Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 5

< 4 September	6 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinky Island (video game)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. Unreleased video game with no notable secondary coverage of game development. Cool name though... Comatmebro (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON to be released in 2018 lacks third party sources and notability is unclear at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 12 September 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) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Ashmawey

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

Delete, as it doesn't appear this individual is notable. Almost all sources are passing mentions for roles on projects that are not notable in their own right either. WP:TOOSOON seems apropos. There also appears to be some kind of COI, as the editor that began this entry has admitted to working for a marketing/career management firm on their talk page: User_talk:Shoutingdog, so there is a potential TOU issue here as well. HistoryBluffs (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC) HistoryBluffs (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates he is a notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:34, 12 September 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 at request of author. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milk fat globule membrane

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

Written as origional research / an essay. Appears to be potentially copy pasted from somewhere but couldn't immediately find any thing via copyvio tools. — IVORK _Discuss 22:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the absence of any evidence that this was written by anyone other than the editor who created this we should be thanking that editor for doing such a thorough job of writing an article about a very notable topic rather than calling for deletion. This doesn't resemble in the least any of the points in WP:ESSAY. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no reason you can't appeal using your own account mate. And it is definitely prefered for users to only operate on one account per WP:Socking. The article has been updated since I tagged it. I feel an expert in the field will need to review this, I'll look around for a template to request that. — IVORK _Discuss 21:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What account? I choose to reveal my IP address when editing rather than hide behind a pseudonym. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Scholar search shows that this is a valid topic for Wikipedia, as plenty of MEDRS-compatible sources exist. The current version relies far too heavily on primary sources, but based on what I can see, I believe fixing it is preferable to deleting it. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Looie496 rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has been updated substancially since I first nominated it (origional reason was due mainly due to it looking a lot like a copy pasted essay) and does seem a lot more acceptable. Am I able to withdraw? Or have to let this AfD stay its course? — IVORK _Discuss 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_.28nominator_withdrawal.29--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 7 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLiteSpeed

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

@Kaceyyyy: Queried speedy delete as advertisement Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a Google search and can only find how to articles about configuring the tool - but no significant coverage on the tool itself, or why it's notable. Fails WP:RS TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only sources I can find which are remotely independent are this and this which are no good for establishing software notability because they are just how-to articles, and Wikipedia isn't a manual. No indication of major reviews or the like, as I say, other than those two, most of the sources I can find are self-published. DrStrauss talk 08:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also can't find anything in the way of WP:RS. Appears to be part of a suite of promotional articles (LiteSpeed Web Server, LiteSpeed Technologies) created by a cluster of WP:SPAs to promote the product and company. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 13 September 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 06:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yurushev Leonid Leonidovich

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. He does not appear to be anything more than an average business person. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 9 September 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) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Cicali III

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claim of notability and no sources found in a Google search to support a claim. This source mentions him, but is certainly not about him. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete professional gamblers are rarely notable, no indicatio he is an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. At 1/4 of a million on winnings, this person is ordinary. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 9 September 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 Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbylamine-choline-chloride

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

The article cannot be verified following an extensive RFC debate BFG (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is a clear consensus emerging at the article talk page for redirecting. But there is no reason to actually delete the pagename, which is a useful search term for readers. So we don't need a full-out deletion, and the problem can be solved without needing anything to be done here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page should be entitled Carbylamine choline chloride per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry).-Pontificalibus (talk) 15:02, 6 September 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) 19:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wulf

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No independent notability outside of his work with Sodom and Kreator. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per @Joe Decker: Agathoclea (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge, I don't see anything that has changed since my view in the previous AfD, but if I've missed something, please let me know. --joe decker ^talk 15:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bermicourt (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. –Vami _IV✠ 15:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my assumption on the relist is because everyone else agreed with the nomination and didn't spell it out, so I'll go ahead and do it: nothing about this artist suggests he meets any of our notability guidelines. Clearly not ANYBIO or any of the other biographical and music biographical guidelines. The question of deletion vs. merging and redirection is something to consider, but the question we should ask ourselves is if there is anything worth merging or redirecting here? I don't see anything personally that should be merged, and the article history doesn't contain anything worth preserving, and those advocating for that position have not made a case for it. That leaves deletion as the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. There's nothing notable on this page worth keeping or merging. Topper13009 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tango of Our Childhood

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

Tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio, fixed and tag removed but still fails WP:NFILM. DrStrauss talk 21:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --passes WP:NFILM. (I've added a few references of which there were none at the time of nomination). The films stars two prominent actors of Soviet-Armenian Cinema, one of whom received an award for the film at the 1985 Venice Film Festival. The director (although lacking a Wikipedia page} appears to be significant in Armenian Cinema [1]. The film is mentioned as "famous" or his "best" film. [2], [3]. It was recently covered by the Sputnik News Agency [4]. Because it's a pre-internet film from Soviet Armenia, it's likely that sources exist in foreign-language papers or books that are not online. (WP:NEXIST) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has reliable sources coverage as shown in last post such as sig cov in Sputsnik News Agency Atlantic306 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CactusWriter is exactly correct about this notable film from Soviet era Armenia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements & as meeting WP:NFILM. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonovych prize

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

Nonnotable prize by nonnotable personal foundation. Ukrainian wikipedia artcile does not clarify notability.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As usual for such topics it's tricky. I'm inclined to agree, but then I find two sources that mention the prize and seem to indicate its importance (this and this). They're Google snippets and thus totally useless for article creation, but I have to go with weak keep here because this suggests that there may be more--just not in English, and not easily accessible. Sorry Staszek. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a news archive search turned up ~a dozen article in The Ukrainian Weekly; I sourced the basic facts about the prize in the lede to one of these articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

