Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 20

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

The result was delete. @Bethhdx: while your efforts are indeed appreciated, the consensus here is that this list does not meet our requirements, as laid out in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. Please don't feel bad, lots of articles get deleted, and it can take a while to get the hang of what we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Waterloo Road

List of births, marriages and deaths in Waterloo Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Waterloo Road births deaths and marriages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)  · Stats)

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

See list notability. As noted at Waterloo Road births deaths and marriages, this list has no notability explanation. The sources given are mostly simply references to Wikipedia, which is circular (and a few to another user-generated wiki). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts as author: This is my page and I am slowly adding proper references from the official BBC page of Waterloo Road. I am also summarizing my edits. Apologies as I am new to Wikipedia, but this page will be properly finished and accurate. There are pages of this type for other dramas and soaps and Waterloo Road is an extremely long and popular series and so I believe this will be beneficial and accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethhdx (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete whilst I appreciate the creator's efforts, this is fundamentally not notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 03:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Kona

List of songs recorded by Kona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the albums have WP pages, only one of the songs on which she performed as one of several singers has its own page Char Chokka Hoi Hoi. I do not think that this page is useful and not really worth a redirect either. Domdeparis (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just make redirect to Char Chokka Hoi Hoi Magne budho (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fact that none of the albums have WP pages means the list is not useful for navigation, but that is not the only function of a list. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works says, "complete lists of works" are encouraged for musical artists, and "individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles". The sourcing, however, is abysmal. The sources covers only two albums and an advertising jingle, and a random commercial download site and a YouTube upload can hardly be called reliable scholarship. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Recently the author has created quite a few similar lists in Category:Lists of songs recorded by Bangladeshi artists, and has extensively edited the only one that existed before, List of songs recorded by Nazmun Munira Nancy. One, Draft:List of songs recorded by S I Tutul was moved to draft space by MrX in part because of poor sourcing. Incubation in draft space is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Sourcing could be improved, judging from Dilshad Nahar Kona. Material that cannot be sourced could be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or delete. It is useless for navigation, as Worldbruce points out, but if it was properly sourced, it would be a respectable resource. At this stage, we don't know if 95% of it is unsourced or is pure fiction. Because this isn't a discography its a collection of songs someone was a part of, so there isn't a clear path to meeting the criteria for inclusion, but as a draft, it can either be sourced or eventually die. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Costas Pilea

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has "played in UEFA". I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean, but none of his matches to date satisfy WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per the comment below. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Keep - I think this should be kept because it seems to satisfy WP:NFOOTY, as the player has played in a UEFA match, which seems to fulfill the criterion that they play in a "competitive senior international match". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the word "senior" in the text you've just quoted. Pilea has only ever played for Cyprus at the youth level, which WP:NFOOTY explicitly excludes: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as subsequent week offered no other input, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry voor alles

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

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

This doesn't seem like it's worth a wikipediapage. It's just a random, not very notable candid camera show. Polerbair (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nomination for the user. ansh666 20:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems like we're at a stage in Wikipedia where every single TV show is notable, and for this one there actually is some decent sourcing available--here, for instance, a very lengthy article in one of the best Dutch papers, which also claims that it was the most successful show of the season (and that it's like a Truman Show). The show won awards at two international festivals, and is in its second season. So yeah, keep. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Drmies; also aired on a national network. Nate • (chatter) 04:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as other no input given, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A. Jones

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

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

The article is a probable WP:COISELF and lacks any significant contribution to be considered as notable. The primary source for Marlow awards doesn't say if it is the same person or for what it was specifically. Every postdocs would have a something specific to their fields, but a thesis alone wouldn't make a biography notable. The other one is some sort of challenge to some center to reveal their proprietary research data. Overall, this looks like a WP:NOTWEBHOST profile. 162.244.81.174 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Marlow Medal is an important medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and I think there is no doubt that he won it in 2000. Someone at Oxford would not get away with putting that on his CV if it was not correct and J A Jones is listed on the RSC web pages. Unfortunately there appears to be little information about the winners on the web before about 2010. It has nothing to do with postdocs. It is for physical chemists under the age of 35 and is considered one of the most important awards of the Physical Chemistry Division of the RSC, which was originally the Faraday Society. I am not making a judgement whether this article should be deleted; only that you have to have better arguments if you want it be deleted. Why not put it to AfD and try rather than discussing it here? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you tried but messed it up. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the case for deletion of this article. It is vain and self-promoting. (213.205.198.243 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

