Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 24

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 Procedural close: article was kept at a recent AfD, and no clear reason has been given for re-opening such a discussion.. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017 Melbourne car attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not relevant Have a Merry Christmas --ChocolateRabbit 22:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Will the nominator expand on the vague "not relevant" rationale, especially since there was a clear consensus to keep this article in the previous AfD debate two days ago? • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Grove, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This place does not truly exist, and the article does not include any verifiable references. Several name changes throughout the page history and several vaguely defined AKAs in the lede demonstrate the lack of a commonly recognized entity. The only thing known by that name is a shopping center near the supposed geographic center of the community. Google searches mostly return recent efforts to create a city with that name, but until that city is created this article gives the false impression that locals would recognize a preexisting community with the Vista Grove name. RDavi404 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The USGS says that Oak Grove (one of the aliases named in the article) is a U6 unincorporated community located approximately where the Vista Grove Plaza is.(1805272) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I usually don't vote to delete settlements, but while Oak Grove may be a real place, none of the other assertions in this article appear to hold up. The references in the article not only are self-published, but also appear to be crowd-sourced neighborhood histories. According to local media, "Vista Grove" is one of several proposals to incorporate the area. Reliable sources don't support Vista Grove as a real community. A search for sources didn't yield anything beyond the GNIS database entry. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a lack of reliable sources. The article literally has zero references. The article does have two dead links though as far as citations. Surely if there was a place called Vista Grove, Georgia one could find at least one reliable source about the place. But instead we just have two dead links. This is unacceptable. The burden of the proof is upon the claimant. Knox490 (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Knox490's input. WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:SECONDARY are all lacking. Perhaps a Merge or Redevelop are in order. Ventric (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

does not look to pass WP:WEBCRIT. Seeing primarily brief mentions in lists and primary sources. The 2008 AfD was closed as keep based on some pretty weak keep arguments (by 2017's standard at least, e.g. based on someone having posted it to Slashdot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the blog post on USA Today goes as follows: " Somewhere, somehow, you knew an obsessed My Name is Earl fan was keeping track of everything on Earl's list. Here's what has been seen so far though some numbers have multiple entries. Will we ever see a "puked in drum set" episode? Or what about an ep where Earl apologizes to Joy for telling her that "Bruce Willis was a ghost?" Thanks to Zack S. for the tip. " with "Here's what has been seen so far " being a link to TV IV. [1] So that one doesn't even print TV IV by name. Slashdot is a little better but that just makes one secondary source that has significant (?) coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:23, 17 December 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) 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NBAND, the only source I could really find was this [2], which reads pretty like a promotional piece, not suitable for establishing notability. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also found a PopMatters review ([3]), and they appear to included in this from Christianity Today, but not enough to suggest an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Doesn't meet WP:NBAND and the coverage doesn't seem like enough to meet WP:GNG. A short review and something that looks like an article but ends as a promotion for their current gig isn't enough.Sandals1 (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There's a modest amount of small time coverage in insignificant sources. Nothing reliable other than an example of trivial content from "local scene" write-up by a "special correspondent" in the Chicago Tribune. Everything else seems to point to being sourced from the band's own defunct website. Article written and updated by an editor who seems to have SP interest in a couple of pages for community college activities. It almost seems like this band/article was a college project that was abandoned after graduation. The independent label they released under appears to be non-notable. 19:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs)
• Delete Does not meet WP:PSTS or WP:NOR. This article could be part of a larger article, more localized musical movement; but it is, heretofore, not noteworthy. Ventric (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep argument fails wax. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua J. Ballard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Relatively new and minor actor. With only one significant role in a notable major film or TV production (playing the lead in an English dub of a French film), he fails WP:ENT. Also does not meet WP:SIGCOV as, aside from one write-up in a local community paper, GNews search only turns up trivial mentions of him in cast lists.