Plus stuff like this: [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should expand on that last comment by saying that when notable people like Timothy D. Snyder turn up in person to accept an award, it validates the award in a way. As does the fact that they hand the winner a check for $10,000. I'm not citing a guideline, just the info that made me take this article seriously enough to look for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether recipients up for their awards can be a pretty good dividing line to use, about awards. I recall AFDs about movie awards given by movie critic groups in North Carolina and other places, which are simply not in the same league as the Oscars, say, as exemplified by the fact that they just announced their awards, no world/national actors/directors/etc. showed up to receive them. On that basis the movie critic group article was deleted, IIRC. "It's not a real award if the recipients don't show up to receive them" could be a guideline to record somewhere. --do ncr am 20:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drmies and E.M.Gregory. --do ncr am 16:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Whatever you say guys, but IMO the fact is it fails WP:GNG: in-depth coverage in independent sources. None of the links provided here qualify. I did my due diligence as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although the award is not well-represented in the English-language media, this is one of the most important such awards for original literary works and research in Ukraine. The prize is frequently referred to as "the Ukrainian Nobel Prize" for the high standard it sets (see here: http://www.umoloda.kiev.ua/number/1029/116/37121/). The founding jury members were George G. Grabowicz of Harvard University (https://faculty.slavic.fas.harvard.edu/george-grabowicz), the prominent poet of the New York Group Bohdan Rubczak (see here: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CR%5CU%5CRubchakBohdan.htm and here: http://sites.utoronto.ca/elul/Struk-mem/Rubchak-Works/), and one of the most prominent 20th cent. scholars of Ukrainian literature, language, and culture Yuri (George) Shevelov (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Shevelov). See here for more info on the Antonovych Foundation's activities in awarding the prize: https://zbruc.eu/node/57847. The prize is truly one of the most important institutions of supporting high-quality literary works and research in Ukrainian studies. To say that it's "non-notable" is an offense to the attempts of the Ukrainian society to rid itself of the shameful practices of Soviet totalitarianism in literature and in humanities. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.42.20 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 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 Dennis the Menace and Gnasher#Television and video. Consensus is not to keep the article as a standalone at this point with the lack of sourcing. Redirect to above target; content is in the history for anyone who wishes to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Beano's Dennis the Menace and Gnasher Show

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

I can't find sources to establish notability. ~ GB fan 22:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an obscure British BBC TV program, that is likely to be commissioned by the Beeb. Quite a lot of these older children's program don't have listings. They are put on, tried out and if not successful, forgotten about. That doesn't mean notability isn't inherent. There 10,000s of these types of articles floating around WP, and until notability is established. I suggest keep for the moment. scope_creep (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherent. We need to establish that this is a notable program. This isn't done by claiming it is "likely to be commissioned by the Beeb" or that there are other articles like this one. It is done by showing there is significant coverage in reliable sources. ~ GB fan 10:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created in February 2017. If notability hasn't been proven yet, it won't be. Also just because other similar stuff exists, it doesn't "inherently" mean this should. — Wylie pedia 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there is a problem with sources for this article. For instance my memory might be playing tricks, but I don't recall this being shown on CITV or any terrestrial broadcaster. I do vaguely remember the Beano plugging a Dennis series on the Children's Channel c 1990. The thing is if this series is as the article describes it should be notable in that it is the first TV series to feature this well known comic character. Unfortunately, the only reference I can find other than this article and IMDB comes in a Dennis the Menace collection from c 2012 which mentions there was a puppet series based on the character (which I assume is this one). I don't have the history of the Beano that was produced in 2008 but, it might be worth seeing if there is coverage in it. Dunarc (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seriously? We don't keep articles around because no one's found sources about them yet. We delete articles because no one's found sources about them yet. If there are other articles kicking around without reliable sources, Scope creep, let us know so we can AfD their sorry asses too! Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't entirely - we do allow tolerance for historical topics that pre-date the web. For example, you'll find very little about Geoff Unwin online, but I know he regularly appeared in (paper based) news columns in the early to mid 1960s. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm struggling to find anything beyond Logan Murray's personal website, but practically every kid's TV show has been bootlegged onto YouTube, and this search brings up a few episodes, proving it's real and meets WP:TVSHOW. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dennis the Menace and Gnasher#Television and video. No significant standalone coverage to suggest this was anything but a below the radar, short lived project, and would better meet the notability goals of the encyclopedia if the content was integrated into the aforementioned main article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, if confirmed - not enough here for an article. Artw (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deffo not on CITV during this period; nothing comes up in newspaper listings. The Guardian does indeed list the series which I assume this is on the Children's Channel from November 1990. A CBBC series involving the character began in April 1996. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is way to short to convince me that anyone put any effort into making it, since I cant find any sources for it, and others have searched in vain finding no evidence it was shown on TV when the article says, its a fairly obvious candidate for deletion. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:53, 12 September 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) 19:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cartwright

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. The alternative would be a redirect to 2017–18 Peterborough United F.C. season, which I'm not against, but as a not completely uncommon name, this could cause confusion. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 5 September 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) 12:36, 8 September 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) 19:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Kamrul Islam

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

Person appears to fail WP:NBIO.

All sources in article are from Blogspot. I cannot locate an other sources about this person (though there appear to be others with the same name, but the age doesn't match). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tried to figure out why we should have an article about him. Couldn't find much. Fails GNG and BIO. --nafSadh did say 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cited sources are not reliable sources. Searches of the usual {{find sources}} types found nothing else for this Md. Kamrul Islam. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:39, 12 September 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) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koohsar Mc

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

Non-notable rapper, sources are mostly primary and unreliable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. — Za wl 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Za wl 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. The references that aren't the subject's social media or WP:INHERITED links to another rapper's website are clickbait and spam. The Wikilinks to Maktab and Warp and Weft are to entirely unrelated articles. I'll change my mind if anyone can find reliable sources in Farsi. Richard3120 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't speak Farsi, and I don't have the access to Farsi sources that say, an Iranian IP would, but I tried searching the Farsi given as his name: کوهسار which seems to be his stage name "Koohsar", not his real name "Mostafa Javadi". The results were mostly attractions in the mountains of Iran. I found a little content at ReverbNation, but not nearly enough to satisfy any aspect of any notability guideline. From what I've seen he is far from notable, but I can't be sure because someone who understands Farsi or has access to Iranian internet may find information that was inaccessible to us. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete he is Iranian and his native language is Farsi so if he is notable enough at first he should have fawiki instead of enwiki.also references are not reasonable foe enwiki Leodikap (talk) 15:08, 11 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kargil Movie

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

Future film with no references. Fails WP:NFF. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No sources— RADICAL SODA^(FORCE)^TM 11:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any sources Spiderone 10:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Easy Walk To Freedom

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

album article with trivial referencing that does not go far beyond a track listing Jax 0677 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage exists - I incorporated some sources into the article. Also, the album was nominated for a Grammy. gongshow talk 23:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear passage of WP:NALBUM, as it was nominated for a Grammy and charted, making it pass #2 and #4. As an album of a significant group in the genre, it will almost certainly pass GNG as well, as Gongshow as demonstrated. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was nominated for a Grammy and passes WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Fix the problems and/or discuss a rename, but the POINTy nomination is invalid -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

