective colleges' pages. Schools in the same division do not have separate pages for their athletic teams and it doesn't seem appropriate to start making them now. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete spatms (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 11:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on the AFD nomination itself, which points out that four separate college articles will otherwise need to cover the fact that the four colleges share a joint sports program. The article itself is not bloated, it doesn't go into a lot, but it provides a place for coverage of the joint sports teams and avoids need for repetition elsewhere. If the same material is repeated at four separate articles, then it will tend to gain inconsistencies and be hard to maintain. There is no benefit and some definite costs to the change suggested in this AFD. --doncram 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I am curious if you actually read any of the linked articles. Three colleges share a sports program. The fourth link is to the collegiate consortium, which would naturally contain the majority of the information on the athletic program. The three individual college pages would only need a short summary with a link to the consortium page, which could go into the appropriate detail. Regardless, your comment does not address the notability issue. James (talk/contribs) 15:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainians (social network)

Ukrainians (social network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ukrainians (social network)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This social network is a few days old. Seems a little soon for a page Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - full disclosure, I originally PROD'ed the article, and that was removed by an IP along with a few minor edits. I take this as a classic example of a "next big thing". It's entirely possible that this will become a large and notable social network, but this early in the piece there just isn't the coverage or notability to warrant an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't delete - Social network is 3 weeks old but I don't think it should warrant a deletion. It received widespread media attention since it launched and a significant portion of the ukrainian population has heard about it or is talking about it, and thus would want to read more about it. --- 5:08, June 8 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.147.18 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. With all your hands against removal. This is the most anticipated project in Ukraine, dozens of media without a stop write about this social network and 100 thousand registered users in 3 days. Such success was not even in Facebook in the first days of its existence. Of course, such excitement is associated with timeliness, but this does not cancel the dizzying success. ---Great Cockroach 007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguisttalk|contribs 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: No significant coverage. The article can be recreated if this social network ends up becoming notable. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    • What? No visibility? All Ukrainian media are very loud about this social network, Russian media are actively discussing this phenomenon. Several media in Canada and the United States have already managed to devote time to the social network. Is it worth talking about 100 thousand subscribers for 3 days? Is this not a flash mob? By the way, 180 000 users have already registered. Therefore, it's silly to talk about removing such a large-scale project, albeit temporary. ---Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for some clarity here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. None of the supporters have added credible references to the article suggesting otherwise, the only coverage is of its launch. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sweetwater Zen Center

Sweetwater Zen Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sweetwater Zen Center" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable organisation. Small retreat. Gets passing mentions in Buddhist publications. But nothing that adds up to notability. Another puff piece from another SPA. A look at the bombardment of sources at time of nomination.

1 Directory listing
2 Directory listing, Primary source
3 Primary
4 Passing mention
5 Primary
6 Directory listing
7 2 again
8 Dead, text and domain suggests primary

There is still not enough coverage about this organisation in independent reliable sources. A search of mainstream sources found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is way too promotional in tone.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Files

Files for discussion

June 22

File:Sneasel Pokemon.png

File:Sneasel Pokemon.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SneaselxLv94 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free pokemon image being used in list article. Lacks the context with respect to the list to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Mata United.jpg

File:Mata United.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BeingJosh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused low resolution crop with improper attribution. Deriviative of the Commons file File:Manchester United v Zorya Luhansk, September 2016 (08).JPG Whpq (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Carrick 2017.jpg

File:Carrick 2017.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BeingJosh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused low resolution crop with improper attribution. Derivative of Commons file File:Manchester United v Feyenoord, November 2016 (07).JPG Whpq (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Martial MU.jpg

File:Martial MU.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BeingJosh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused low resolution crop with improper attribution. Derivative of Commons file File:Manchester United v Zorya Luhansk, September 2016 (26).JPG Whpq (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Manesha chatarji in orrisa post.jpg

File:Manesha chatarji in orrisa post.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Manesha Chattarjee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Credits external source, doubtful own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Theodore Newman Kaufman circa 1940.png