This person is a run-of-the-mill fixed-paradigm researcher like thousands of others and has done nothing notable. There is no demonstration of significant originality to merit an encyclopedia article about him. I agree with the last contributor that this is a vanity article. Delete. (Cumonaveago007 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: the nomination and comments from Bduke above were copied from Talk:Jonathan A. Jones#Nomination for deletion by Conquistador2178 – Joe (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not listed correctly. I have to go to work, but will look into it later. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 15 papers on GS with over 100 cites each gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 (although the work is in a very highly cited field). Climate data incident adds to notability. 13 edit IP Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled. – Joe (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 as already noted by Xxanthippe above. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons given above and my 2016 comments on the Marlow Medal. This nomination may well be in bad faith, but I think we should let it run it's course. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now been repeatedly contacted off-wiki by David Carrey of wikiofficer.com offering his dubious services in protecting my page, and in particular claiming that he can "talk to the mods, who are trying to put your page down". Is this sort of paid editing spam a common reponse to AFDs these days? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bynder

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

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

Per WP:NCORP. The Deloitte award may be notable, but the source is primary and Deloitte isn't an independent news organization - I wouldn't be surprised if they had some sort of skin the game when it comes to the success of Bynder (please, prove me otherwise). Outside of the aware I don't really see anything of significant notability here. Comatmebro (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see anything that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete minor coverage and no articles link to this. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete provided sources are just everyday PR coverage which don't help to show notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 20:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Ansary

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

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

The speedy was contested and replaced by a prod which is invalid, since that would make it controversial and contested . Anyhow...completely unremarkable and non-notable individual with absolutely no coverage in RS (or non-rs.) Fails every criteria including the CCS personal essay. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The text is also identical to that found at http://www.peacetv.tv/en-gb/speakers/Riaz-Ansary. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discospinster Thanks, I didn't realize it was still a CV. I'll withdraw this and nominate as g12. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as suggested, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael - St. Clement School

St. Michael - St. Clement School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Twice deleted via CSD for copyright and promotion, all that doesn't matter if the school is not independently notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources. While we often give high schools a free pass (and I agree with that) this is a small, parochial elementary school, K-8. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Archdiocese of Baltimore and protect page, as creator edit warred when I redirected it before. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. We have long redirected non-diploma granting institutions to other articles (school district for public schools, diocese or community for non-public schools), except in cases where notability can be shown (it seldom can). I see no reason to vary from that practice for this school. John from Idegon (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Lindhe

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

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

Not a notable person Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Would the nominator care to say if they have considered this issue and if not why not? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Indeed, seems to be a very notable figure in the field of periodontology. He even has an international conference named after him. – Joe (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And an award named after him as well. Seems to be notable indeed within his field. If this is not the case, the nominator should probably explain why. /Julle (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is getting ridiculous. First Jorgen Slots and now Lindhe. Can we find an admin to kindly ask Alexbrn to quit trying to delete articles about famous dentists who he hasn't heard of? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn. Clearly my search wasn't thorough enough - the person is notable enough. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as inevitably obvious result, merging is of course still available in history, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Xanda the lion

Killing of Xanda the lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability Jax 0677 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - The story is being covered in every major newspaper around the world from the BBC, Washington Post, Guardian etc.. because of Xanada's connection to the Killing of Cecil the lion. If Xanda was not the offspring of Cecil, there would be no story. It's purely inheritance. Xanda is not independently notable. Xanda was killed legally with no controversy (that we know if so far). Thus merge into the Cecil article (already there). -- GreenC 23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Xanda's story is linked to that of his father Cecil, not only in the sources that I saw, but in the article about Cecil. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cecil's article, history intact, without prejudice to recreation. There's nothing to merge. The story was covered by major news outlets but whatever story there is has not been developed or made it into the article. If it ever becomes too large for Cecil's article, which it probably won't, then split it out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. References added to the article do not appear to be reliable sources, however at least one is a photograph of a table. A Train^talk 08:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Troian

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

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

No sources for eight years. Enough already. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim of notability, and a Google search doesn't suggest one either. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, and despite his works being presented as some galleries, does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE, per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Concerns with notability and lack of reliable sources. -FASTILY 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established. The delete opinions were all before the references were added. Ed Terano (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of the six references in the article, four are to his own website, and one doesn't mention him at all. The last one [1] appears to be his personally-written profile on a public website, and not a reference about him. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No matter where these references reside, they are independent and neutral, and their content has not been created with self-promotional purposes to support this article. Ed Terano (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we didn't really need another week to state the obvious, which is that the "new references" are worthless. One is a photograph of a table - come on. The others are scans of catalogues featuring his drawings - again, not exactly relevant to the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" criterion demanded by WP:BASIC, never mind WP:ARTIST. Plus, they're on his own website…. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is enough to verify that the subject's work has been included in group shows for young and emerging artists but nothing which meets the WP:ARTIST or wider WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Steel