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

Nominating this for deletion because the view by the few active users who effectively control the article is that the article is entirely based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and that nothing about it is supported by WP:RS. When it is not possible to even have a lead section there isn't any point in having an article. User2534 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 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 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being WP:POINTy and refusing to discuss a controversial edit is perhaps not the best argument for deletion. Nonetheless, there may be a legitimate claim for deletion or at least refocusing the topic of this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the concurrent Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_2#Template:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_.282014.E2.80.93present.29. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Invalid deletion rationale. Content disputes with editors, per their personal POV, refuse to recognize Islamic terror - are content disputes - not grounds for deletion. The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced and few terror experts would dare dispute its existence.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced and few terror experts would dare dispute its existence. Actually this is a fallacy and none of the refs used support this assertion, certainly the majority don't. Apart from France, which had an explosion of attacks from 2014-16 there are few patterns across Europe and the number killed in both UK and Spain for example (even allowing for recent events), does not support such an assertion. That there has been any kind of pattern in Europe since 2014 is simply an unfounded and unsourced assumption. The sources used to support the claim have actually said things like 'many', not 'more' and have focussed on France, not Europe. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While there are apologists espousing this, you won't find terrorism experts expressing this view. See for instance CSIS's Anthony Cordesman (cliff notes here - [6]), fuller report here: [7]. Nearly all reported fatalities and most of the casualties were the result of jihadist terrorist attacks. The total number of 142 attacks is a continuation of a downward trend that started in 2014 when there were 226 attacks, followed by 211 in 2015..... Most arrests were related to jihadist terrorism, for which the numbers rose for the third consecutive year: 395 in 2014, 687 in 2015 and 718 in 2016. (he prefers to use Jihadist in preference to Islamist or Islamic Extremist/Fundamentalist - which is mainly a matter of flavor).Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone doubts that ~~most~~ many of the terrorist ~~events and terrorist~~ deaths in Europe since the early 2000s have been Islamist, ~~people like IRA and ETA have been marginal~~. I didn't say that was not true, and your sources do not contradict my point, which - put briefly - is that there is nothing special about 2014 and the date does not mark any significant pattern EXCEPT in France when it was the year before the beginning of two years of very deadly terrorist activity. Your source says "If one looks at the START data on the total for Western and Eastern Europe, which includes Russia, the impact of terrorism peaks in the 1970s. It rises again in 1991, driven by terrorist attacks in the Balkans, Palestinian violence, and terrorism in the FSU and Russia. It then peaks for a third time in 2014-2015, driven by both violent Islamist extremism and terrorist activity in the Ukraine. Later it says: If one only examines Western Europe, the START reporting on the patterns in Western Europe shows a rise in incidents after 2010, driven largely by violent Islamist extremism and the influence and actions of ISIS, that reached new peaks in 2015-2016 .... Turkey was a key center of terrorist attacks because of political unrest and Kurdish separatism ..... from mid-2015 onwards. There are many other dates and stats in your sources, none of them supports your claim that "The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced".

There is nothing significant about the year 2014 and the central claim which has opened this article since its creation, is a fallacy. 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2014 may be all significant milestones for some reasons, in different parts of Europe. Your sources themselves note that special factors apply in Russia and Turkey. I'm not opposed to a list of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe, or in 'Western Europe' I would simply like its logic and claims to be based on what the balance of best sources say and that is a great deal more complex than you, or the article are saying. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue 2013 or 2012 instead of 2014 - however this is a separate phase from previous Al-Qaeda/Global-Jihad in the earlier 2000s - in which we see "lone wolfs", "Islamic State", "Islamic State inspiration" - an generally a large amount of attacks (often disorganized and ineffective amateur attacks with improvised means (e.g. knives, cars, trucks). The reason 2014 is often cited as a date is number of casualties in Europe by year and Jihadists arrests per year in Europe. The underlying phenomena is an increase in the number of attacks and "Islamic State" influence as well as fighters returning from Syria to Europe.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the chart puts a first peak at 2004-6 (Sp+UK?), the 2005 London was of course 'lone wolves', so they are not new. I also noticed that your quote above says that 2014 was the beginning of a downward trend, our article has said the opposite since its creation. That there may be changes in trends, including that a small number recently are verifiably ISIS directed, and a much larger number may/may not be ISIS inspired, should be rendered in text, as should any 'Syria' element. IMO, the year and the 'Europe-wide' definition are simply 'stones round our necks'. What happens in Turkey or Russia has very little connection to events in Western Europe. Arrests is more of an indicator of host priorities than of acts. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone doubts that most of the terrorist events and terrorist deaths in Europe since the early 2000s have been Islamist, people like IRA and ETA have been marginal. That's flat out wrong. According to Europol's yearly terrorism reports:

Year	Total events	Islamist events	Total deaths	Islamist deaths
2006	498	1
2007	583	4
2008	515	0
2009	294	1
2010	249	3
2011	174	0
2012	219	6	17	8
2013	152	0	7	1
2014	199	2	4	4
2015	211	17	151	150
2016	142	13	142	135