Initial PROD (by me) was removed by page creator without comment, though they did add the local newspaper write-up. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actor seems notable enough relative to some other actors on this encyclopedia. See Eli Marienthal as one example. I'm not going to try and find a million of these, but I think this makes my point well enough.--Mpen320 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability criteria for actors. If you think Marienthal is not notable, nominate him for deletion. Wikipedia is plagued with articles on unnotable people, many have survied 12+ years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 27 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:DICDEF. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NOTNEO. could be mentioned in Candian law articles. Or get a listing on Mush L3X1 (distænt write) 18:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as dictdef. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2018 (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 Clothing sizes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable.

• Merge and redirect to clothing sizes. bd2412 T 20:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to clothing sizes as per User:BD2412. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia. Normally, I'll argue for a redirect per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD, but this doesn't even seem worth that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2018 (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) 16:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Entrepreneur with very little content to expand the article. Sources are mostly fluff and promotional, nothing to back up notability. FiendYT ★ 19:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Cannot even verify if the Bloomberg reporter is the same person. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 27 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress, known for one role and her dismissal. Quis separabit? 21:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep So far as I read WP:NFP and WP:NFSOURCES, this meets the threshold for both guidelines. External link is confirmed. I may stand corrected if a one-off, single reference does not carry. But from what I see here, this meets the criteria for WP:BLP. Ventric (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:BLP and per nom. Mention in IMDB does not indicate notability, anyone can pay to be included. Ifnord (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the one source here is IMDb, which is explicitly stated to not be a reliable source. Even if it fit the definition of reliable source, IMDb's intended purpose is to be an indiscriminate collection of information on anyone who has ever acted, complete with fluff nonsense biographies at times. Wikipedia does not grant notability to everyone who has acted in film and TV, or even the slightly more limited group, those who have acted in such mediums and been credited for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nine years in Brookside makes her notable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found another reference to Ms. Drury being a 'resident celebrity' in her town of Stratford-Herald Bidford-on-Avon, Alcester, UK on 11 November 2016. A more thorough WP:VERIFY search simply does not supply enough WP:SECONDARY or WP:OR to lend credence to clearing the WP:ENT threshold. I added another BBC reference in the article; however, I had originally placed too much credibility or weight on the existence of the sources, instead of their quality for this article. Ventric (talk) 21:00, 31 December 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) 16:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable former baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete collegiate baseball is much less notable than collegiate football or men's basketball, and even in those sports an award like his would not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• question Is being a second team All-American enough to show notability? I don't think so, based on my reading of WP:NSPORT, but I could be wrong. Is there a consensus about this? If that isn't enough, there's nothing else that shows notability and the coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandals1: According to a discussion almost 6 years old, college baseball All-Americans are not covered by NSPORT. They need to have sufficient coverage to meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASE. Sandals1 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 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 Song Il-gook#Children. Per User:Explicit; there was a suggestion that many sources were available, but as noted, this notablity (not surprisingly for a five year old, I suggest) is unlikely to be anything but WP:INHERITED. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Song Min-guk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article seems to be written in the author's point of view (similar to a fan site) rather than neutral point of view. The article lacks notability and contains only one reference. Abishe (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm finding very substantial coverage of this celebrity in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Song Il-gook#Children. Song Min-guk, and the triplets in general, are not independently notable from: 1) their father; 2) The Return of Superman. The subject lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to establish an article. ℯxplicit 04:12, 29 December 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. There appears sufficient discussion of the sourcing to show it doesn’t meet our standards. tabloid sources don’t cut it for a BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Poorly-sourced self-promotion. References are to tabloid gossip sites, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. Has been listed before, over 6 years ago however I do not believe that the reason the article was kept then applies now. Subject has clearly not achieved a level of notability to warrant her own article.