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

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

Our fundamental policies WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy apply given the information and sources only exist as promotional listing content, and not we consider sufficient for notability, see sources: 1, 4 and 5 is company website, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are a funding report, and based on the sources then found here, they're still the same so none of it establishes independent reliable coverage, especially when quoted at WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG: [sources except] brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, quotations from an organization's personnel, routine notices or passing mentioon. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability which is what everything found is. Considering the past G11 deletion not even a year before an equally promotional article is restarted is not a good sign that content can actually be improved, worse when there's no substantial coverage. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of steel producers § Other major steel producers, which lists major steel producers. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect only if needed because it's on our policy to not salvage, save or otherwise keep contents considered still a policy violation and merging it would equally violate it because, since the current information and sources are listing-esque, that would make the other article a host or listing itself, therefore not actually resolving anything. Alternatives to deletion is, as mentioned there, not an immediate factor and can still be outweighed by WP:Deletion policy itself. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There 's no point in merging/redirecting to a list. This is not one of the very few areas where we try for a comprehensive list regardless of notability . If the list article contains other non notable firms they should be removed DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC) also.[reply]
• Delete per policy statements above. Been fighting these COI-pushers around this and Hashima's article for a couple of years now. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I've also been fighting promotionalism at Ahmed Abou Hashima for some time, but I reckon that Egyptian Steel might meet WP:GNG, with coverage from Reuters, The Time and MSN amongst others - and that's just looking for English-language sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all company announcements which are unacceptable as noted by the highlighted green quote above in the nomination, (Sources: 1st is about opening new locations, 2nd is about their financials and both are a clearly labeled company interview, and 3rd is about a sponsored commercial). FWIW, I had examined some Egyptian publications but found nothing announcements myself, so that's a likely sign there's nothing actually different. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as given, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castello (film)

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

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

Fails NFILM. Can't find much of substance online, just a few trailers, YouTube rips of the movie and fan blogs. I'm struggling to find any mention of the movie in the only source provided, either. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEXIST and thus WP:NF. Having won multiple film awards notable to Malaysia, we might try a bit harder to find Malaysian sources. For instance , I found an in-depth Malaysian 2005 article discussing pre-production and planing(translated). There certainly must be more on an award winning film that screened widely across Malaysia. New Straits Times tells us it was Liyana Jasmay's debut film and won her a 2006 award nomination, as does The Star. And The Sun Daily tells us how the film was Rosyam Nor's debut as film producer and this film was a "hit, collecting RM2.8 million at the box office" as does The Star. So, depending on just how one searches, there are sources available.for citing and improving.[2] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an award winning film with reliable sources coverage as identified by Michael Q Schmidt Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

First of all, while I was pinged to this discussion before and answered the ping, my comment was merely repeating what policy says anyway without any opinion on the subject, so I don't consider myself barred from closing this discussion.

Then: The question of how to handle promotional articles is one that has sparked a lot of discussion with policy both allowing editing and deletion as potential "fixes" depending on the severity of the promotional text. In this case however, a closer look at those who mention WP:PROMO violations reveals that the deciding factor in their !votes was not the promotional language but the lack of notability because of sources that are either about the person the foundation was dedicated to, only mention it in passing or are non-independent (and promotional) in nature. Even if one were to discount the PROMO-arguments, the only keep !voter did not manage to convince the rest of the participants that the sources he mentioned were sufficient to establish notability.

As for Tony's BLP1E analogy, WP:BLP can still apply to "recently" deceased people, at least one year after their death (WP:BDP), although what he probably meant was to apply BIO1E in analogy to the subject at hand. That could also have been a reasonable argument to delete the article if the lack of notability hadn't been enough reason to do so anyway because the spirit of said guideline is after all to avoid creating articles about subjects when the whole coverage is related to a single event.

If someone wants to mention this subject in an "Aftermath" section of July 2016 Dhaka attack and redirect this article to that section, there is no consensus here against that.

Regards SoWhy 18:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abinta Kabir Foundation

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

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

Tragic loss but WP:NOTMEMORIAL ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails "long established" per Wikipedia:NONPROFIT having been inaugurated in March 2017. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that Abinta Kabir Foundation is currently an established NGO that is actively working on a dedicated cause. While it is true that the basis of the foundation is in memory of the late Abinta Kabir, it would be irresponsible to call the Abinta Kabir Foundation a memorial. The Foundation is working on pressing issues, such as acid victims and education, and establishing a very strong role throughout the city.

Furthermore, if you would kindly look into the article, you would see that no personal statements have been made and there each quote was cited by reputed news sources.