The majority of events have all throughout this period been separatist in nature, i.e. "people like IRA and ETA". No, really: pick a year, and more than half of the events that year will have been separatist events. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See deaths classified as Islamist. Note that national authorities do not all have an Jihadist classification, but rather lump them in a basket. The number of Jihadist deaths and deadly Jihadist attacks has increased significantly from around 2014. Tactics and profiles of attackers are quite different than the previous AQ activity. Lone wolves existed previously, but not at these proportions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, I stand corrected about events, if not deaths, which would show an earlier peak, if Madrid train + London tube were included. My substantive point however is that the 2014 'start date', is at best, arbitary and at worst formulated on a number of fallacies as to whether/what changes occurred at that time, and that the overall picture is a great deal more nuanced than the article seeks to present. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to coincide with the rise of ISIS, although not all of the people who carry out these attacks are card-carrying ISIS members, thus the need for a wider encompassing title. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It would appear to coincide with the rise of ISIS", but we know full well that only a tiny number of these attacks have any discernible link to ISIS, while large numbers of others MAY BE inspired by, and others have clearly no connection at all, so we'll bypass normal rules about rational objective criteria for lists and make it all into a pea-soup that clearly contradicts the best available sources. That, unfortunately, is par for the course on this article. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - these are the challenged of "Lone Wolf Terrorism" - where the Jihadists attack after on-line indoctrination from social media, YouTube (e.g. Ahmad Musa Jibril), and other such loose connections - possibly leaving a note somewhere they did it for ISIS, ISIS claiming it, or something similar. Things were so much easier back in the 2000s when most of these had clear chains of command and direction from "terrorist masterminds". However - this being a defining characteristic (Jihadist lone wolf attacks, peppered with a few organized ones) - is not really in doubt by any terrorism expert (whether 2014 is the start year - debatable - but there is definitely a divide between the AQ early 2000s, the quiet Jihadist front in Europe 2006-11, and the current phase of "lone wolves with ISIS "inspiration"").Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Goes without saying, really. The article needs better sources, a cleanup of WP:SYNTH, and perhaps a small shift in focus but the topic is obviously notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Snow Keep - the rationale is specious, and there is a discussion board on the page which is very active, and thoroughly explores all of the issues, and is not afraid to challenge additions from all quarters, on this controversial subject matter. Sport and politics (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Based on the presented rationale for deletion, this AfD strikes me as disruptive in order to make a WP:POINT. I would also urge User2534 to read WP:AGF. With that said, I think it would be valid with an AfD based on WP:DEL6 and/or WP:DEL7 considering that there is indeed a view among some editors that the article is entirely based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and that nothing about it is supported by WP:RS (well, kind of – what I've come across isn't quite that categorical). An argument in favour of deleting the article rather than clarifying (and possibly adjusting) its scope and inclusion criteria might be that a recent attempt to do the latter failed to reach WP:CONSENSUS. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to include "List" in the article's title. The current lede section ("Europe has seen Islamic terrorist activity since 2014.[2]") has multiple problems, and much of the prose is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The lists in the article should clearly be kept somewhere. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason for deletion is "few active users...effectively control the article". No one controls articles on wikipedia. If it needs a lead, write one. I note that elsewhere people are arguing to delete a template because this page exists, which seems circular argument given this discussion Tim bates (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the nomination describes a content and/or behavioral problem. Take appropriate steps to arrive at consensus regarding the content of the article. If core policies are violated, pursue protection of the article and/or sanctions against users who persist in breaking the rules. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the reality that this article has been subjected to pitched battles over what qualifies as "terrorism," (battles fought by tiny numbers of editors on the talk page and won by the side that musters more combatants who are willing to keep arguing longer) it is a useful topic that can and should be improved by more eyes on the page, more editors, and, perhaps, by some sort of ranked language that would allow editors to designate type of support for an attack being terrorism-related. Rather than, as now, removing articles where any sort of doubt can be cast on the terrorism connection by editors, despite incidents being blue-linked and demonstrating well-sourced linkage to terrorist motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "nominating articles that are heavily sourced in very reliable international news sources are never going to be deleted, regardless of NOTNEWS," said someone. XavierItzm (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename "Care Bear Hugs in Europe" to appease bourgeois liberals. In all seriousness though, the talkpage pitch battles, where a small group of editors frantically fall over each other to try and keep out whatever most recent Islamist mass casualty attack has happened on that day from being mentioned (probably the most dedicated being TompaDompa), regardless of the mountain of mainstream media coverage, is a bit of a circus and a great waste of time/energy for those who are forced to try and uphold some basic standards in this area. So I can see where the nominator is coming from, though suggesting the article itself be deleted probably isn't the right way to go about this wider problem in this topic area and each issue should be dealt with individually. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claíomh Solais: If you're going to mention me—here or elsewhere on Wikipedia—I'd appreciate if you would make my username a link to my user page so that I'm notified.
Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by a great waste of time/energy for those who are forced to try and uphold some basic standards in this area, in particular what the basic standards in question are? TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rename Care Bear Hugs in Europe to appease bourgeois liberals." - you really do need to stop using wikipedia to play out your personal political and religious battles. It is really rather pathetic and distracting.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably one of those editors who frantically fall over each other to try and keep out whatever most recent Islamist mass casualty attack has happened on that day from being mentioned. I do this until a reliable police or govt source explicitly says it is Islamic/ist terrorism (ie not good enough that someone who is probably Muslim commits a crime with typical Islamist MO and/or some unnamed witness says they heard an Islamic slogan, according to one obscure source). While it may be difficult for Claíomh Solais to imagine, my motives are not because I am a 'bourgeois liberal', my motives include that I presume that any reader of WP over the age of 10, when they first hear about any crime that could well be Islamist, doesn't need me to confirm what could well be true, They are not that stupid and they would rather wait to read what is known rather than read what Claíomh Solais, or I, or any 'speculator' thinks is possibly/probably true. What is the rush to state definitively that a particular event is Islamist, before even the police have concluded that it is? Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC related to the issues raised above by [[User:XavierItzm and User:Claíomh Solais is underway Wikipedia talk:Notability (events).E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The evidence suggests that Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe began much earlier than 2014 - certainly in terms of the London and Madrid bombings. Even if we look at recent years than the evidence suggests a significant impact only after 2015 or arguably after 2012. Therefore 2014 is arbitary and misleading. The 1985 El Descanso bombing killed 18 people in Madrid. Just take out the dates.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to ISIS terror attacks in Europe (2014–present). "Islamic terrorism", while accurate, is a rather vague term considering that virtually every single attack in Europe has been claimed/organized/carried out by ISIS and not by other Islamic terror groups (Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, etc.). 23 editor (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in many, many cases, the connection to ISIS is either very tenuous (single source somewhere says possible self-radicalisation, had a black flag on computer, told friends he admired ISIS) or non-existent. Such a renaming would guarantee that the level of WP:OR would quadruple. Manchester arena, there is a possible ISIS connection via Libya, Westminster there is no connection, London Bridge there is a possible online 'linkage', Barcelona there is an ISIS claim of responsibility, but apparent 'local' radicalisation. Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Pincrete. On lots of these articles we've had the argument (resolved eventually to Islamic Terror - after police investigation, etc.) - of "so what if ISIS claim it (they claim everything), so what if it was a Muslim attacker, he must have been a crazy person attacking for some non-terror reason". While a large proportion (not all) of these are ISIS "inspired" - determining each one was so inspired in difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RenameWhy is 2014 the start date?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like "Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe in the 2010s", write a decent lead, and list probable Islamic terror attacks since 1 January 2010. --TBM10 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I don't really care if you want to rename it to something else, though each rename vote has offered a totally different rendition of what the article should be renamed to and might need to be saved for a second discussion, but, it is obvious that this is a notable topic. The assertions in the nominating statement are ... well there's a 119 sources currently used in the article. They are applied all throughout the article except the lede which isn't supposed to have citations (exceptions exist). The fact that the lede isn't written is not a cause to delete. WP:OR is a dubius assertion, however, WP:SYNTH probably exists and it is arguable that the start date should be the 24th of May 2014. Why this date? None of this amounts to the article being non-notable or unfit for purpose. So no, don't delete this article, fix whatever problems it has. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 8 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile weapons