No evidence that she meets wp:musicbio: article is entirely self-promotion; hasn't charted; hasn't been certified gold or higher; hasn't had a major tour; hasn't released 2 or more albums on a major record label; isn't representative of a style; hasn't won or been nominated for a major award; hasn't placed highly in a music competition; hasn't performed music for a notable media release; hasn't been placed in rotation; and hasn't been featured on a substantial broadcast segment on national media. Dcfc1988 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contrary to the claims in 2011 she does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no reliable sources. Even the Daily Star calls the subject "attention hungry". This is a self written biography. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of extensive news articles of this artist who has appeared at the Grammy Awards. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't won a Grammy, been nominated for a Grammy or even performed at the Grammys. She just turned up and was photographed. That isn't sufficient to meet wp:musicbio or wp:gng. Dcfc1988 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep she has had lots of coverage, even if she isn't much of a musician she is a celebrity. Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of references in her article. But look at them - they're to tabloid gossip pages on The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Star, they're links to Instagram and Twitter posts and they're links to Google searches! They aren't notable or reliable. Dcfc1988 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 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. After some thought, decided the article could be CSD G1'd. v/r - TP 21:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be a joke page. Zerbey (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Agreed. No results for any of the Seealso links either. Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 24 December 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) 16:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article created by a blocked sock of a paid editor. Previously G11-ed, but declined. While I am nominating the article for deletion as a WP:NOTADVERTISING violation, the subject's notability seems borderline at best. Despite Microsoft's backing the startup hasn't generated coverage that would clearly meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam created by a professional spammer for an unnotable company. Declining the G11 nomination was silly. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator has now been indef blocked as well as other connected accounts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam, fails WP:SPIP, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 27 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, however, the underlying reasons for the last deletion still apply. Yulianto has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dislike second nominations when a previous AfD has decided to keep; but equally, an article should not be re-created after a delete verdict without solid evidence that the situation has changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally not notable. On the other hand, considering that inclusion criteria have changed over time, second nominations of articles are fully justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please don't delete this article, he is Semarang's hero, he just bring a Indonesian soccer team, PSIS Semarang into the high level, He just getting new contract, come on I think PSIS Semarang can be called professional soccer team Luthfi Waskitojati (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON but if he keeps playing for PSIS Semarang, they have been promoted into Liga 1 which is Indonesia professional league and the team will be playing in the 2018 season which kicks off Feb 2018. So while he fails WP:NFOOTBALL now, he may not in a few months. NZFC^(talk) 04:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We do not know whether he will transfer or not. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:28, 30 December 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article reads like a G11 material, but it was CSDed and PRODded before, so I am sending it here. Also, the subject appears to fail WP:NCORP. Rentier (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete far from WP:NCORP. Created by a promotional editor and the article is only edited for link spam. Capitals00 (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with speedy delete -- just promo spam. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 26 December 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) 16:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting WP:BASIC and perhaps WP:TOOSOON. She has a had a book of poetry published by a major academic press this year but I am not finding reviews as yet, though I could be willing to change my !vote if substantive and independent reviews are found. I also feel the need to wish this author well as she has the grace to thank "every past, present and future editor of Wikipedia ... for adding to what we know and how we understand our knowing." [4] 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Academic whose 1st book was just published is TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete her position at UofM seems to have been as a graduate student with a teaching job, not at all close to making her notable as an academic. There is just not enough reviews of her poetry to make her notable as a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 27 December 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) 16:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Page created for advertisement of product. Not a notable company. Gotitbro (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possible G11, clearly an advertisement, based mainly on press releases. Even The Telegraph article reads as an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom and DGG above. No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 30 December 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 22:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable Playback singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Cant seem to find any press coverage on him. Finally he has not composed or done any notable work. FITINDIA 12:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No-notable musician fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•Article from Newspaper for Vivek Verma is hereWorldandlove (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•Article Vipin Reshammiya meets the criteria to get verified on Wikipedia despite of having just 1 reference Then why cant subject Vivek Verma get verified on Wikipedia ?? Notability include sources from books, public platform and known websites as we’ll , and sources which are provided for article Vivek Verma shows the notability and authenticity clearly , so according to me this article should not be deleted !! Worldandlove (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Worldandlove (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of an article in WP is not a justification on why an individual should have a page. If you see issues with another page which is non-notable you are free to create an AfD on that and it can be reviewed by the community. Hagennos (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable musician. Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO Hagennos (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article requires rewriting with national news. @Worldandlove can keep after rewriting if qualifies WP:BIO.Genome$100 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note- — Worldandlove (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vivek.k.Verma (talk • contribs). . FITINDIA 15:12, 27 December 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 22:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Addams Family (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod contested without addressing concern Fails WP:NFILM. Too soon. BOVINEBOY2008 12:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say that the film is currently being animated by Cinesite Studios; that statement is supported by reliable sources. I thought that would show that the article is notable. Superchunk22 (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's currently being animated it explicitly fails WP:NFF. PriceDL (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not far enough along to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFF. Film is clearly still in the pre-production process. Sro23 (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with it being in pre production process, therefore meeting WP:NFF. It is also is a cleary example of what wikipedia is not.—FormalDude^(talk) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retool I think that this article should be retooled into a draft page. Since it's too early in production, it should just be retooled into a draft page as opposed to just deleting it altogether. Superchunk22 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright to retool this article into a draft instead of just deleting it altogether? Superchunk22 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 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 22:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Without any references, this is a "just-so" story and WP:OR and non-notable. See also: Early world map Mahabharata. Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whilst it may well be a real claim, it looks all a bit OR to me. The few sources I have found fail RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination. ─ 1997kB 05:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 06:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Slatersteven. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag heavily as needing proper sourcing. If this is genuine it is very significant, predating early world maps from Chinese sources and anything European. Like everyone else I am very suspicious that this is pure invention, but I do not know. I am suspicious that this is the invention of Hindu nationalists. Reconsider in six months -- We need a scholar on Hindu literature to advise here. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Topic is interesting but needs more sources. Genome$100 (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 December 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 22:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early world map Mahabharata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Without any references, this is a "just-so" story and WP:OR and non-notable. See also: First world map Mahabharata. Kleuske (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination. ─ 1997kB 05:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 06:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Slatersteven at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First world map Mahabharata. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at First world map Mahabharata, which is about the same thing: we certainly do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 31 December 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. Looking over the discussion, none of the delete-!voters really mentioned any policy- or guideline-based argument why this was to be deleted rather than kept, merged or redirected per WP:ATD. Since the majority agrees that this subject is notable enough to either have a standalone article or be mentioned in another article, this AFD can be closed. On the latter, the consensus seems to be narrowly in favor of keeping it as a stand-alone article but a merge discussion can always take place on the talk page. SoWhy 17:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Me Flows What You Call Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unpublished novella. The speculation about it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's notability and fame is because of its delayed publishing, and not otherwise. Passes WP:GNG and (if one were to consider the concept pragmatically) WP:NBOOK.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Lourdes 08:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What's up with the deletionists? Why would this even be considered for deletion? Its notability is deliniated in the article itself, with citations. These rabid deletionists are nothing more than vandals. Keep. Gerntrash (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DGG said: "The speculation about it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia." There is no speculation. Read the article and the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerntrash (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh...what? Mind your language please. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I looked through Lourdes's sources, and while I thought a redirect to Future Library project was appropriate, I can see the case for keep. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Future Library project. While I find the deletion nomination baffling, there really isn't likely to be much more to write about this novella for quite a long time, and it can be covered adequately in the article on the project. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: --- "completed in 2016 and not to be published until 2114" says it all. Quis separabit? 17:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—In fact, that doesn't "say it all." Read the article. Gerntrash (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Future Library project, as if that page is notable it would be the obvious merge target, and this article is liable to merely remain speculation for the foreseeable future._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— It is not speculation. The book exists. Read the article and cited references. Gerntrash (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ITEXISTS, mere existence does not equal notability or suitableness for an article. Due to the lack of any information about what is in it, it is unsuitable for a separate article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed it was speculation. I answered that claim. Now you're moving the goalposts. Again: read the article and the cited references. There is no reason to delete this article other than obstinence. Gerntrash (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The mess surrounding it looks notable. Schracq (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to David Mitchell (author), Userfy sources on request Passing GNG doesn't necessarily satisfy WP:N, including that Wikipedia's notability requires attention to a topic over a period of time.  Article is written stating the future in Wikipedia's voice and is rife with speculation.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unscintillating. The sources I've listed range from May 2016 to December 2016. I didn't understand your statement that "passing GNG doesn't necessarily satisfy WP:N". Thanks, Lourdes 07:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally covered in the lede and nutshell of WP:N.  It includes: WP:SUSTAINED (related to the nutshell), WP:NOT (lede), and all of the SNGs (lede), as well as the fact that WP:N can be decided directly from its definition in the lede and explanation in the nutshell.  Notability essays apply here.