Lastly, I would again like to draw your attention to the fact that the article is indeed on Abinta Kabir Foundation and not on the deceased Abinta Kabir herself. If you do have other concerns please do let me know. I do not agree that this could be tagged as a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A blatantly promotional article from start to finish, clearly intended to impress us with what a worthwhile organisation the foundation is, enough so that in my opinion it could have been speedily deleted as promotional. Many of the references are certainly not independent sources, some of them do not give substantial coverage (e.g. one of them has all of two sentences about the foundation), some of them are clearly promotional in character, some of them are merely reports of transactions. Notability is therefore not demonstrated, but even if someone can provide evidence that there is notability so that we could have an article on the subject, this article is not suitable in view of its promotional nature. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JamesBWatson. Reads like a WP:PROMO violation. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON, as the foundation's only about 4 months old per the article. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abinta Kabir Foundation does meet the notability standards for a non profit organisation. It has had influence nationally and has received international acceptance namely from the US Ambassador to Dhaka. I have also added new references, independent from the organisation, to show that the foundation has had significant coverage. I have removed the money transaction, as I do concede that may have sounded promotional. I have also altered the wording in the Inception and vision segment to better adhere to facts. Please do look into the changes and let me know if there are still any persisting issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 09:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is understood that, the foundation can surpass being a memorial and would become notable through its actions. Hell I am sided and biased towards seeing it becoming a very successful and notable organization. However, at present, the foundation is a memorial, in all intent and purpose (which is more than obvious from their website). And, the foundation haven't yet done anything much to warrant an Wikipedia entry. Per this, and per all mentioned above, I posit the article should be deleted. On another note, July 2016 Dhaka attack has quite some aftermath and this subject can be mentioned in that article (may be one sentence). @Nidhlet:, this AfD is not about the quality of the article, but current notability of the subject. --nafSadh did say 14:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have come in later in this conversation. So, it seems the promotional wording has been cleaned up and coverage in independent (reputable) news sources have been provided. I read one article where more than one ambassador from other countries attended an event commemorating this girl and the launch of this NGO. Of course that isn't the only reason for "keep". I think this article satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn not sure if you noticed, but the organization is not even 6 mos. old so it fails notability on those grounds. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I have read and reread the notability criteria, and the focal points are the scope of the foundation and the coverage. Both have been established in the article. Longevity is only part of the additional considerations and furthermore, longevity is a subpart to factors that have attracted widespread attention. Even in that clause, it satisfies size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, as it has been integrated with a gallery established in 2012 and even facilitated University of Dhaka and Acid Survivors Foundation. More importantly, in the same clause, it is clearly stated that This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. I would be grateful if you could consider the points I have raised.