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

While individual Gundams may be notable in and of themselves, this concept is adequately covered in the Gundam Wiki and violates WP:NOTPLOT on Wikipedia. It appears to be non-notable, and all sources are WP:PRIMARY. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Mobile Suit Gundam mecha as it pertains to suits, weapons, and armor and not just weapons, and then trim down per WP:NOTWIKIA and apply lots of WP:TNT for unsourced material. The navbox has a list of the most notable "Mobile weapons" which are different types of Gundams. Redirect Mobile weapons to Maneuver warfare which seems to be about mobile weapons in the real world. Most of the news searches on the Internet for pertain to real world mobile weapons and not Gundam ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The articles in the navbox may not be notable either. This just seems like the most obvious example of WP:NOTPLOT but articles like Psyco Gundam appear incredibly dubious too. So that's not an indicator that this article might be notable if pared down._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Gundam series has cultural significance, individual weapons don't. This is just a list of stuff that was deemed non-notable years prior, merged here and as I predicted, this will be deleted eventually. I guess this eventuallity is now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - @AngusWOOF:, lets just save the references and start over. You can always move what is here to draft or user-space for future improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Piotrus, above; not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 7 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Undead Syndrome

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, a search found no reliable refs beyond a single article in Siliconera. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple announcement articles for XBLA release, but nothing substantial. Delete. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after sorting into more categories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 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. It sounds like it might be possible to write a new version of this, but it would need better sourcing and more objective inclusion criteria (which, in turn, would imply a new title). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the longest gaps between film sequels

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

This list is 100% original research. There are two sources cited in the article: One is the main page for an entertainment site (which may have said something about one of the films in question at some point in the past, but I cannot find anything relevant now. (The source is cited for the note that the entry on the list apparently should not be on the list: "Despite its title, the film is not a sequel to Aashiqui, and the only similarity is that 'both are music-based romantic films'.") The other discusses the Mary Poppins sequel, but does not mention the unusually large gap.

Searching the 'net, I find several sources discussing lengthy gaps between original and sequel (TRON, Blade Runner, Star Wars, etc.), but none claiming to be THE longest gap or a list of the longest gaps.

How do we know Bambi is the champ in this category? We don't. All we know is that someone added it here and no one has proposed anything with a longer gap.

Several of the films currently listed use spin-offs, prequels, made for TV and direct to video films. Several use "unofficial" sequels, such as the Wizard of Oz where the proposed sequel is not related to the original, the the book the second is based on is a sequel to the book the first is based on. Does that make "Raise the Titanic" a sequel to "A Night to Remember"?

With no source for determining what does and does not "count", I am left to wonder why a made for TV miniseries would count but a radio play, book, etc. wouldn't. If a TV show can be a sequel for a film, why isn't "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" a sequel to the original "Star Trek"?

Bottom line: Someone was intrigued by the idea that this article represents, but the sources simply do not exist to support an article. SummerPhD^v2.0 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long-delayed sequels are a notable topic.[8][9][10][11][12] A list shouldn't be deleted just because the criteria are arguable or it may be hard to complete; these things can be debated or agreed through talk pages. And if you're worried about "longest" rename to "long". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You seem to be suggesting that this should be an entirely different article. The current article claims to list the "longest" gaps: a discrete claim. The article you suggest is altogether different, as a casual look at your suggested sources confirms. Your first source, "PAJBA" seems to be a blog: no "about" page, no copyright notice. Its claim of the "longest" gaps jumps all over our list 1, 7, 32, 31, 39, 62, 115, 70...

Your second source puts "The Best Man" first on its list. Ours has it at #162. Next is #132, 136, 96, 70...

Source #3 doesn't claim to list the "longest", giving a list of 6 "long delayed" sequels.

Source #4 is the "most absurd gaps". There third gap in this list of sequels is Star War VI to Star Wars I, a sixth degree prequel.

5 doesn't give a list or claims of the "longest", but is an article about the concept of sequels after decades have passed.

The three of your sources give us a hodgepodge of long delayed sequels that we would probably package in a list format to make it look like a countdown of the longest, similar to if we change List of films considered the worst into List of films that weren't good or wrote List of businesses that made a lot of money.

There might be material to write about Long delayed film sequels, if we can resist the urge to claim we have created a definitive list. To the extent that reliable sources discuss prequels, made for TV and direct to video, we can do the same. We might even find sources tying the distant cousin films. We do not, however, have a verifiable list of the top ten (or 20, or 200...) longest gaps. We also don't have objective, sourced criteria for a list of long delays. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sympathetic to the nom here. This is a loosey-goosey definition very badly compromised by a near-complete lack of sources. Who says that there weren't any "sequels" between Film X and film X2? Define "sequel" -- do we include films in canon? Fan films? Have foreign sources been scoured? Is a "film franchise" a unitary thing, and the sequel has to be made by the rights holder of the first film? No ... I wouldn't even consider keeping such a list without 95%+ of the entries sourced, and it's more like 5%. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole thing is too open to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just improve sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.129.128.40 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There don't seem to be reliable sources for a list like this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All it needs is strong criteria and maybe a name change. It appears to now use 10 years as the length. What counts as a "sequel", (Note, the lead does not use the term sequel, but "consecutive installments of a film franchise".) I think the list needs to be parred down. Most of the tv shows removed. If it is film franchise, the "films" should have either had a cinematic release or was shot with the intent to have a release. As for citations, all that is needed is to prove: the two films are in a franchise, there is no other film entry between them, when they were released, and they are films. Z gin der 2017-09-01T07:11:57Z

Comment - List of films produced with the intention to release them in theaters that are part of a franchise with no film in between them with a gap of 10 or more years is the reason we don't have List of United States legislators who are part of a family with a gap of 50 or more years between legislators. While we might have a source saying that Billy Smith is the first member of Congress in his family since his great-great-grandfather in 1840, we don't have sources discussing the topic. It might be worth including in the article about Billy, but we don't have sourced criteria for a list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing we use a title like that. Many lists and articles are titled slightly wrong because, it a title that will get more searches. I think something along the lines of "List of long gaps between film sequels". Notice wikt:sequel includes the usage of a prequel or other film in a franchise. Z gin der 2017-09-02T02:34:13Z

The point: We do not have any sources discussing films produced with the intention to release them in theaters that are part of a franchise with no film in between them with a gap of 10 or more years. We have a handful of sources discussing "long gaps" between sequels. That their varying criteria are is not explained anywhere is not an invitation for us to create our own. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We only need sources for the dates of the films release, which for most of them is the same place. Z gin der 2017-09-03T11:09:06Z

List of tallest buildings and structures is encyclopedic and backed by reliable sources stating which structures are the tallest. This article currently aspires to mirror that, but fails as the sources simply do not exist. List of tall buildings and structures does not exist because "tall" is a vague, relative term (in my neighborhood 5 stories would be very tall, while it would be tiny in Manhattan). Dumping this article and starting a new List of films with long gaps between sequels echos that problem and invites us to create a topic out of thin air: 5, 10, 15 years? Sequels, prequels, spinoffs, soft-reboots, alternate universes? Theatrical release, direct-to-video, made for TV film/miniseries/series? Take your pick from each list and tell me why that version of the list is encyclopedic while other variations of the list are not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the lists in List of tallest buildings and structures appear to be mostly or completely unsourced. Yes, there is an official body, but the Wikipedia entry goes way beyond the "official" lists. Z gin der 2017-09-08T08:04:14Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any thoughts about how this list fits within our policies on lists?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SYNTH. The concept of "sequel" here is hazy, subjective, and open to interpretation, for example Cinderella II is a direct to video movie with not nearly the same impact as the original Cinderella continues to have. Therefore this list doesn't have much encyclopedic value._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the concept of sequel possible. I think it is. This list needs love not deletion! Zginder 2017-09-08T07:33:17Z
  - I have removed all the direct to video and TV movies from the page. It seems to be the one thing that everyone for deleting and keeping agrees on. Z gin der 2017-09-10T03:05:25Z
Delete As per Zxcvbnm; SYNTH and LISTCRUFT. A simple "list of sequels made over 40 years after the original movie" would be better, but is unlikely to be notable either. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Compiling facts and information is not original research. It is what an encyclopedia is. Z gin der 2017-09-08T07:41:07Z
I came here thinking I would likely vote to keep this, but delete. Possibly merge some discussion of the longest gaps into Sequel, but only if they are well-sourced. bd2412 T 02:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide detail as to your reasoning?Zginder 2017-09-08T07:41:07Z
  - I do not find that the article demonstrates the proposition that the existence of a really long gap between sequels is a notable thing to document. A ten, twelve, fifteen year gap doesn't seem all that noteworthy, and there are no sources provided to explain what is considered to be a "long" gap; many of the entries are at least problematic. Also, is a story with a different set of characters set in the same fictional universe a "sequel"? Is a prequel a sequel? Is Superman Returns, with a completely different cast playing the same characters, properly called a "sequel" to Superman IV? There is no basis presented in reliable sources for delineating a list. bd2412 T 02:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As referenced early in the discussion and in the article lead, the word, "sequel", is not to be taken literally. It is shorthand for any additional film to a franchise except for remakes. I would also like to remind you that just because there are some questionable entries does not make the list deletable. If you have a problem with a listing, then remove it or bring it up on the talk page. Z gin der 2017-09-13T06:50:12Z

As also referenced earlier in the discussion, maybe the word should be taken literally. Or not. Or somewhere in between. Maybe we should include TV series and/or books/comics and/or miniseries and/or direct to video. Since no reliable sources discuss criteria, maybe anything goes. If you think Gravity is a sequel to Speed 2: Cruise Control, maybe we can create criteria that would allow that. You are suggesting we create a topic for which there are no reliable third-party sources. Having thus fully discarded WP:N and WP:V, we might as well create "List of yucky vegetables". - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally I think some editors are overthinking it, and sources are not required (Its a list, go to the film's page and look at the date), but I do fail to see why this particular list should be included in an encyclopedia. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:50, 13 September 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) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Macdonald

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

I believe this fails WP:NMUSIC. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost no coverage of the musician in independent, reliable sources. The article has two references of which only one is valid. Apart from being undersourced, some of the content in the article edges on puffery such as "He married the improvisational nature of jazz with the memorable melody of popular music..." and "...his sound of transparency and floating delay underscoring the melody performed by an acoustic piano would constitute an original style". The external links appear to compliment this promotional tone. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 15:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Wackerman

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG despite being in multiple bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of multiple (very) notable bands. WP:MUSIC#6. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as above. Andre666 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears notable. Mjeromee (talk) 00:38, 9 September 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. G11 —SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

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

Non-notable film-maker. A WP:BEFORE search in news and only a couple of passing mentions in the literature. What there is lacks significant coverage, being only passing mentions. There is insufficient coverage of any depth or persistence in reliable sources to pass WP:ANYBIO, let alone WP:NCREATIVE. — fortunavelut luna 13:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:03, 5 September 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) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geewan

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

Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications that the subjects meets WP:CREATIVE and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 12 September 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) 19:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crack (2017 film)

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

Only the film got announced in 2016 with no signs of release for now as well as the principal photography has not been commenced should be deleted for good. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film appears to have been moved back to a release date next year, that makes this current title inaccurate Seasider91 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the film was notable, it could be moved with 2018 as part of the title, though with Box Office Mojo not even having that film on the website, I suggest Delete. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Advertisment— RADICAL SODA^(FORCE)^TM 12:00, 6 September 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 Cloud9#Current Roster . -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stewie2K

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added a few sources. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 17:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locked redirect to Cloud9#Current Roster The only confirmed facts we know about him are his birthdate and winnings. Also, that redirect shows this was recreated after a G10 deletion under another title (the K here is capitalized). I'd usually ask for SPEEDY, but this is WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every video game reliable source only indicates passing mentions. Nate's path forward is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If this is all the sources and content we've got, it should be merge/directed to his respective team - it's better covered there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Following Nate's suggestion and consensus of others._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not enough independent source material to write an article on this company at present. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sugars

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

Does not appear to pass WP:CORP. No other references other than company website, search on google news does not yield any good sources. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article's references are currently lacking, a quick search found several references that are independent and reasonably in-depth: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] --Hazarasp (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the extent that coverage mentioning this firm is available, it tends to be about concerns about concentrated politico-economic power and payment levels to farmers ([18], [19]). Of such matters, there is no mention in the article, which reads like a corporate website and is a good illustration of why articles written by connected contributors tend to be deficient in meeting WP:NPOV. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no independent references in the article, and it is promotional, violating WP:NOT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is possible that a WP:NPOV article could be achieved by stripping out or rebalancing the article material which sings the praises of the company with the other coverage which I mentioned above. However even if volunteer effort was to be committed to such remedial work, it is not clear that what would be left would be more than a note of a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: few independent, reliable sources have covered the company in any depth. This is a review aggregator site with no editorial oversight and this, while from the Times of India, is merely an auto-generated sorting list. The only source which gives any sort of valuable media attention is this but still fails depth of coverage standards. DrStrauss talk 09:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Applying TNT to see what is left… L3X1 (distænt write) 12:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Answer: not much. GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus after two relists. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kam Franklin