I looked a bit more, and in WP:NBOOK I found WP:BKCRYSTAL, which leads to WP:NOT's WP:CRYSTAL:

5 Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

Do you agree that "product announcement", advance price £600, fits here?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly passes GNG. The issue with #5 of NOT really addresses things that are self-published. Once reliable sources are established and the announcement gains greater scrutiny, the situation changes. South Nashua (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into Future Library project. Use what is salvable (if any) for that article. Rationale: As a standalone I disagree that there is justification for this article. Reasons were mentioned by others above and for me these trump the WP:GNG. It may still be a legitimate spinout of Future Library project given sufficient importance and substance of that article. It is unclear to me at this stage that Future Library project is terribly important and irrelevant whether this is the case (hence will not check) since Future Library is short and underdeveloped. Hence we should add a line or more and some sources from From Me Flows What You Call Time into Future Library project and redirect. gidonb (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable work by an important literary author. Pattillog (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Criticism Pattillog (talk) 17:18, 30 December 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) 16:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article contains refs that are mostly or all dead links. The publication evidently never been seen at newsstands and the last entries on its webpage are dated 2010, the year of its purported founding. The publication perhaps never existed or folded after a short time. A web search provides no relevant information. Seligne (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Publication apparently ceased after two years[15], and in that period doesn't appear to have established notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Defunct non notable paper. No secondary sources coverage to pass WP:GNG, article full of name checking with The Economist and other notable papers. – Ammarpad | Talk 17:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As of yet non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage about the article subject is limited to press release and product announcements. Some coverage exists that concerns the concept behind Grow Labs, but nothing that satisfies depth of coverage criteria. Note that Grow Labs raised its seed funding in May 2017, so WP:TOOSOON also applies. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would propose moving it to draft. Since at present, the company is yet notable with poor coverage and content. In the near future, it might expand further. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At this point, it is complete spam and fails WP:SPIP. No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom EvilxFish (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice to the fact that it could easily become notable after another round or two of seedfunding, amongst other things. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The given references do not rise above routine start-up coverage. I am not finding anything to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this point. AllyD (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG -- HindWiki^Connect 10:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:21, 24 December 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 Revolutionary Vol. 1. And locking Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Repeatedly redirected and made again, last agreement was to redirect it to keep the link and then it was restored. Short answer is this song fails WP:NSONG. It was never released as a single, let alone charted. It has not won a major award. It has not been recorded and released by other artists. It has been mentioned in reviews of the album or interviews with the artist, but that does not make it notable in its own right. It has been listed in online filler lists of violent or frightening songs, but that does not transfer notability. There is a phenomenal threshold of notability for a song that was never released as a single. The closest I can think of would be Eminem's "Kill You" (which does not have an article) which was condemned in Congress for its lyrics, led to calls to arrest him on arrival in Canada and was sued for plagiarism. What does "Dance with the Devil" have that puts it above any other album track by thousands of other artists, most of which have much more coverage but still don't meet the threshold? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 21:36, 9 December 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 December 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Smartse found book sources mentioning the song. Czar commented that the song was mentioned briefly in passing in the sources and it was not enough to justify splitting a page off from the album. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But are you advocating for deleting the article? Otherwise the consensus to redirect should be made on the talk page of the song or album (alternative to deletion) czar 00:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is continuously made into an article again, and just redirecting it could turn into a one-on-one edit war unless there is a community agreement. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the nominator and the logic of the previous attempts at redirection. This time with the proviso that either the redirect is create-protected or that continued restoration is considered disruptive and thence blockable. On edit: In fact, I don't know why we are even here, or why what I suggest is not already occuring  :) per the previous deletion discussion, the closing admin said Consensus is to redirect to Revolutionary Vol. 1, but that's already done, so I don't think there's anything more to do here. I'm not going to protect the page; that can always be done later if it turns out to be necessary. An excellent close, which would do well to be re-applied here more vigourously. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are many websites that offer these types of coupons, I don't see how this is any more important than those. There's mere passing mentions in the sources provided. MT Train^Discuss 06:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 30 December 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. Sandstein 22:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A somewhat promotional article on a single restaurant, with some news coverage for its novelty, but that's a single event of no permanent interest. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has been covered very substantially in reliable independent sources. That is the basis for notability. Whether being a halal Burger King ripoff is important or significant is neither here nor there. The restaurant fills a niche that has been made notable by the coverage it's received. A culturally signifanct restaurant to one person may be a novelty to another. Novelties can be notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Comfortably passes WP:AUD and WP:GNG with significant coverage in The New York Times, BBC News, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, etc. Additional sources are also available. Also, if one reads the news articles, it is not a novelty to muslim consumers. Regarding the notion of "permanent interest", whatever that means, see WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I di another search, and it appears that there was never more than a single restaurant, and that it has closed by 2011 [16]. Our article has no information later than 2005. It also appears from that site that there are numerous halal restaurant in Paris [17]. Since the main hits on Google for this restaurant are WP and its mirrors, we either need to delete or update it. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteand the last thing we need is an excuse to spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sock !vote struck. Lepricavark (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cited also in academic sources as an example of halal significance in the Western food market, as such it is of lasting importance: [18],[19].--cyclopia^speak! 21:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a defunct minor chain (if at all). The coverage offered above, such as in the conference paper, is trivial and incidental. It's consists entirely of:

• "At least one enterprising Muslim hoped to capture the niche market he felt was not being well served. In 2005, Hakim Badaoui began Beurger King Muslim in France and served an Allied Academies International Conference page entirely halal menu. The restaurant appealed to young Muslims who found eating at other fastfood chains difficult because of their faith. One young Muslim woman interviewed about her experiences stated, “I used to go to McDonald’s once a week, but all I could eat was the Filet-OFish sandwich. Now, I come here.” Unlike some brands such as Mecca Cola, which have developed in the Muslim community to protest American foreign policy and global influence, Beurger King Muslim was established to capture an underserved market. The trend towards an apolitical niche market appears to be growing. "

This does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not rise to the level of notability to meet WP:Corp. Passing trivia as to a single restaurant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NA1000. Passes GNG for having been the subject of multiple instances of substantial published sources of presumed reliability. The fact that it was a single restaurant or that it is no longer in business is irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Went out of business means no longer WP:NCORP and has been nominated before. Whomever keeps ressurrecting has something to gain by its existence.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. NCORP applies to out of business corporations too Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated before, but it was not deleted. Therefore, there is nobody who keeps resurrecting this as it has had no need of being resurrected. Lepricavark (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NA1K. The fact that it is out of business is irrelevant, as is the fact that this was a single restaurant instead of a chain. Lepricavark (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because this is a "Delete on promotion" alone vote because that's how promotional this article is. A business and its dealings, no big deal. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck this !vote because you already !voted earlier in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now additionally struck the comment as HYYY has been blocked for disruption and socking. Lepricavark (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Their popularity (and attendant press coverage) may have waned over time, but their notability is still there because notability is not temporary WP:NOTTEMP. Ammarpad (talk) 19:17, 28 December 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) 16:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Catholic priest of below bishop rank. WP:MILL biography, no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Cited coverage is all dead links. Sandstein 10:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing of significant kind to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total failure of notability guidelines for academics. No suggestion that his role as a priest is notable enough to show notability either. Clearly priests below the rank of bishop in the Catholic Church can be notable, but this does not make it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- NN asfar as this bio goes. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article provides no evidence of notability either as an academic or as a cleric. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 29 December 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) 16:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Catholic priest of below bishop rank. Has held various church posts but no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Cited coverage is all dead links. Sandstein 09:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing of significant kind to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While some of his actions make me want to believe he had major impact on his community, and I find his ministry to prisoners and other similar efforts laudable, we lack the indepdent, relialbe sources about him to actually show notability. I will be the first to say self-serving and corrupt politicians too easily gain coverage and good people like Mascarenhas get too little. However the job of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs, or set up a more just society, but to reflect reliable source scholarship. So until such scholars create adequate coverage of Mascarenhas we lack the needed sources to verify an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- He has had a long and perhaps useful career, but still seems NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I believe this individual fails WP:GNG. As I understand the position, he is not the Minister of Justice in Ukraine, who is currently Pavlo Petrenko, but the chief administrator in the justice department. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:SOLDIER and seems to fail WP:GNG.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although the soldier criteria is not the relevant one. If he was notable, it would be as a government administrator. However his position is too low to be notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are 4 people who have served as minister of justice of Ukraine (after it became an indepdent nation), who we lack articles on. It would seem that creating articles on them, not ones on minor administrators within the ministry, would be the most useful way to better our coverage of Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that the listing as a military-related deletion discussion is needed. All that the article says is that he served in the military between the ages of 18 and 20, as did most men in the Soviet Union. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 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 22:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bangladesh Football Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

1. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BALL.
2. The article has no source.
3. 2017 Bangladesh Football Premier League is ongoing. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (not sure why you didn't let the prod run down). Nzd (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I think PROD is improper for this article and AFD is better. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - according to Soccerway, the current season runs over the 2017 and 2018 calendar years. There is therefore no such thing as a '2017' season or a '2018 season'??? GiantSnowman 10:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is about an event yet to happen. But there is plenty of similar articles such as List of Bollywood films of 2018 or Padmavati (film), isn't? The premier league is important and I think midway through 2018, the article will be worthy of reading. So, left it to grow. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  These articles is quite different to each other. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States visa embargo against Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:OR or even WP:HOAX and clearly factually incorrect.There is no official Visa Embargo against Iranian citizens.Now between 2002 to 2009 Iranians were denied visa in some instances as per the article but there is no official embargo.It is tough for citizens from some countries to get visa to travel to others countries .For example afghanistan and somalia only 28 countries get visa on entry but that is not a embargo.Note Executive Order 13769 is different. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The premise of the article is unreferenced and dubious. The article exists as a list of incidents where Iranians were denied visas, which is not a worthy article topic. Iran–United States relations and United States sanctions against Iran are sufficient for anything worth saving. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nom per WP:ARTIST. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need to state a reason for deletion...104.163.153.162 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nom per WP:FILMMAKER. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Most likely PAID-PROMO-SPAM.Nothing notable.Semi-G11able mess with typical news about fundings etc. Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obvious UPE. I blocked the creator for terms of use violations because of this article. It is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTSPAM, also no independant enough sources are there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Article is promotional and fails WP:SPIP. Also fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is nothing independent about him but about his company. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The career section is written like a resume, delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Moreover, the lack of inclined citation challenges credible claim of significance. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete couldn't find coverage in independent, reliable sources.  sami  ^talk 08:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article is without reliable sources. Genome$100 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan S. Syed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though mentioned in some reliable sources like BBC, Dawn etc but nothing written in the article could be verified.  sami  ^talk 08:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a lack of the significant, indepth coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 22:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject is lacking significant coverage as all mentioned add little to his notability. Some are tabloid so not reliable. Then, if his site is notable then we should have article on his site. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]