User:Atsme. This topic doesn't fail notability, just because it is less than six months old. The standard for notability (per WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND) is receiving notice in publications independent of the organization, which has happened with this organization. Reputable news organizations have covered this topic. This is the main criteria for notability for any topic. Time is not necessarily a factor. Time in existence is only one factor that can be considered as an argument for notability. Also, I am noticing the wording in this article is not promotional. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For what it's worth, in my opinion, articles written like that should qualify for CSD G11, because it would "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". The notability is borderline at best. The coverage is trivial except of the news about the foundation's inauguration, which is a single event. Rentier (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rentier, I would kindly request you to look into the coverage of the Abinta Foundation Schools launched, the inauguration of the Abinta Gallery of Fine Arts with an exhibition, and the Abinta Kabir Cyber Center. Three other major accomplishments, other than the launch itself, have had significant coverage. For a foundation that is 4 months old, that is very significant and therefore, has created a ripple through the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with User:Rentier that a fundamental rewrite is in order to qualify as encyclopedic. I see this as a fact based, neutrally written article. And, in any case, coverage by sources independent of the subject determines "keep" or "deletion", not so much the wording of the article. Promotional, biased, or non-neutral wording can be fixed. But if the sources don't cover the topic then that cannot be fixed. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here are independent sources that cover this topic: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x3 I was going to respond above but the (edit conflict) threw me so I'll respond here. Steve Quinn, I thought about the various articles that were sourced, too, but when I actually read them, they only had a sentence or two about the foundation (because it is so new they have no track record to establish notability) while the rest of the article was "to commemorate Gulshan victim Abinta Kabir". Notability fails again based on WP:INHERITORG. Perhaps the article should be about Abinta Kabir, rather than the Foundation because it is her tragic death that is being covered and memorialized in the sources which again brings up WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There isn't much an organization can do in 6 mos. to warrant notability - please also see "Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity in WP:NONPROFIT. The bar is also pretty high on what qualifies for notability in the philanthropic and/or nonprofit foundation area. DGG taught me with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_L._Furth, that: "Someone extremely wealthy is usually notable, and there is probably a line beyond which they can be presumed to be notable--a net worth of more than $ several billion might be realistic (5 years ago I might have said $1 billion, but things have changed at that end of the financial spectrum." With his statement in mind, I would think the same would apply to a non-profit foundation. Perhaps in a year or so, the Foundation itself will have achieved notability on its own, rather than as the result of inherited notability over the tragic loss of a sweet life. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the articles only have one or two sentences about this organization. The organization is a significant part of the relevant coverage in the relevant articles. It is covered as much as her death is in several sources. The other sources cover the massacre and one source discusses her attendance at an American University. These are background articles that help the reader. There is no indication that WP:INHERITORG applies and there is not indication that WP:MEMORIAL applies to this article. Bringing into the conversation someone extremely wealthy is usually notable seems to be off-topic here. The only reason such a person would usually be notable is because it is a good bet the reliable sources have covered that person (that topic). Just as reliable sources cover this topic. Also, bringing DGG into the coversation seems to be the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, and also seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. And I am not sure pinging DGG, to alert him to this discussion is appropriate. In fact, it is not appropriate. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been proper for me to quote another editor without notifying him, and I take issue with your allegations. There is a similarity because regardless of whether it's a person or a non-profit organization it's still about donating time and money. Perhaps instead of picking on editors you should demonstrate exactly what you think the sources say that warrants the foundation's notability.^{Atsme📞📧} 03:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding pinging DGG, please review or see: WP: Vote stacking and WP:Canvassing. No, this is not about donating money. This is about an organization and its coverage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need vote stack. What's wrong with you? You think DGG is going to partake in that anyway? Seriously? Switch to decaf. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm only one person. That's not canvassing, especially as nobody can really predict how I am going to consider any particular case, whatever I may have said as a general principle, or in a somewhat related situation. In this case, I think there is already some evidece of notability , and I think an article could be written. But this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia -- it's pure advocacy, to the level that had i seen it upon submission,I might have considered G11. This has become a familiar problem here: someone write an advocacy-vased article on a noble cause, and it makes us all fell very uncomfortable at deleting it. But that's the meaning of NPOV: it's easy for us to remove advocacy for something we're indifferent to, but for an encyclopedia to have integrity, we need to remove advocacy irrespective of such considerations. Looking at the article in detail, I see the pervasiveness of emotional language/. "potential" "to make the world a better place" " “I have to say the foundation and everyone who is working for it, ... are very fortunate because Abinta left this amazing road map of what her dreams were and what she wanted to see done," ", the foundation strives to preserve her spirit through their work." the article even summarizes it (using OR, for the phrase in not in the reference): "Respects were paid through emotionally charged speeches". The current article is one of them. Sometimes this is an isolated paragraph and can be fixed, sometimes it compromises the entire article--as here. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to know SoWhy's (who is a prolific AfD closer) opinion on this argument in light of his recent statement that promotionalism is not a deletion rationale if the content can be fixed by editing. Rentier (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(pinged) My recent statements on this were merely repeats of our policies: WP:ATD says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.. WP:WHATISTOBEDONE says if WP:NOT violations are found, Modifying the content of an article (normal editing). should be considered to deal with them. WP:PRESERVE says Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. In cases where most content is promotional in tone or intent, stubifying is an accepted alternative if the subject is notable, since having a stub serves our readers more than not having an article at all (cf. WP:ATD and WP:STUBIFY). A parallel would be the blue pencil doctrine often found in law: If you strike all the promotional parts and a valid stub remains, then editing the article actually fixes the problem. If not, deletion is to be preferred. I have no opinion on this subject at hand though. Regards SoWhy 14:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's all fine and dandy, but the sources themselves are what establishes the promotional aspects not so much how it's written - it's the overall flavor - so until the foundation itself establishes itself to satisfy N and V applying NPOV it fails. We cannot fix all the reasons this particular article fails N at this point in time. Perhaps in a year or so, maybe. There are a lot of foundations out there in the world - so keep in mind WP:NOT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a new organization there's always some judgment involved here--if the press coverage of even the founding of an organization is sufficiently substantial , it can be possible to write an article. What counts as "sufficiently substantial" in any particular case, can only be interpreted here, at an AfD discussion. Usually it's very clear that there isn't sufficient coverage, but sometimes its borderline, and debatable. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete though NOTSPAM is a horrible argument here, in my opinion. I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of invoking it more often, but its clearly fixable in this case if the article was notable. The article is not, however, notable. This is an organization founded in memory of the tragic death of a person that received initial coverage on its founding, but hasn't demonstrated long-term notability. DGG (whom I'm pinging since I'm invoking his analysis) has pointed out that we need to focus at the core of the encyclopedia in deletion discussions, essentially the Five Pillars the first of which being Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the last being Wikipedia has no firm rules. If we look at the principle behind WP:BLP1E, I think we can see it applied here. There is no firm rule on a foundation created as a memorial to a victim's death, but if the victim is not themselves notable and included in the encyclopedia, we can safely say that the memorial foundation that got some press after the tragedy also likely isn't either. Analyzing don't demonstrate long-term notability that we would expect for the victim, nor for the foundation. If there is more coverage in a year or two we can look at creating an article then. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Avignon shooting

2017 Avignon shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per PROD which was removed by an IP without an actual explanation. This received about two days of news coverage and disappeared (WP:NOTNEWS). No WP:LASTING impact can be sufficiently determined and, just to clarify, this was an act of street violence. It is tragic but not notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• LASTING is an indication of significance, but it is not required. Some crimes - hot this one, but some crimes - attract extraordinary coverage for a brief period and when they do we keepthe article because WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable crime; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete motive unclear except that terrorism has been ruled out. But whether motive was personal, criminal-gang related, or something else, coverage seems limited to day of the shooting. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if something like an interesting motive attracts greater media coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - MrX 20:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Sahraian

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

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

Note: This article had a previous AfD at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sahraeean. These are the sources provided from that AfD: [9], [10], [11], and one other that is the same copy as the Daily Star article.