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. A local singer with short mention in local media. No notable awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - checking Google News I see that there are plenty of sources that can be added to the article. She is evidently considered a celebrity in Houston, which alone should justify the article, but it appears that she has achieved some notability outside of Houston too. And she has appeared on the David Letterman show. Robman94 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to include 24 citations from publishers such as BuzzFeed, Edmonton Journal, Idaho Statesman, Houston Press, KPRC-TV, Houston Chronicle, Houstonia (magazine) and Consequence of Sound. Robman94 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Checking with Google gives a considerable amount of references to notable sources, I don't find a lot of notability outside of Houston however. --84.198.33.98 (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yeah, the coverage is mainly in Houston, but there is a bit of national coverage in the Edmonton Journal, BuzzFeed and the Idaho Statesman. Robman94 (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not Weak This is valid, she is a lead singer of a band that has a released known album. Why would this reference of the lead singer of the The Suffers band be deleted just because one person believes it's invalid. Is Wikipedia about data, or some random persons view on validation.
Delete not enough sourcing to show she passes notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-wal

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

The article fails WP:GNG and fails to mention any sources, or the origin/meaning of the suffix. Vignyana^talk 10:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vignyana^talk 10:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given how many towns have this word in their name, I think it's noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. I asked a Pakistani friend about it and it turns out that the word implies possession. The wala and wali versions are the male and female versions. I am having a hard time coming up with RS to support the article, but of course, I am searching in English whereas you really want to be searching using Punjabi. Robman94 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is one source. There are other sources as well but only snippet view is available. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have that book? If so, what does it say about -wal? Robman94 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable both as an element in placenames (ubiquitous in the northern part of the subcontinent) and as the extremely common Hindi/Urdu suffix. Noting that the two facets of this topic should be treated within the same article, so a merge with Wallah would be appropriate. – Uanfala 10:02, 7 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RPG Gateway

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

No such notability. Fails WP:NWEB. Greenbörg (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it had a source, might be worth a merge into role-playing game. But never had any, so was just an assertion of existence. For a while I thought it might have been about about rocket-propelled grenades. W Nowicki (talk) 19:31, 10 September 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Some participants herein have also opined for a potential merge, which can be discussed on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keel effect

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

Dicdef, only one source, unlikely to be expanded. Full of buzzwords and techincal terms, doesn't seem notable. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stated to be an aeronautical term but it is definitely not in use in mainstream aeronautical literature. This article was initiated nearly a decade ago but has since been abandoned in a poor state. Dolphin (t) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may have been in an imperfect state since 2007, but this discussion on StackExchange demonstrates that it has been useful to others. It gets 600 visits a month, which is not bad for such a specialised topic. The effect is real, non-trivial, of interest to a wider audience - [20], [21], and the information can be verified in reliable sources. The current wording may be a little technical, but we don't require every article to accessible to general audience. A quick search shows that the term is commonly used by aviators. Rentier (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has potential to be expanded beyond being a DICDEF. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: ^{[citation needed]}. Where is the proof that this is a notable topic? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: It is a specialist aviation topic, so you won't find it in general news. Some specialist publications use it as a term, some have more detail, I would compare this to a mathematical topic. See.^[1]^[2]^[3] Note also that this topic is referred to as 'pendulum effect' or pendulum 'stability'

^ Flying Magazine. 1945. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^ Hitchens, Frank (2015). The Encyclopedia of Aerodynamics. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9781785383250. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^ Senson, Ben; Ritter, Jasen (2011). Aerospace Engineering: From the Ground Up. Cengage Learning. ISBN 1435447530. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

Keep - This is an aeronautics engineering topic. WP:NOT#DICDEF does not apply. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: So being a topic means WP:NOTDICDEF doesn't apply? That makes sense. How is this a notable thing? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [22] ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an aeronautical engineer and pilot for close to four decades and I've never heard of it. It's probably notable in naval architecture, but it isn't in aeronautics. Dolphin (t) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does show up in a lot of books written for pilots. ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This is a basic topic in the the design of lateral stability of an aircraft. It is also called the pendulum effect. See for instance, training materials describing lateral stability for an FAA test, a a flight tutorial, and all the aviation manuals Kvng pointed out. It is often discussed along with dihedral or anhedral configurations, so it would also be fine to merge into Dihedral (aeronautics)#Vertical position of the center of mass. --Mark viking (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark viking I have created a Pendulum effect redirect. 15:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the section highlighted by Mark viking. I lean towards merge. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As stated above, a merge would likely be best, but if not accomplished I suppose it wouldn't hurt to keep - that is, with proper upkeep. This article seems to have been left for dead, but I can see it having its uses in some medium! Bryan C. W. (talk) 19:28, 7 September 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. bd2412 T 02:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChopSquad DJ

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant secondary sources to expand his biography and support notability. No awards or charted songs, and of the 14 sources cited in the article, "ChopSquad" is mentioned on just 7 of them--usually it's just his name. The sources are:

[23] - Trivial mention.
[24] - Mentions his name.
[25] - No biographic information. This source only supports that ChopSquad DJ produced the song "We Be On It" by Lil Bibby.
[26] - Mentions his name.
[27] - Mentions his name.

"kollegekidd.com" discusses him in two of the articles, ([28][29]), but this appears to be a user-submitted blog (though this may not be correct).

Even The Guardian mentions him in an article here, but just his name.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is understandable that music producers don't get the "credit" they deserve from media outlets. The subject produced the majority of Bang 3 which charted on Billboard's Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums thus clearly passing #1 of WP:COMPOSER and #2 of WP:MUSICBIO#Others. Nominator should note that aside the reliable sources, kollegekidd.com has editorial oversight and has been used multiple times on Wikipedia. PabloTheMenace (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs, and if reliable sources do not give the subject "the credit they deserve" than Wikipedia cannot try to reactify such claimed problems without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the subject didn't "produce the majority of Bang 3"... he wrote and produced just five of the 26 tracks on the album, and none of those tracks are individually notable, so it's hard to see how he passes WP:COMPOSER or WP:MUSICBIO. Just because kollegekidd.com has been used in other articles doesn't mean it's a reliable source – it doesn't say anything about the editorial team on the website so it's hard to verify the claim that it has editorial oversight. Richard3120 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miskel Spillman

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

Only one claim to fame, did nothing else except host one episode. Every source I've found focuses only on the SNL hosting, nothing else. 2007 discussion was no consensus, 2010 discussion was filled with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and other invalid rationales. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of pages for all other SNL hosts is not what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is intended to mean -- as noted in the page itself, it's 'every Grey's Anatomy character having a page doesn't mean every Office character should', which is a slightly different issue. At any rate, I would agree with the arguments proposed in other AfDs that Spillman is a significant part of the SNL mythos and therefore notable. The strongest I would endorse is a rename to theoretically focus the article more on the episode than on Ms Spillman, but I think WP:BIO1E would categorize Spillman as a notable-for-one-event individual who rightfully received an article. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've massively reduced the article size. It would be strange to have a gap in the infobox here. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: WP:LOSE is not a valid argument, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, something that very few editors who bandy its title about seem to do, and found that it contains the words

In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. For example, there have been AfD discussions for articles on individual area codes listed in the List of North American Numbering Plan area codes. Currently all links to area codes in use are blue links, which serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference.

The category of items here is SNL hosts, and the vast majority are notable, so in the interest of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference we should cover them all as long as they are verifiable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Willie Earl Green. Sandstein 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Denise "Dee Dee" Walker case

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

Murder case which appears to be non-notable per WP:NCRIME. Little major coverage aside from the CNN article. DrStrauss talk 15:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Based on the article, which includes the reversal of aan erroneous conviction for murder, there should be extensive news coverage. It's not in the present article. Has the nom. done the required WP:BEFORE search? DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Willie Earl Green (whose exoneration seems to make this notable). There is some more coverage (including a whole book - with the exonerated man as an author (though it seems he wasn't the main author), written incidentally after the Wikipedia article): [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. If kept standalone - it needs to be renamed (e.g. Murder of Denise Walker).Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Willie Earl Green. My news archive searches on the murder found nothing. I'm not saying that there might not have bee a news story that I missed despite using a variety of keywords, only that there couldn't have been much. What did come up was a BLP1E-type flurry on Green's exoneration. The Los Angeles Times reported the story, Green always maintained he was innocent, kept his nose clean in prison, got an associate degree, worked in the prison library and married his penpal - all while in prison. He had been convicted based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness who was high on cocaine at the time of the murder; also police had falsely informed the witness that Green had previously been convicted of stealing from the murder victim. Judge therefore ruled that Green did not receive a fair trial. Sum total of coverage appears to have been two news stories in the Los Angeles Times, neither very long. Plus an AP story and a UPI story that got picked up by a number of newspapers. All in March 2008. It is a story that tugs at the heartstrings. But I am not persuaded that either the murder victim or the falsely assused man are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~- (Note: I'll accept if this is a merge but a redirect is not helpful for this unlikely search term) A tragic turn of events but this clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I just cannot find the significant and WP:DIVERSE coverage necessary to argue a level of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Willie Earl Green. As a stand-alone crime, it was not notable; as a condition it is. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above arguments, though possibly the resulting article should be named to reflect a focus on the case and not the people, per WP:1E? Artw (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. The murder is not exceptional but the semi-exoneration is. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like this is heading towards a merge. Normally, after such a merge, the title would be redirected to the merge target. In this case, it's such an unlikely search term, that seems pointless. However, moving this to Dee Dee Walker or Denise Walker, and then redirecting that title would make a lot more sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 13 September 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. Adding something to Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami seems like a reasonable thing to do, but there's no specific support for that in this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power Shortage in Japan 2012

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

This is a news article, not an encyclopedia article -- it covers the state of several related topics at a specific point in time. Most of the content in this article is covered in a more appropriate fashion elsewhere, including at 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Setsuden. Zetawoof (ζ) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a mess, but the reported widespread shortage was of significance. However its notability on its own, outside of the nuclear crisis umbrella, is questionable. Perhaps a mention of this is best fit at Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and per it being an implausible redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Obviously there was lack of electricity in Japan after they shut down all their nuclear power stations due to natural disaster/act of divine intervention, and this was a big deal, but really I can't see why it merits a separate article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:19, 12 September 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. Some sources were suggested by Osoyoos but were rejected as not being WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridesharing.com

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

News searches returned only a single passing mention in Forbes. Open web searches gave nothing of any apparent value. All current references are to the official website. Does not appear to have garnered sufficient coverage to establish notability. Incidentally, article is fairly poorly written and overall promotional in tone. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every website that exists does not get an automatic inclusion freebie — it has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for an article, and does not get to keep an article that's metareferenced exclusively to its own self-published content on itself. And as for the claim that an article is mandatory because one exists on FR, that's not a notability claim either — FR is just as user-generated as we are, so the fact that an article exists on FR doesn't necessarily mean it belongs there. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS still applies to content on other language Wikipedias, and not just internally to EN alone. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 100% promo article on a private company with no indication of notability or significance. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The page was cleaned up and several sources were added to provide a neutral point of view and an encyclopedic angle. Ridesharing.com is the most recent name and the majority of sources points towards the previous name The Carpooling Network or the French version Covoiturage.ca, previously Le réseau de covoiturage which has numerous secondary sources. DallasMultipass (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— DallasMultipass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This Canadian site is the English domain of fr:covoiturage.ca which have a good press coverage, interviews/topos. In English, mentioned in Forbes, and other medias. Also, this site is the database behind a lot of other important carpool networks like Bombardier, universities and Canadian cities. But it's true the tone might be a little promotional, but this can be fixed easily. Best regards. Osoyoos (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources added by DallasMultipass.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the sources listed by Osoyoos are not convincing for notability. Forbes, for example, is from forbes.com/sites which is a user submitted area and does not count towards notability: 4 Ways to Increase Your Income This Month. The other links provides news clips on the company's web site, and they are the usual suspects -- interviews and other WP:SPIP sources. So unchanged for me: still "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As K.e.coffman says, The Forbes ref is just a directory entry and therefore unusable as a RS for notability -- we need to examine all Forbes refs to see which ones are not to actual editorial content. The others are either notices, PR, or both. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:56, 11 September 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 Dance India Dance#Seasons overview. bd2412 T 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Yadav

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dance_India_Dance#Seasons_overview where the subject is mentioned; not independently notable. A plausible search term, but no sources for stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 6 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Phillips (U.S. actress)

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

Delete: insufficiently notable performer (or, loosely speaking, actress). Quis separabit? 03:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:RS. There are literally no reliable sources even proving this person exists. For all we know, this isn't even her real name. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Virtually no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. As Bearian points out, not even sure this is this person's real name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 12 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Lintilä

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, the competitions do not have articles and are not notable and this article has few links from mainspace. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability vis a vis, minimally, WP:GNG and athlete/sportsperson. Quis separabit? 03:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:57, 12 September 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. czar 02:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isadar

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

Article written by a possible paid editor (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TiffanyTinnell). No evidence of notability. The 46 references consist of blogs, primary sources, and unreliable sources like IMDB. Rather clearly designed to look notable at a first glance with no substance. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of fluff and promotion, no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a job at a major record label does not make you a notable musician. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:14, 5 September 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. czar 02:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ferrari (businessman)

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable businessman.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:10, 5 September 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.

[1] Flying Magazine. 1945. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

[2] Hitchens, Frank (2015). The Encyclopedia of Aerodynamics. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9781785383250. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

[3] Senson, Ben; Ritter, Jasen (2011). Aerospace Engineering: From the Ground Up. Cengage Learning. ISBN 1435447530. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]