File:Theodore Newman Kaufman circa 1940.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Referral to FFD as apparently considered in PD on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:EStategy.png

File:EStategy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Денис П. (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Refferal on the ground that this is claimed as self, but looks like a third party organisational logo, some of which are exempt in Ukraine. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:MoraviaIT.jpg

File:MoraviaIT.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Attilios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is already a copyright free file. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 19:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories

June 22

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:18th-century executions by Great Britain

Nominator's Rationale per other "by state" categories. They were executed by a state, not by an island. As the state only existed for a single year outside the 18th century, a "by century" split seems like overkill. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Works about Hergé

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, just a single article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Amenmesse

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Albums Recorded at The Total Experience Recording Studio

Nominator's rationale: Maybe factual but probably not defining for these albums to have been recorded at this studio. It just happens to be the studio in which they were recorded. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)}}

Category:Fictional characters who committed suicide

Nominator's rationale: To match parent category Category:Suicides and to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction (by not using the past tense for fictional events). —anemoneprojectors— 16:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who have self harmed

Nominator's rationale: Firstly, self-harm is hyphenated. There is no parent category for real-life self-harmers, but people who self-harm are referred to as "self-harmers" in the self-harm article. Additionally, the use of past tense in the category title goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. —anemoneprojectors— 16:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, the characters aren't defined by this particular behavior. Perhaps listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 00:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Belgian book publishers (people)

Nominator's rationale: Only populated with people from before 1830, most of them from a few centuries earlier. Belgium didn't exist then, it would be better to list them as Flemish (in most cases) instead. Most are already in Category:Flemish printers: printers and book publishers were, certainly in those ages, the same, so no need to have a category "Flemish book publishers" either. As it stands, the category is completely anachronistic Fram (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No objection to renaming this to something else that people may be comfortable with. But every last person here was already sitting directly in Category:Book publishers (people) as it is, so the idea that categorizing them that way would be inappropriate is clearly not in line with what we were actually doing — and any group of 15 people of common nationality, within a category which has an "Occupation by nationality" subcategory tree, must unconditionally be permitted to be filtered from the parent into a nationality subcat instead. So I'd be fine with renaming this to something else — but I'm not on board with the idea that no category for this grouping is warranted at all, because tell that to the editors who put these people in "Book publishers (people)" in the first place before coming for me over it. If they belong in the "book publishers" tree at all, then some nationality subcategory must be allowed to exist — and if they never belonged there in the first place, then the fault lies with whoever put them there in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename somehow -- The territory occupied by Belgium has been a largely intact polity since the 15th century, though with some accretions and losses, but has gone by different names: Flanders and other provinces inherited by Charles V from Burgundy; Spanish Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands. Most of the people seem to be Flemings rather than Walloons, but I suspect that some of the area is technically not part of Flanders, so that I cannot provide a good target. However the present name is grossly anachronistic for a category largely devoted to people of the 16th and 17th centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Book publishers (people) from the Southern Netherlands. Southern Netherlands encompasses (southern) Spanish Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands and the Prince-Bishopric of Liege, in other words all of current Belgium in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 00:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Redirects

June 22

Worst team ever

You blew it

28-3

Pointless PRehse (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Fat Granny Shaggar

Musics

Retarget to Music after move - musics is the plural form of music according to Wiktionary. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Retarget to Music , musics is a noun as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Templates

June 22

Template:Differential equations topics

Unused and overly sprawling navbox Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Captioned

Only 34 transclusions after 11 years. Redundant to {{Plain image with caption}}, which is more modern and matches the font of regular image captions. (Note that I am proposing to replace the template, not to remove its uses from pages.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
13:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Project Infobox

Unneeded infobox, copied from another wiki as part of an advocacy campaign —Guanaco 11:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged for G11. Failing that, delete Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:List of great and middle powers

Unused, no clear reason for having "great" and "middle" grouped together Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:List of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy

Unused, untouched since 2010, blatant misuse of template space as this is not at all a template Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:List of Orange Is the New Black seasons