The subject does not meet WP:PROF, and especially not in a verifiable way. This article has needed more citations for 10 years, and none have come along. Most of the information here is WP:OR. The two books written about him [12] and [13] are both Wikipedia copies. None of the provided sources can meet the requirement for significant coverage beyond the statement that he "Is an economist". Ideally delete, if not draftify menaechmi (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. No notability rambling, promotional. How did it last so long?Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Blow it up per PROMO and NOT. DrStrauss talk 11:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila White (politician)

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

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

Unelected politician (fails WP:NPOL) and not notable otherwise (fails GNG). Only news sources are routine coverage of election candidates in local media. At the 2007 AFD, one user recommended keeping as she is a "perennial candidate" - not an inherently notable status, and besides, five elections don't make you a perennial candidate. Madg2011 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This was created (not by me) in 2006, a time when Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are today — technically, at the time what made her eligible for an article was not her unsuccessful candidacies, but her work as a political communications consultant. But that's no longer an automatic free pass to notability either — we're much stricter in 2017 than we were a decade ago about how well an article has to be sourced to satisfy our notability standards, but the depth and breadth of referencing present here just isn't cutting it anymore. And the merger solution that I advocated for in the first AFD is also a consensus that's been weakened in the ensuing decade — there's also now WP:XY to consider, because there are multiple possible redirect targets, and per WP:BLP even the candidate lists aren't allowed to contain much more than the candidate's "name, rank and serial number" anymore either, so there's not really any content to preserve beyond what's already present in any other article where her name appears. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The quality of the article is low and the tone promotional, but quality should not be confused with notability The WP:XY conundrum itself defeats the NOTINHERITED label. Toronto is hardly a "mere local" media market, and I believe that we have sufficient coverage from a combination of enough sources to pass GNG. In some cases, these perennial candidates can reach GNG on account of their repeated attempts generating sufficient coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

No, we don't have sufficient coverage from a combination of enough sources to pass GNG. What we have is one deadlinked unreliable source (Alaya) that contributes nothing toward notability because it represented her staff profile on the website of a former employer, and three articles (two in Now and one in the Toronto Star) that glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of being about something else. Exactly none of them counts for beans toward notability, because every one of them is either not independent of her or not substantively about her. And incidentally, nobody in this discussion raised a WP:NOTINHERITED argument in the first place, so you're arguing against a strawman with that one. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eilish Redmond

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

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

Non-notable person with little useful information about who they are, the article is also pretty much orphaned and is not really integrated into the rest of Wikipedia. There is little reason for this article to exist. BSOleader (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO thogh a president of national sports association. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO but I disagree with the nom on the criteria that there is little information and the fact that it is orphaned, these are not valid reasons for deletion but reasons for improvement and the article if notable should be tagged as a stub and orphan. Domdeparis (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't pass the general notability guidelines or our criteria for biographies. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih^Talk 17:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

山东省昌邑第一中学

山东省昌邑第一中学 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not written in english from July 16th. O1lI0 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as @O1lI0 statedBSOleader (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BCMMetrics

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

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources either point to the parent company (MHA Consulting) or contain no mention of the article subject at all. The only source that makes mention of BCM [14] is referring to something else entirely, and yet was cited in this article. Per the tags on the article, serves to promote the company. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur with nom. MB 18:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 15:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FK Budućnost Arilje

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

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

Firstly, it lacks notability and also is completely unreferenced, such an insignificant club is hard to prove to exist, the article is also relatively useless to a reader as it has little information BSOleader (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I glanced over Category:Football clubs in Serbia and a good deal of those in the category root are of similar quality and/or notability: FK Lisović, LSK Laćarak, FK Lunjevica Gornji Milanovac, FK Jedinstvo Mali Zvornik, FK Mokra Gora... prod, anyone?

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Xiangzhong

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

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

Redirect to the draft(Draft:Liao Xiangzhong), or delete it until the page does not look like an ad. O1lI0 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here amounts to notability of this poorly written BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Agreed; these are routine academic roles. Matt's talk 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visar Musliu

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dies not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Aleksovski

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletw - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The lone dissenting !vote is only asserting that the topic is notable but not showing it Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of House Targaryen

Family tree of House Targaryen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Also nominated:

• Family tree of House Stark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Family tree of House Lannister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all family trees from the A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones fictional universe. There is also everything in Category:A Song of Ice and Fire family tree templates, which will need to be deleted separately via TfD after this discussion concludes.

The reasons for deletion are:

• These family trees are not notable (WP:GNG) because no third-party sources discuss them as such (as family trees, rather than the fictional families, but these are likely also not notable and do not seem to have articles).
• The contents are also original research (WP:OR) because the set of characters in the TV series and the novels differ significantly and it is not clear which of both, or a combination, these family trees are meant to represent.
• Furthermore, to the extent that the family trees appear to have been copied from the frequently cited source "Martin, George R. R.; García Jr., Elio M.; Antonsson, Linda (2014)", they are copyright violations. (Real-world family trees document facts, which are are not copyrightable, but fictional family trees are just another copyrightable work of fiction.)
• Finally, it should be apparent at a glance that this is the sort of in-universe fancruft that belongs in specialized fan wikis, not in a general purpose encyclopedia that treats fiction from an out-of-universe perspective (see WP:WAF). Our policy WP:NOTPLOT directs that articles must not only consist of a summary of works of fiction, and these articles fail this policy.  Sandstein  15:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I applaud the writer's dedication to the topic and the detail, but a family tree for a fictional entity is not really an approprriate Wikipedia article. I'd suggest perhaps having this article on the Song of Ice and fire wiki site BSOleader (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are notable and good to have in the different GoT character articles. - AffeL (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cruft, no in-depth significant coverage from outside GoT universe; List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, Outline of A Song of Ice and Fire franchise, World of A Song of Ice and Fire, is sufficient here - how many of these do we need? Neutrality^talk 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No valid rationale for keeping, plus these are OR magnets, since the show and books differ substantially in these details (in fact the show is very self-contradictory, especially if one includes Blu-Ray special features); either Wikipedia conflates the books and show (which would be a nightmare), or explicitly compares them to each other (which, if properly sourced, would not be unacceptable, but would still be very fancrufty, would miss the point that the show is self-contradictory -- this fact is more difficult to source, since almost no one watches those Blu-Ray features, and would probably be better confined to character lists rather than standalone articles). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, these are a bit too fancrufty for my liking, and I don't think you're ever going to get around the problems of OR and copyvios. These trees should be left to the GOTwikis, not Wikipedia. Somethingwickedly (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the others. At best, it should be template-ified and put on the main list page, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to delve as deep into the ASOIAF fandom as westeros.org does. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I am in agreement with the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bankyondbeatz

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

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. Sourcing is limited, a standard g-search brings up the do-not-cites of Soundcloud, Twitter, Spotify, etc. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable band, and no coverage in RSes. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete though I found two sources which looked reliable, I do not think they were enough to establish notability of the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt O'Riley

Matt O'Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played first-team football for Fulham JMHamo (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - has only played in youth teams, not notable for any other reason. Neiltonks (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartDebit

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

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

Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH, lacks significant coverage in independant, reliable sources. Cobbled together from press releases, their own website and a peripheral mention in The Telegraph. Thinly veiled attempt at SEO, misuse of hq_location in Infobox company template. Mduvekot (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. shoy (reactions) 17:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article uses way too many primary sources, indicating a problem with notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 22:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I only moved the page into the mainspace because it seemed to me like it had enough sources, and especially when compared to similar companies like AccessPay and GoCardless. I understand now that it needs more secondary independent sources. Happy to put it back into draft form and see if there will be more secondary independent sources. Zeus678 (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Nate

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

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

Non-notable musician. Davey Nate has received co-lyricist, lyricist, co-producer or producer credits on lots of songs, but no significant coverage can be found. All of the citations in the article are just credits on various songs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61 I strongly disagree with your viewpoint. Davey Nate has been the discussion of many articles including reddit.com where he is working with high level k-pop singers. He's accreddited on all the artists' music wikipedia songs and albums. I do believe it is notable to be written about in several publication and to be a well-known k-pop, pop writer/composer. Please re-consider. Dman54321 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dman54321: Our opinions clearly differ on the notability of this artist. The community can decide. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dman54321: "Many articles" don't count if they don't meet WP:RS. Redit, for instance, is unlikely to count.

@WikiDan61: You're comment was added after our conversation below. And without a signature. To add, Reddit is a very well established news source. Dman54321 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician as nominated, (self-promotional article created by the subject IMO). - FlightTime (open channel) 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile.^[1] Dman54321 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dman54321: For the purposes of inclusion at Wikipedia, notability is defined by WP:MUSIC for musicians, and WP:GNG for all topics in general. The article on Notability (as construed broadly in the world) is not relevant to this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator WikiDan61 this artist or composer is not notable. Puffery and -CITEKILL have been removed from the article. CITEKILL is frequently used to try to make a subject look notable. A name dropping laundry list has been removed from the lede twice now. Notability is of course not inherited. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; I am also intending to hat various WP:BADGERING comments of unnecessarily extended content. — fortunavelut luna 09:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athu Ithu Ethu

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

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

Non-notable television program. Article (under a different spelling) was deleted here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adhu_Idhu_Edhu&action=edit&redlink=1 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG; no indication that it is any more notable than when it was previously deleted Spiderone 16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sirippuda

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

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

Non-notable television program. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Fate

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

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

Does not meet the web notability guidelines. The sources given are all press releases, promotional pieces, or affiliated. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; the article is full of promotional copy and there are no good sources. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut hound

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

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

Coconut hound seems to be an affectionate name rather than an encyclopedic name for this dog. The article does not have any reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as [15]; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A redirect can always be created later if it's a plausible search term. SoWhy 06:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sauvali

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

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

No sources. May be redirect to Characters in Mahabharata Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because for same reason:[reply]

Sughada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 06:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hartley (racing driver)

Steve Hartley (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:GNG. Successful in a competition which doesn't meet criteria. Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Star Vijay. Redirects are cheap! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 03:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalakka Povathu Yaaru? (season 6)

Kalakka Povathu Yaaru? (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable television program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Candice Hutchings. If the author's article is deleted as well, this redirect will disappear with it but that seems to be the consensus here. SoWhy 06:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Edgy Veg Cookbook

The Edgy Veg Cookbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:BKCRIT. Rentier (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find anything to justify this passing NBOOK. If the author's article survives it can redirect there, but only if it does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Selectively merge into Candice Hutchings, as it looks like her article will stay. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge The article has no secondary sources, nor could I find any. It's not right to add unsourced promotional content, and it's not right to move such content. The author's page already contains the name of the book and that's more than enough. I also oppose leaving a redirect. Rentier (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect to Candice Hutchings. Fails WP:NBOOK. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Candice Hutchings Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Artists Entertainment

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

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

NN production company, sourced solely from its own website and IMDB. No evidence it meets the GNG, fails WP:CORP. Ravenswing 10:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources in the article are reliable or independent. Searches turn up lots of self-published stuff and mentions of things they've produced and actors who've appeared in their productions but there's no in-depth discussion of the company itself. Neiltonks (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG as no non-passing mentions that are independent are made; also fails WP:COMPANY etc. --Hazarasp (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No WP:RS at all and I could not find any. shoy (reactions) 17:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanvic Consulting

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

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

Non-notable consulting firm with little to no actual coverage. All the sources lack depth or are basic listings or one line quotes from the founder, fails WP:GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Kanvic Consulting is one of the most widely searched consulting firms in Gurgaon and Delhi. And hence people do need to know about its functions and origin. Some of the cites may not provide detailed information about the company, but are still relevant sources and from relevant organizations. If however, some need to be removed, that can be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.nilasis (talk • contribs) 10:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC) — B.nilasis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: If "people do need to know about (a company's) functions and origin", that is a legitimate function of its company website; this is an encyclopaedia not an additional hosting option. Also, B.nilasis, you were previously reminded about WP:DISCLOSE, but I see no response? AllyD (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. The text describes their wares, referenced to brief mentions, media and articles by staff which verify only at a stretch. There is no claim to being more than a company going about its business and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG. Also I note from B.nilasis contributions that he has an alternate account and admitted to having created a previous article "Kanvic" which was deleted earlier this month.. This topic should be SALTED to prevent future abuse. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH as noted. shoy (reactions) 17:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Kanvic" created was from the same account (not an alternate account) and directly went to speedy deletion. The article "Kanvic Consulting" has been updated to be more in sync with the Wikipedia terms and policies. If there is anything I can do to improve this article, please tell me how instead of just going ahead and deleting it. Thank you.

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria von Kohler

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

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

I can see no indication that this artist meets WP:ARTIST Derek Andrews (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable artist. Quis separabit? 03:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete A few sources, so there might be more, but unlikely. Fails GNG/NARTIST as is. South Nashua (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to VAST. Only one !vote to redirect, however, it's the one that has WP:NALBUM and WP:ATD-R on their side while both the nominator and the deleting !voters did not explain why a redirect is not a feasible alternative. Failing WP:NMUSIC is only a reason for deletion as a stand-alone article. Regards SoWhy 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They Only Love You When You Die

They Only Love You When You Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable. No charting or reviews Jennica✿ / ^talk 19:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 16:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to VAST (band article). Recording isn't notable. Much of the article isn't suitable for merging, being variously already in the band article, trivia or time-sensitive information and possibly WP:OR. Although if someone wants to do a selective merge that's ok. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Novasque

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

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

Typical promotional work/spam.WP is not a business directory!PR sources in abundance as usual! Winged Blades ^Godric 16:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- spam; content includes: "...the leading global provider of Predictive Sales-to-Cash solutions!" Etc. The subject's company, Sidetrade, is a deletion candidate itself. I just PROD'ed it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]