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:List of Rugby Lions seasons

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Lighthouses of Brazil

Unused, entirely redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Life in Sweden

Unused, even tells you to use {{Sweden topics}} instead Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Libraries in the Western Cape

Unused, massive but all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep: for the following reasons: a) it was created to facilitate the Western Cape Libraries edit-a-thon that Wikimedia ZA would like to pick up on again after Wikimania 2018. As such it would be useful to keep the template around to help with the project in the future. b) it is not all red links (although it does still need a great deal of work to fill in the large number of red links). If people do wish to delete it then I will understand as there is a chance that the redlinks might remain red for the foreseeable future, but it would be unfortunate and a setback should the Libraries edit-a-thon pick up again. --Discott (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • move to project space. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Lethbridge Hurricanes roster

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Leicester Riders roster

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ladnav

Unused warning from 2008 Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kurdish population

Unused, not proper navigation Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kherson legal system

Contains no links Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jr. NTR sidebar

Unused sidebar, not enough links Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Journal of General Pschology

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jordan NFT results

Unused, has only one link Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:John F. Kennedy/sandbox2

Unused variant of {{John F. Kennedy}} Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jargon lede

Unused variant of {{Technical}} Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Serves a purpose, lack of current use is not lack of possible use, or even lack of prior use. Carl Fredrik talk 07:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jared Leto

Unused, WP:PERFNAV Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Japanese cosmetics

Unused, redundant to {{cosmetics}} Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:JSJ navfooter

Very old and unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:JNTUH University Colleges

Unused, only one link Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ispinfo

Unused message box, untouched since 2006 Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Islam in Algeria

Unused, not enough links Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Irish courts pre-1922

Unused, arbitrary cutoff Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. The cut-off period of 1922 isn't arbitrary. That's the date of Irish independence, so the courts listed on the template are those used while Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and before 1801, a subsidiary kingdom to Great Britain. There was a whole other set of courts established under the 1922 Free State Constitution, and then under the 1937 Constitution if Ireland. However, I accept that it's unused. I created it last year, and had obviously intended to add it to the relevant pages. Could you put a stay on this for a period of two weeks to allow me to get back to this? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Irelandinformationguide

Unused, linked site no longer exists Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Iraq Provincial Councils

Unused, fails WP:EXISTING Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Iran copyright

Unused, doesn't seem to be valid anymore. Was unused and orphaned in 2011, and nothing seems to have changed since. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Iowahighwaysref

Creates a link to a site that does not seem to be reliable. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Invite WikiProject Marching Band

Unused invite for project that died 3 years ago Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cycling rankings

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox The Aunty Jack Show episode

Redundant to {{infobox episode}} Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Philippines cabinet

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Indonesian Air Force Squadrons

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Images with no fair use rationale subcat starter

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:IPA2

Unused variant of {{IPA}} Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:INCOTWvoter

Unused, Indian Collab of the Weeks is defunct. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane season multi

Unused, no foreseeable use Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hospitals in Buriram Province

Entirely redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Holidays of Mauritius

Unused, reference does not look reliable Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep: Should be kept as it is a topic deserving of a Template but it does need to be a) fixed, b) have some real content, and c) a reliable reference which should be available on the Government of Mauritius' website some where.
I fixed it some what, bit reluctant to continue to add it to its respective holiday pages whilst this deletion tag is still on it.--Discott (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:HistoryOfSindh2

Doesn't appear to be a thing anymore Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hajime no Ippo manga introduction

Hardcoded text with no clear purpose. Bizarrely also has [citation needed] tags in it. Why would you deliberately hardcode a [citation needed]? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Guiberson aeroengines

Fails WP:NENAN, unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Governments of Italy

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Government of Uttarakhand

Only one link, unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Government and Binding Theory

Unused, parent article at deletion, articles in box have nothing to do with parent article Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • As the author I have no problem with deletion. Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Glock models

Unused, seems to be just OR and gun-cruft. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Geographic areas of São Paulo

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Miscellany

Deletion review

22 June 2017

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=768967260"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:XfD_today
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:XfD today"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA