Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 3 January	5 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W&G Sissons

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Not to be confused with the silversmith of the same name. Kleuske (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think this company is the successor of the silversmith - see [1]. My first impression is that there is an article to be had out of this company. It's now part of Franke (company). Mcewan (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the same company, there's an article in there, sure, but it would have to focus on the notable (i.e. silversmith) part. However, the article does not give an indication of that. Kleuske (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. The only indication this article gives is that the author has mistaken Wikipedia for a business listing site. Fails WP:ORG. WP:NOTDIR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:06, 4 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingo Money

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

This seems not to meet notability guidelines as outlined in WP:NCORP. The coverage so far is about announcements of a company going about its day to day activities which falls short of what an encyclopedia should have. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, all appear to be press releases. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 10 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 speedy delete. CSD G12 Clear copy vio of [2]. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secure-K

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

Linux distro on a USB drive by a small startup. Doesn't meet GNG or NSOFT Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secure-K OS:

features coverage by the national public broadcasting company of Italy (cyber security);
is the winner of the most innovative Startups' product in Italy (Digital 360 Awards);
counts reviews of some of the most read italian IT blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoburatto (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secure-K OS has been released as freely-downloadable and submitted to Distrowatch only recently. Distrowatch is keeping Secure-K OS in its "staging" directory as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoburatto (talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 09:36, 12 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 redirect to West Dulwich#Schools. The usual compromise in a divided delete/merge situation. Mergers from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 22:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosendale Primary School

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

Primary school that received some news coverage about the opening of its library, but which otherwise does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into West Dulwich#Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES primary schools generally don't have stand alone articles and this should be preferable to complete deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school is already named in the West Dulwich article and in List of schools in the London Borough of Lambeth and the two pieces of information about the library are not worth keeping. Tacyarg (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into West Dulwich#Schools as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - Nn primary schools are always merged or redirected to their "location" articles. –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems appropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the vast majority of primary schools this one is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 14 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 no consensus. There is no consensus that the sources are appropriate for notability. The article will be moved to Polisport per the suggestion by Comte0. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polisport Group

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

This Portuguese company manufactures plastic parts for vehicles and I believe it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Formerly PRODded eight months ago, but the creator, a one-purpose CoI editor, removed the PROD notice without taking any action. This annoyed me when I came across the article while "new" page patrolling, because I don't like to see companies getting away with using Wikipedia for free advertising space. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source was deleted from the article : [3] from the Jornal de Negócios, which look like WP:RS to me. Comte0 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, all the sources appear to be excluded by WP:NCORP - interviews, based on press release, routine stuff/announcements etc etc. Nothing I can find either on searching gbooks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to polisport Jornal de Negócios qualified it as one of the enterprises leader of the two-wheels sector among with the source above. Expresso has an articlewhich state they export to 65 countries. Público tells it's the world leader on bicycle chairs for children [4]. That should be enough. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill manufacturer, fails GNG, references fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as per the reliable sources identified by Comteo, that satisfy WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Atlantic306, Comte0, Just FYI, most references pass GNG but only a small proportion of those pass the criteria for establishing notabilty. For example, the NYT might publish an interview with the CEO, verbatim. Yeah, source passes GNG! But that source fails (at least one) criteria for establishing notability WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. There are different standards applied to sources that establish notability from sources that you can use to use as citation for facts and information within an article. Please list here which of the sources you have identified above meets the criteria for establishing notability. If there are two sources, I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view is WP:N specifically WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are precisely for determining notability based on the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In the case of companies WP:CORPDEPTH combines with GNG to effectively raise the GNG notability bar inorder to deter promotion and spam which is most common in companies pages. Using sources in articles is covered by WP:V. Regarding these references I will respond tomorrow or the next day, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also be aware of ORGIND as articles that rely on company-produced information and data also fail to meet the criteria. A rule of thumb is to examine the source to see if there is sufficient intellectually independent opinion. A red flag are articles that, while still reporting accurately, rely on the company-producted information and you will often notice this in articles that contain clauses such as "According to the company" or "Jeff, the CEO, says their product is the cheapest", etc, or a claim will be made such as "this company produces the most widgets for under-12s" but no source is included. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck keep vote as was unable to google translate the longer references beyond the read further button. The other references did not appear to be significant content and/ or did not seem independent Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I found don't say where what they say come from. I've left a note on the portuguese wikipedia Village pump for further advice. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:13, 18 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Millennia

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

Non-notable album of non-notable musucian Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion. Artist does not have WP page. Mattg82 (talk) 18:58, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Carnival

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

Non-notable video game with bad sourcing. I tried to find some sources (in both English and Russian) and came across this and this, but I'm not sure of their reliability (and it wouldn't be enough to indicate notability anyway). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found these two sources. I would say that does get close towards notoriety. I do have another worry, and that's WP:COI, due to the creator only having one edit. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: The user has only made edits relating to this game on Commons. Also, I just checked WP:VG/RS and the MMOS.com source is unreliable, so that takes one out of the picture. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte:, so most likely COI? Could just be a big fan, but irregardless. the MMOs.com article does indeed look promotional, what about the MMOCulture.com? That looks like a decent reference to me. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bet on it, to be honest. It looks very WP:SPS-y. I've only seen one author ("cinderboy"/Robert Chen) and I can't see any "about us" pages or any background information on the site, besides that it's been up since 2009 (© 2009 - 2017 MMO Culture). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any significant coverage in independent sources to support an article (though I can't read Russian, so I may have missed something). Ajpolino (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that the Russian Wikipedia has a substantial article with more references. Do they have a similar notability guideline as here? Ifnord (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifnord: The article on that Wikipedia is also up for deletion. Perhaps it's because of a language barrier, but none of the sources are mentioned on WP:VG/RS, so I wouldn't bet on them being reliable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially given the Russian AfD as noted above. Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 26 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 redirect to Battle of Haldighati. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Punja

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

Unnotable article of a chieftain. He was neither of royalty nor nobility. Either this article should be deleted or redirected to the Battle of Haldighati. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep nominator has not done WP:BEFORE it seems. Someone has tagged the article with "unreliable source", but as far as I can see, this has not been explained on the talk page, where editors could help improve the article. Please also consider WP:ATD. Egaoblai (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who tagged it with the unreliable sources tag. Rana 2004 is not a reliable source as publications from Diamond Pocket books are not considered reliable historical books, and Sarbeshwar Sahoo is not a historian and the book is not historically reliable. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was this brought up to the people who created the article? Is there a previous discussion about why these sources aren't reliable? Egaoblai (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that the article can be sourced, e.g.: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].... However, most of these basically say he was a Bhil (Bhils) chief who commanded a body of men in the rear during the 1576 battle. However, there also seems to be a modern day state award named for him (e.g. - some bestowals: [14] [15] [16] - which this seems to be a description of Rana Punja Award.Icewhiz (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz I know the article is mentioned in reliable sources, but as you mentioned all of them only mention his part in the Battle of Haldighati and nothing about his background, or that he participated in any other battles. mewariindia.com is not a reliable source as a) It is not a historically reliable website and b) It is not an official government site. I could not find any official goverment site of Mewar but I did found the official government site of Rajasthan, the province in which mewar is. See rajasthan.gov.in. I would recommend its redirection to the Battle of Haldighati. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the claim this is backed up by Diamond books. It does seem that he is highlighted in modern times as a Dalit of note (see - Class action, Times of India His organisation, Dalit Adivasi Evam Ghumantu Adhikar Abhiyan (Dagar), founded in 2006, chronicles and highlights Dalit contributions to history: Bhilu Rana Punja's role in rescuing Rana Pratap in the 1576 battle of Haldighati and Keerat Bari's part in saving Prince Udai Singh's life. For him, empowerment is also about locating your place in society.) and there is a modern day award - coverage of award bestowal by Udaipur Times. I'm assuming Udaipur Times is reliable enough for stating that an award has been bestowed. Without this modern use of this well documented footnote - I probably would've been neutral / weak delete. But what we have is a very well documented footnote/mention + modern use of this footnote in a different context.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced, but wherever Rana Punja is mentioned, he is only mentioned with the Battle of Haldighati, as we cannot find any other reliable sources which mention something else about him, I think it should be redirected. All the sources I've found uptill now only say that he was a commander of 400 bhil archers in the rear in the Battle of Haldighati and saved Maharana Pratap's life in that battle and awards have been commemorated in his name. With only this much content about him, I don't think that the notability of this induvidual article is established. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a couple sources, I'm not sure if they've been brought up already, but an article about a birthday celebration gives a small amount of detail on his life, including stating he held the title "king" of Bhomat, although I think perhaps the article is overselling a chieftancy.(Goswami, Vajrasar. Birth Anniversary of Rana Punja celebrated at Moti Magri Smarak, Udaiput Times, October 5, 2012) Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-- to Battle of Haldighati.Per later arguments of nom.No independent notability, otherwisee.Winged Blades^Godric 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still in favour of redirection to Battle of Haldighati. The information you gave comes from a site and it can give inaccurate or honorary traditional information. All reliable sources only list him as a Bheel Chieftain of Merpur who fought in a battle. As for Rana 2004 by Bhawan Singh Rana, the book is not a reliable source as discussed many times before in talk pages as well. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If what Icewhiz says is true (and it appears to be), article subject meets WP:SOLDIER nos. 4 and 5 (because of information given in Battle_of_Haldighati#Army_strength, sourced to "Sarkar 1960, p. 77") and probably 3 (since he seems to have held a high leadership position in the military forces of his tribe). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment notability does not matter as much as the content we can take out from the reliable sources. Seeing the minimal amount of content that does not tell us anything about him except his chieftainship and participation in the battle, I agree with redirection to Battle of Haldighati or as an alternative, this article can be merged into either Bhil people or the Battle of Haldighati. --Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Haldighati for lack of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Should such sources present themselves (of which I'm not convinced) the article could be restored. The sources presented at this AfD are insufficient / passing mentions, so a redirect to the battle is appropriate, as typically done in WP:BIO1E situations. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 26 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. However given the heavy level of participation in this discussion, I would suggest a brief respite before renominating Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Stewart

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

This article has had numerous problems since its inception. WP:ADVOCACY, original article written by topic. Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Mayor of a city less than 100,000 population. Of course there will be lots of press coverage, but many of the references are sourced to the subject. Article appears to me to be an extension of subject's campaign. Rhadow (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Sources include the New York Times, NewsMax, and other publications from outside of New Britain. Whatever problems there are with the content itself, the subject is very clearly notable per our guidelines.--TM 12:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TM, I read the NewsMax article, and it mostly quotes her (she is the only person quoted unless you count the New Britain Herald which is the local paper). WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I haven't read the New York Times article or the "Bondbuyer" one, but I really can't say that NewsMax in this instance was "independent".–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coveerage is all routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is routine about a profile in the New York Times. Where are the profiles of the other 500 metropolitan mayors that served during this period? --RAN (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per recent discussion at DRV, mayors can be (rebuttably) presumed notable somewhere above the 50000 range, which applies here for a city of 73,000. For mayors ATD prevails over DEL8, since mayors always have a redirect/merge target. But the nomination here has cited WP:ADVOCACY. Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- at 72,00 people, I see a slightly better claim to notability than some of the mayors I've nominated for deletion. However, I can't see anything here that would make here pass WP:POLITICIAN. All mayors (even of the smallest towns) get at least some newspaper coverage, but it is routine and should not be used to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references meet the GNG, WP:routine says "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items ... tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions [and] should be considered routine." I am not seeing that. The GNG has no such magic population number for determining notability. --RAN (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited references satisfy WP:BASIC with substantial independent coverage from local, regional, statewide and nationally recognized sources. See, e.g. New Britain City Journal, New York Times/Region, Connecticut Magazine and Newsmax. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a ce to improve tone. Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mayor of New Britain, Connecticut NPOV tone has been improved, and the presumption of notability has been confirmed. Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, while I appreciate your work as an editor and you have been made clear improvements with the article's tone, I would not say that NPOV problem is no longer a problem. Thank you for your edits regardless, however. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, when Florida based Newsmax says, "Considerable state and national press attention is focused on Stewart, whose upset win at age 26 over Democratic Mayor Tim O’Brien in 2013 made her an overnight Republican superstar in the Nutmeg State.", this is pretty strong evidence of GNG. On the other hand, User:MJL has opened me to the view that this is a case in which the encyclopedia is currently only interested in the topic from the viewpoint of the city, which makes this a case in which a GNG pass is a WP:N failure. The editing task is easier said than done, though, so a "Merge" result from this AfD should not mean that editors can't change their mind. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I one hundred percent agree with you. I really appreciate your openness through this process, Unscintillating. I will be voting to merge as well, (and future editors can have the option open for them, as always). I look forward to other editors reviewing and making their own comments. Some content has been added I honestly really did not want to see get deleted (and could not have thought when I originally nominated this article). I really am happy how this has went, no matter what. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many editors seem to have argued the topic meets WP:GNG. I would disagree. GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

The problem with this is that the New York Times and Newsmax can both contribute to significant coverage, a fact that this article happily points out, yet this only creates the presumption of notability. I would argue because WP:NRV (Notability requires verifiable evidence). This is where I point to WP:SPIP. I mentioned previously that Newsmax in its publishing was not independent of the source. That is quite certain as the Mayor was the only quoted source. You may also be referred to Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.

Now, on to another problem, does this article meet WP:SUSTAINED? Kinda? Sorta? Not really? The New York Times article has remained the only one of its class to cover the topic. This is not saying much, however. As mentioned before, the article was posted in NYT/Region. Further to add, it was written by Kristin Hussey, a freelance reporter for various publications that almost exclusively covers Connecticut. Further, this may not meet WP:BASIC as has been suggested. BASIC requires that "[the topic] received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources..." With only one instance of sorta-national, sorta-regional, coverage, it can be hard to call it sustained for someone that may well just remain a local mayor.

Maybe if you disagree with me about the Newsmax thing, then I could see your point. But, to do that, you have to look past we call NewsMax an influential conservative publication and in this instance only quotes the topic in the article (and say it is independent). You also would have to say that this article should be presumed notable for coverage that does not go beyond the state. You would have to be able to verify that notability, which I have not seen that done.

I hope this clears some things up. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. However, there is a group of people here who keep trying to argue that if the New York Times covers something then it must be notable. When I point out that the NYT has regional/local coverage and a particular article was included in that section, I get the response that I am dismissing the NYT as a local source and it is in fact an "international newspaper". Then the next argument they throw at you is, well all reliable sources count as significant coverage and categorize them as local anyways. The point is that every mayor everywhere gets some type of local press coverage. In some cases it just so happens that the NYT is that local newspaper. If we are to accept that all subjects of NYT articles are notable, it creates a bias towards inclusion of tri-state area mayors.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When editors make notability assertions based on inclusion in the NYT, they often lose their minds. The front page is one thing, Travel and Leisure or the Connecticut section is another. The logical conclusion to the argument that NYT coverage is automatically notable is that we should build a bot to comb the NYT and generate new articles. Similar arguments are made by conflating National Geographic with National Geographic Traveler. Of course a mayor in a town of less than 100,000 population gets press coverage. It doesn't make them worthy of an encyclopedia article. Rhadow (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow, it leads one to consider whether or not the notability policy ofWP:NOTINHERITED should be considered for Mayors of towns of less than 100,000. Cromwell, Connecticut is a notable town, but the mayor is not. I could pull up similar coverage for that mayor, or I could pull up coverage of the ~~Mayor of Middletown, or~~ Mayor of Wallingford, or even my friend Bobby Berriault. It can get muddy pretty fast.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MJL -- And we went through the same argument over lists of mayors from towns in New Jersey, many of whom are elected by the public as councilmen, and elected mayor by their fellow councilmen. I agree that the standards for mayors need to be reexamined. Rhadow (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, statewide coverage in the Hartford Courant such as In New Britain, A Rookie Mayor Makes Her Mark, published nine months after the New York Times article you cited represents sustained, significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, particularly in addition to the other references cited where independent editors have deemed the subject notable. Nothing in WP:N or WP:BASIC deprecates statewide or regional sources. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent argument, 24.151.116.12. Nothing in those two policies says anything about regional sources. I also commend your addition of that source within the article. I will say, however, local-regional-state coverage (like how the article you included was written by Don Stacom, the "New Britain CT reporter for The Hartford Courant" for the Connecticut section) is something that should we should consider as something that puts into doubt the presumption granted by any sustain coverage. Thank you for your addition to the debate! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NOTINHERITED idea is at most shifting attention from the mayor of the town, to the town of the mayor. So the NOTINHERITED idea is related to BIO1E, where BIO1E is an argument to merge.
A mayor is always the mayor of a notable town, so any elected mayor always has a potential merge/redirect target...and ATD prevails over DEL8. Arguing that mayors don't immediately have sustained coverage, and/or stretching GNG to exclude local sources, argues to a failure of WP:N, but not WP:DEL8. As to the argument that local sources are a reason to claim that the coverage is not sustained, I find that illogical. Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to the possibility this article be merged to something akin to Mayor of New Britain, Connecticut. I have a high amount of respect for you editing, Unscintillating, and think that you have presented would could be a wonderful solution to the current problem. If I may clarify, my argument was that local coverage expresses doubt over the verifiability(WP:NRV) an article has for notability. This is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and I disdain the notion it may be considered illogical. Though I should admit, I contradict myself at times and muddle my own point; I am *not* above admitting my own shortcomings in this regard. So do please excuse me if I become unclear.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And I realized that I in fact ~~did not say that~~ said something else in my response to 24.151.116.12... so I see where I went wrong here. I really should have said what I just now, not what I said to 24.151.116.12 in reference to presumption granted by sustained coverage. I can't apologize enough for my slip up there. I really should have cited WP:NRVE. My apologies again, Unscintillating, what I wrote was illogical and faulty. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And real quickly, noting the since I have posted this article to AfD, it is leagues above where it used to be in terms of tone. My choice of forum was based off my initial belief that it is beyond repair, but I am not so sure about that thanks to editors like yourself who have brought it to a halfway point of sorts.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my !vote to support a Merge result. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not a fan of it, we seem to keep bios of everyone who ever got paid to kick a ball or play a drum outside of their own garage, so a serially-elected mayor of a sizable city ought to be a no-brainer by comparison. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if WP:ADVOCACY was a problem here, that's nothing a good editor couldn't fix. Also, there is no population limit for mayors, per GNG. She has the sources and citations for a keep.Scanlan (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per extensive discussion with Unscintillating on this topic. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayors do not inherently meet WP:NPOL. Her claim to being "the youngest serving female mayor in the United States for a city the size of New Britain" has too many qualifications attached (youngest and serving and female and for a city X size) to be inherently notable. Some sources, like newsmax.com, are of questionable reliability. Other coverage lacks biographical depth. Chetsford (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote bolded the word "Delete" without making a single statement to explain how the evidence meets DEL8 and overcomes ATD. Why is "delete" bolded?
Further, I see no foundation for the attempt to undermine a WP:RS, and I read our newsmax.com article. Why is newsmax of "questionable reliability"? Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 16 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. No prejudice to creation as a redirect. ansh 666 09:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

States of the world

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

Neologistic phrase coined and used in a single book (the only reference in the article used for the topic itself), and apparently w/o established usage in the further field. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect to List of sovereign states (the current content has no relation to that topic). This is a dictdef of a jargon term that doesn't appear to be widely used in the field. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to state, this usage borrows from physics and at the state disambiguation page is the first exampl (unlinked) under Physics and chemistry, "State, a complete description of a system in classical mechanics." Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:24, 7 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M2M public key certificate

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

No independent sources discuss this in detail. Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a manual and is not a directory WP:ISNOT. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 4 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 keep. Sandstein 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andean Cat Alliance

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

References are either press releases or broken links to what seem to be a directory listing. A WP:BEFORE only revealed passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partnered with the Wildlife Conservation Network [17], and mentioned by the current IUCN report as the crucial agency in the species' conservation (the entire "Conservation actions" section is based on their work) [18]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up the dead links (there is a perfectly fine English version of their homepage, and WCN has various materials). - And no, being cited by the IUCN for the entire conservation program is not a bleedin' "passing mention". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing rising above the mention of passing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well attested to have a leading role in the preservation of the Andean cat, as noted above and in Fiona Sunquist; Mel Sunquist (2014). The Wild Cat Book: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Cats. University of Chicago Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-226-78026-9. (English) and here and here (Spanish): Noyster (talk), 11:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-trivial coverage here (article is as much about the organization as the cat); non-trivial coverage here (interview about ACA rescue efforts for an urban Andean cat that they eventually relocated to the wild). Covered repeatedly in books [19], one of which (The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids) says of the organization: "Over the past decade, field biologists working under the Andean Cat Alliance (AGA in Spanish—www.gatoandino.org), have contributed to advancing our knowledge on the ecology and distribution of this species", and "an international network of research teams" (can't see the full chapter in Google Books snippet view [20], so it's unclear how much more the organization is discussed in it, but this is more than just mention that the organization exists). Wild Cats: Past & Present profiles (not just lists) the organization in its chapters on felid conservation groups [21]. The Wild Cat Book: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Cats provides history about the founding of the organization, which is also not just a passing mention [22]. The journal of International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission's Cat Specialist Group covers a joint Andean Cat Alliance, BIOTA, and WCN 6-month series of field surveys and their results (though I can't see the full article) [23]. Mentioned and/or cited repeatedly in journals [24]; haven't looked into the details. Nor have I searched under the Spanish name of the organization yet, since what's already turned up with an English search is sufficient to establish notability. WP:BEFORE was clearly not done properly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 18:54, 17 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PLCLogix

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

Well, this is fun. References are PR releases, a book that doesn't mention it, and dead links. A WP:BEFORE uncovered little. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dead links have been removed. New links have been added. Meets WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT criteria. Jama555 —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG compliant with new references. Banjoman1 20:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well-written. References reflect popularity as educational resource. Chipset01 16:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors should discuss whether the changes made since the nomination now establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of article has been achieved by changes made after nomination. Peppi35 16:44, 4 January 2018
Delete and I highly doubt that the obvious sock or meatpuppets above have actually read the sourcing, because if they had they would realize that most of the sourcing is about Programmable logic controllers in general, is trivial coverage, or is in primary sourcing. All of that means this does not come near meeting our inclusion standards. I'd also encourage that this be closed or relist by an admin because of the socking issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with TonyBallioni. However, I would correct one statement: all the sources in the article are about Programmable logic controllers in general, trivial coverage, or primary. Pavlor (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck all the keep !votes above as all of the accounts have been CU blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 9 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Methaneilie Solo

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

Does not meet notability for music (singer) WP:NM. Google search yields little results, few references. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be enough coverage of the singer, [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. to suggest that he is a singer of note in Nagaland and qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO #1 and possibly #7. It is generally more difficult to source a singer from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that he was apparently more popular in the past (1990s) before news articles from such places get regularly archived on the internet made sourcing more difficult. That there is still current coverage of the singer would indicate that he is a singer of some local significance. Hzh (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRewrite, article has divided to multiple paragraphs without content and sources. Genome$100 (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional sources have been found.Egaoblai (talk) 11:16, 4 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaque Hossain

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

Dependent on non-independent sources. Included sources are his own author profile of HuffingtonPost or his blog posts. Amazon is a commercial site, Goodreads is a social catalog. The article is spammy, full of external links (Amazon and Facebook links) on the body. Possible COI. Mar11 (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Just because Kindle has made it so everyone can publish their research papers, even when there is no clear reason to believe they have the background to actually do indepth research on a particular subject, does not mean we need articles on everyone who has published a research paper on kindle. I am tempted to say some of my blog posts have involved more research and gotten more replies than some of this guys work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable subject. Found nothing in Bengali also. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced and informative মাখামাখি (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was covered in The Independent Bangladesh. Also, the guy is a scholar of communication from Monash university Malaysia, So he does have the proper background for communication research. Also, he's been writing for Business Insider as well. However agree about links to Facebook. That bit should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.24.122.43 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 211.24.122.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 211.24.122.43 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No where close to being notable.No source found and the books are not notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:16, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burrito Bar

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

fast food restaurant with two dozen outlets in a single city and nowhere else. The refs, naturally are all local, and are naturally the usual restaurant PR. Getting such PR is about the same sort of minimum basics for opening a restaurant as getting a refrigerator. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is absolutely correct in his characterization of the coverage. Delete. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete – doesn't meet WP:AUD~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote above. May comment more later. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abundant in coverage in mulitple Queensland newspapers, with many articles talking solely about this business. This includes:

"Mexican invasion – Burrito Bar heads south for beach flavour" Courier Mail (25 Nov 2011) p. 85
"Street artist turns death into a thing of beauty" Gold Coast Bulletin (16 Jan 2012) p. 16
"Netting flock of food buffs" Gold Coast Bulletin (12 Mar 2012) p.15
"But is Declan quirky enoughforawesome?" The Sunday Mail (28 Apr 2013) p.10
"A new flavour coming to town" The Morning Bulletin (17 May 2013) p. 9
"Burrito Bar set to open next year" The Chronicle (Toowoomba) (26 Nov 2015) p.9
"Mexican like you haven’t tried before" and "It’s the whole enchilada" Gold Coast Bulletin (6 Sep 2016) pp. 5 & 29
"Tex-Mex feasts coming to Shoppingworld" Daily Examiner (30 Dec 2017) p. 3)

Not so many mentions in articles available through the web, but still a handful in articles about shopping centre developments or its franchise owner. While an article on a new store opening or viral job listing alone would not be enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, this (presumably) independent coverage is sustained across six years. Kb.au (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage above is routine pre-opening promotion. This is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP, as it's mostly non-independent, WP:SPIP coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 9 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 no consensus. So Why 10:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Natekar

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

None is source write about subject in depth. ·•·1997 kB 10:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sems to have a fair bit of coverage over a ten-year period, [30]. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article requires rewriting. Genome$100 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Not convinced by Integer's arguments.Sole claim to quasi-fame was (and is) being the cute girl in the anti-smoking ad.Has featured in trivial roles/cameos in a few movie(s) and one/two television shows, failing WP:NACTOR.Winged Blades^Godric 04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping, thanks. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 06:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Err..Winged Blades^Godric 11:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 4 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 By far the majority of the coverage is not indepedent. One of the supports voted twice and a couple appear to be single purpose accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HashCash Consultants

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

notability not established for yet another blockchain company Ysangkok (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of HashCash Consultants is well-established. It is among top 2-3 companies in this space such as Ripple and ConsenSys. Please suggest objective ways if any of improving content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayan999 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top two according to what measure? This is just fluff, just like "HashCash has 100+ enterprises using its products". Unsourced advertising statements. This company has no significant news coverage. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30+ articles and news coverage of the company that I have come across (could spend more time on the references). Besides US media coverage is not world media coverage. You have to look outside of just coindesk and the names you are familiar with. This company is part of the International Organization for standards committee created to form blockchain standards globally. Regarding 100+ enterprises, I am assuming a company working with major banks wouldn't claim falsely on their website, but again that is my assumption. If no basis is found for this claim, it can be removed. Either way, this make the page candidate for improvement not deletion is my view. Sayan999 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as unambiguous advertising. Article consists entirely of spammy "Product and Services" section. I requested such under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've contested the speedy delete. Cryptocurrencies are a very important topic and we currently have 43 articles in Category:Bitcoin companies. I don't see why this company is less suitable that the others. As I indicated on the articles talk page, the article has little puffery and many refs. If it is considered substandard, improvement tags are the more appropriate way to go.--agr (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Appeals to "many such articles exist" often results in deletion of other, similar articles as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References provided for the article are PR releases and the same reference is quoted as multiple sources (Ref:-1 - 4), whereas the source is primary PR. Fails GNG and this new block chain company is WP:TOOSOON. Hagennos (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found several independent mentions of the company, added 5 to references. The page looks ok compared to other existing pages on this topic. Don't see why it should be removed. The article do not seem to be using advertising language in my view.--Rc81 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Rajc81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Upon checking the list of the 42 bitcoin companies in Category:Bitcoin companies, it was found that 8 out of 10 articles have fewer and possibly weaker references than this page (which has 22 references from different sources). If notability of this article had been pointed out as an issue, then 80% of the pages in this category are also candidates for deletion. The purpose of the Wiki guideline literature is to maintain a uniform standard across articles. Do not think deletion of this article will help that.--Sayan999 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Sayan999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete . The same press release is cited 4 times and other refs are also churnalism. This is promotional dreck and would have to be rewritten from scratch to be a WP article. WP is undergoing some severe promotioanal pressure from crytocurrency advocates. Not good - we need to be very vigilant with the bubble and hype and all. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comments by Jytdog might need to be discounted because it expresses a general negativity towards blockchain and cryptocurrency companies unrelated to the page in question. "WP is undergoing some severe promotioanal pressure from crytocurrency advocates. Not good - we need to be very vigilant with the bubble and hype and all." We are not discussing cryptocurrency bubbles here. Sayan999 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The accounts that are editing the AfD for Keep, Sayan999 and Rajc81 are suspected to have an undisclosed COI with the Company and has been flagged accordingly on their talk pages. Hagennos (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The accounts that are editing AfD Hagennos and Jytdog evidently belong to the same user. Sayan999 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayan999 if that is the case your can request a Sockpuppet investigation on the accounts. But please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG and do not shoot yourself in the foot. Hagennos (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hagennos, I would most politely suggest that instead of going after Wikipedia users, we keep the scope of the discussion to the article's quality, content and place in Wikipedia. It is matured and efficient to discuss through reasons and counter reasons. The quality of the debate will help in building consensus. The users you are steering the discussions to have added useful references to improve the article. Sayan999 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 4 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. No prejudice to recreation as a redirect. ansh 666 09:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Adrianople

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

Per the article itself, the Bulgarians "preferred to retreat without a fight", so there was no battle. There was an Ottoman military operation that recovered Adrianople/Edirne, but there is nothing to suggest that any conflict actually happened here. This should be deleted, as the relevant information is already present, in far better form, in the Second Balkan War article. Constantine ✍ 09:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that "Second Battle of Adrianople" is a rare name in the literature, at least as determined by GBooks hits. It should also be noted the original redirect of this title was the Battle of Adrianople (378), which is what the handful of GBooks hits would also suggest. The only instance of the title being used for the 1913 event is by Richard J. Evans (!) in one of his books as an image caption, but I would wager good money that this is a result of Wikipedia using the title. Constantine ✍ 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the nominator, this should be deleted or re-redirected to the 378 battle. What occurred in 1913 could be written about in depth under the title, "Occupation of Adrianople". If someone wanted to touch up the article a bit with an eye towards a renaming along those lines, I would support that. Also, the idea that this is the "second something" could be based on Enver Pasha calling himself "Second conquerer of Edirne" (the first coming in the 1360s) as a result of the war - but that still doesn't mean this title makes any sense as applied to what happened on July 21, 1913. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or repurpose). The account of the Ottoman intervention in the Second Balkan War is much better given in that article. It might be legitimate to have a separate article on that. We seem to get quite a lot of articles whose function seems to be for the author to use a battles infobox, even in cases where there was a confrontation but no fighting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm adding a !vote just so that there isn't any confusion that I support a such an outcome. I'm happy with a redirect to the 378 battle, but there is nothing here to merge that isn't in other articles about the Balkan War and anyone searching for the 378 battle is likely to have no problem finding it without a redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk)

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) 07:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save Miguel

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

Unreferenced & promotional Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 4 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 redirect to Noah Lukeman. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tragedy of Macbeth Part II

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

In attempting to fix the {{unreferenced}} tag I failed to find a single secondary source, despite what appears extensive efforts by the author or publisher to promote it at the time of release. I haven't found a single review of this book or a performance of it as a play, much less from a publication whose name I recognise. Xover (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author page as not notable book. There are a couple of sources providing short notes[31][32] but no full-length review. It might also be mentioned briefly in Macbeth in popular culture. Note: I'm not totally sure that Lukeman is himself notable, but he's discussed in several publications about writers/for writers whose status as reliable sources is unclear. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noah Lukeman; I'm not sure he's notable, but that's not an issue here. (I wouldn't recommend an AfD of that page). There's no evidence this passes WP:NBOOK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As others have noted the book does not meet WP:NBOOK. However, the title may be something people search for and should be preserved. Chetsford (talk) 08:44, 10 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 redirect to Indian Chinese cuisine. Since it's discussed at the new target page, it's not unreasonable to have this redirect there since there's consensus not to have a standalone article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paneer Chilli

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

Sources referenced are passing mentions (CNN) or non-notable food websites. This could easily retarget to Paneer of which this is an entry. No significant coverage on the history of this food. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Sources appear to be recipes so this also fails WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here to show notability. Tacyarg (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fusion dish without any history or notability. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indo Chinese cuisine article where it's already covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:12, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Blu

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

A group with no long-lasting notability (see WP:SUSTAINED). Really only covered in news stories relating to one or two controversial, but not notable, events. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ORGDEPTH. Kb.au (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, they've been involved in a couple of instances of idiocy in the past few months that have dominated the days' news. In lieu of an obvious redirect target, I think we should keep this article, at least for the time being, to see whether anything else comes from them. If they fizzle and don't do anything again, then we can revisit and delete this in a few months time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the group is known to have the same name as a TV show Romper Stomper (TV series). Leftwinguy92 (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Kb.au (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nominator rationale--Safe My Edit (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the news coverage is quite substantial and addresses several events. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in relation to WP:V, I also can't find any source that says the group goes by the name Patriot Blu rather Patriot Blue. Kb.au (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn fringe group; lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 26 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 keep. Improvement is always welcome. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American entry into Canada by land

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

This reads more like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article. It's more appropriate on WikiVoyage than on Wikipedia. Techman224^Talk 07:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's got 35 references. It does need a trim though.104.163.153.162 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mere number of references an article has is not an inclusion criterion in and of itself — an article that cites just one reference can be kept if that reference properly verifies passage of a must-include SNG such as being president of a country, and an article that cites 100 references can be deleted if they're all blogs. As necessary as sourcing is, it's just part of the overall keepability equation, not the be-all and end-all in and of itself. The problem here is that this isn't so much an encyclopedia article about crossing the border as a how-to guide to crossing the border: but how-to guides are covered by WP:NOTHOWTO as a thing Wikipedia isn't for. Nominator is entirely correct that something like this would belong on Wikivoyage, not here. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are discounting my "number of references" mention. It has no blogs. There's actually no issue here with the quality of sources, which are largely government publications. The issue seems to be whether it belongs here or on Wikivoyage.104.163.153.162 (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Because the number of references here was the entirety of your argument as to why this should be kept. It wasn't just a passing mention that was irrelevant to the actual substance of your argument — it was in and of itself the entire substance of your argument.

(2) I didn't say the sources here were blogs, I raised blogs as an example of the kind of "sources" that can be used to pad out the number of footnotes and thus an example of the reason why the number of footnotes is not a keep argument in and of itself.

(3) The quality of the sources isn't the issue. The issue is that the content they're supporting is a WP:NOTHOWTO violation rather than an encyclopedia article. At any rate, government sources are primary sources for the purposes of writing about a topic directly related to that same government — they're adequate for simple verification of facts, but not in and of themselves demonstrative of notability as they don't represent independent analysis by unaffiliated media sources. Justin Trudeau, for example, is notable because he has media coverage, not because he has a self-written primary source profile on the website of the government he's a part of. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable article with an average of 8000 readers per month. The article uses references and provides immense value to travelers. It is among the top web search results for driving into Canada. Moreover, the argument made by the proposed deleter was already discussed in the first AfD and was dismissed. Being that the Canada–United States border is over 5000 miles long, travel across it is very notable; we're not talking about a random tiny border crossing. Perhaps the nominator can improve the article instead by adding more historical and general context. --Acyclic (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Providing value to travellers" is the job of Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. The job of Wikipedia is to publish and maintain encyclopedia articles, not "how to" pieces. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the readership will drop a hundred fold if the article were on Wikivoyage instead. The article's value would effectively be lost. Moreover, being that Wikivoyage is loose with referencing, the article's content will in time lose verifiability too, turning into a free-for-all. --Acyclic (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's job also isn't to keep stuff that falls under what Wikipedia is not just because its readership might drop if it was moved to where it actually belongs. A Wikivoyage page on this would still turn up in a Google search, so anybody who's looking for this information would still find it there too. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very common dilemma existing through the project. What is better: to have this rather poor quality page, or no page at all. I prefer the former because (a) it does not disinform the reader, but provides helpful information and links, (b) it can be fixed if anyone cares, (c) this is not an outright advertisement or other case for speedy deletion. Deleting something informative simply because no one cares is not the best solution. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "no article at all" is preferable to "a poor-quality article that isn't compliant with our standards for Wikipedia content". Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How poor - that's the question. I think this page is a lot more informative than pages about individual buildings - see Category:Buildings and structures in Illinois by county. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is that it's not our role to be a how-to guide. Wikipedia's policy is not that certain specific how-to articles can be exempted from that just because somebody thinks it's more informative than an article about a building — for one thing, buildings and "how to cross the border" are topics where the informative value of their respective articles can't really be measured against each other at all, because they're not equivalent or even comparable topics. And for another, we also have a rule about the value of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments in deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see street addresses of restaurants on the page. Indeed, many parts of the page are written in a "how to" style, but I think this should be fixed if anyone cares, rather than deleting the entire page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why are you addressing the lack of street addresses of restaurants in response to me, as if I'd ever said anything about street addresses of restaurants? And secondly, if we "fixed" the how-to content here, then what on earth would be left that's appropriately encyclopedic? Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does provide useful sourced information on a legitimate subject. The style and sourcing can be improved, but they are not even remotely so bad to warrant deletion. This is not really a "how-to-travel" guide, even though it includes a lot of info helpful for a traveler. This is just one of pages that belong to Category:Expedited border crossing schemes and Category:Canada–United States border. There is nothing wrong with having pages on these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR relative to around 8k of page views per month. Deletion of this article would not serve Wikipedia's WP:READERs functionally. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strongest possible delete Yes, people look at this article— and they shouldn't. They should be reading the primary sources on the US and Canadian official websites, where the information will be accurate and up-to-date and presumably not subject to passing vandals and ignoramuses. Look, this is one big ball of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It doesn't matter how well-cited it is; it needs to be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is already an article on the US-Canada border, I fail to see a reason for this one. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The simple reason for the existence of this article is that governments on both sides of the border are sometimes unreasonable and oppressive when it comes to letting innocent people through. They can reject people for silly reasons or for suspicion alone, also subjecting them to unreasonable searches. The purpose of this article is to stand up to this occasional governmental oppression. The article has been serving its purpose for practically ten years now. You won't understand until it applies to you. Crossing the US-Canada border is a big deal in itself. --Acyclic (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica1000. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way the page reads is not a reason to bring the matter here because AfD is not cleanup. The topic is notable because there are numerous books about it including the following. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Line
Crossing the 49th Parallel
Crossing the Border
Trucking Guide to Border Crossing
The Border Guide
Permeable Border
Crossing Borders
Border, Border, Wide and Far, how We Wonder what You are
Law Enforcement at the Border Between the U.S. and Canada
Pacific Connections

Keepor Merge There are useful pieces of information and the topic is notable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:40, 20 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. Sandstein 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esh Family Car Crash

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

Although there was coverage of this in New York newspapers and one local radio/television station, the event was not a lasting one, nor does it of historical significance, so it doesn't really meet WP:NEVENT. It isn't being re-analyzed afterwards years afterwards, and is borderline routine, the exception being that most of the people killed were connected to a family. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stunning tragedy for the Mennonite community, a quick glance at just the top of WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web shows thehindu.com, nbcnews.com, and the NYT. Without looking further, the first two hits on Google books were relevant, the top actually citing the NYT article,

Steven P. Carpenter (2014-12-31). Mennonites and Media: Mentioned in It, Maligned by It, and Makers of It: How Mennonites Have Been Portrayed in Media and How They Have Shaped Media for Identity and Outreach. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 34–. ISBN 978-1-62564-525-8. Retrieved 2018-01-04. The New York Times report opened with the words, "For years, John and Sadie Esh lifted up their Mennonite community in central Kentucky with mellifluous gospel singing. Their congregation of 20 families likewise embraced them when their son Johnny died and again when their house burned down." It later noted the family had recorded four gospel albums...
Liz Robbinsmarch (March 26, 2010). "Crash Devastates a Kentucky Family". New York Times. The Marrowbone Christian Brotherhood rallied around the Eshes four years ago when their grown son Johnny Esh was killed in a snowmobile accident in Ukraine, on a rare day off from missionary work, and again after the house fire in December. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

Unscintillating (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book reference might be okay for lasting, but the NYT article is part of the same news cycle as the other breaking news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it be possible to have this as a section on a new page on the Esh Family? I find it implausible that the crash would meet WP:NEVENT if the musical group isn't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my surprise, coverage does appear to be lasting. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So one singular mention in a book is lasting? Is there more? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LASTING is not met. A mention in a book doesn't seem enough of "coverage" either. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as WP:NOTNEWS. A mention in one book does not establish lasting coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and the family itself doesn't appear to be notable. Ajf773 (talk) 06:16, 17 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Family Reunion

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

Nothing about this band or its music seems to meet WP:Notability (music) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage from Rolling Stone cited in the article, plus NPR, No Depression, American Songwriter, The Irish News, Paste, etc. satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources pointed out in the above vote confirm notability. Article could be improved by citing them. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criterion #1 as pointed out above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:34, 5 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ela I Si Vzemi

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Gery-Nikol. Quickfingers (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:26, 4 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naprao Gi Ubivam

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Gery-Nikol. Quickfingers (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:25, 4 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Kukla

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Tita. Quickfingers (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:24, 4 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well Paid

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to 100 Kila. Quickfingers (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K'vo Ne Chu

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. Quickfingers (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:22, 4 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antilopa

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Misleading chart source. Acharts.co is mirroring Bulgaria Singles Top 40 which is included in Deprecated charts section. IFPI (BAMP) does not have a official chart, ever since they updated their site. It should be a redirect to Tita. Quickfingers (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Quickfingers (talk) 07:23, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Martin (Football)

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

Does not meet WP:NSPORT for pro football: didn't play in a CFL game (retired before the season started), his college football honors are in Conference USA honor roll mostly, which isn't listed in Template:College football award navbox. He does have some local news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [33][34][35][36][37][38][39] From nl.newsbank.com, Sun Herald: "Houston transfer Martin has been pleasant surprise for USM", "Saturday's Texas State game a family affair for USM's Martin" WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Herald is local to Mississippi, and Ottawa Citizen to where he was going to play for CFL until he didn't. USA Today's article is in the context of his reception record for just the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note his college career section would have to be completely rewritten so as to not be a copyvio of his Southern Miss profile anymore. A lot of the content is now removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He may have been viral during the draft but he never played professionally and no reason was given. Could it be he never made the team?Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He retired before he could play in a CFL game so he doesn't qualify for WP:NGRIDIRON and doesn't seem to meet WP:NCOLLATH either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 10 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 keep. There is consensus that the mentioned flaws in the article can be addressed by editing while the subject itself is notable enough for inclusion. So Why 10:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Carlson (rower)

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

Many of the sources linked to in this article are either blogs or do not mention the subject at all. Several of them are clearly self serving and shoehorned in for no apparent purpose (particularly offensive are a number of self publish articles that are included just so the author can claim he has published numerous articles on "a variety of subjects"). Poor sources indicate padding of resume for low-profile individual. Suggest immediate deletion as not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.167.154 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This stated reasons for this Unsigned IP WP:SPA nomination for deletion (weak or irrelevant sources; "self publish articles") are incorrect. Literally none of the sources linked in this article are blogs, and they all mention the subject. None of them are self-publish articles either. The sources cited include The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, the subject's International Rowing Federation athlete bio, and the subject's USRowing team bio; additionally articles authored by the subject in Antiquity (journal) and Foreign Policy Magazine are cited. These are strong, reliable, and relevant sources. --Cozeyalley111 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formulated an opinion at this time. --Finngall ^talk 05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion rationale has no merit. Carlson is a World Championship medallist ([40]) and University Boat Race winner ([41]), with plenty of coverage in reliable sources ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46], etc.). --Michig (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, reads and looks like promotional work, as does the rationale behind the image. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you believe a rower who won a World Championships bronze medal is 'non-notable'? --Michig (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Bronze medal is not notable these days. It might have been in the very first Olympics. Even Gold may not be enough (especially in fringe sport, such as this), you need multiple golds and domination of the activity, possibly over successive Olympics. In any case this article and everything about it reeks of finely crafted promotional work. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your view doesn't tally at all well with our notability guidelines for sportspeople. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Hours after their first edit (unrelated), a WP:SPA creates with their second edit this well-formed article with 46 impecably formated references, an infobox, correctly piped links, categories, close compliance with the Manual of Style, etc. Their only other edits, the following week, are to create a disambigution page for the topic. Later on, Greenroomcreative, another SPA, adds a studio portrait. Green Room Creative is a New York City marketing agency that boasts Carlson's company Rowing Blazers as a client.[47] A third SPA comes along and, after a few hours updating this article, submits a draft about the company, Draft:Rowing Blazers. A fourth editor, not quite a SPA, spends 7 of their 16 edits, spread out over five different days spanning nearly a month, to tweak Jack Carlson (rower) and Draft:Rowing Blazers, and link to Carlson from other articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is clearly promotional work. Material regarding rowing already covered by article detailing with those races (is conspicuous that none of the other rowers on the team with Carlson have personal articles).

Keep. Deletion rationale is stated as weak sources. But in reality, the sources quite literally include a New York Times profile of the subject. Besides the New York Times piece, there are articles from The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and Town & Country Magazine. Also cited are academic articles authored by the subject in Antiquity (journal) and Foreign Policy Magazine and the subject's official USRowing team athlete biography. I must also note that I was queried by Worldbruce about whether or not I am a paid editor. I was quite shocked by this but appreciate the concern. I am not a paid editor; just someone who has followed this subject's career for some time. --Cozeyalley111 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The individual covered here is a notable person in the world of fashion as well as rowing and an award-winning author. The page has also been active since 2015 with edits from many different users. In addition to the variety of important publications mentioned above profiling him such as the New York Times, I think it is worth noting that the IP address user 38.104.167.154 has been censured for incorrect and inappropriate edits in the past. --Utraqueunum (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion rationale has no merit. All cited sources are relevant and reliable. 2A02:A210:2044:300:9876:F943:75E7:C2FB (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of those sources is literally the subject's own website. Another, "Hear the Boat Sing" literally bills itself as "This blog covers all aspects of the rich history of rowing".

If the Unsigned IP poster would take the time to read WP:IRS, they would find that citing a subject's own website to support a statement that the subject is (for example) a vegetarian (which happens to be the only piece of information citing the subject's website in this article) is actually perfectly acceptable: the statement is not "unduly self-serving;" it is not a "claim about a third party" or "unrelated event;" there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (unless the Unsigned IP poster has some evidence to suggest Mr Carlson is not a vegetarian); and "the article is not primarily based on such sources." In fact, the vegetarian statement was the only statement citing the subject's website, and almost all of the other 24 citations are from top-tier news sources, including (it has been said before) The New York Times; the remainder of the sources being composed of official athlete biographies, Henley Royal Regatta and Head of the Charles Regatta official records and results, academic journals, and apparently one blog about rowing that is causing Unsigned IP poster so much distress. The sustained effort by said Unsigned IP poster to misrepresent an objectively well-cited article as one in which "many of the sources are blogs or do not mention the subject at all," combined with their characterization of the subject - a member of multiple USA national teams recently profiled in The New York Times - as a "low profile individual," as well as the bewildering and denigrating comments above stating that, "A Bronze medal is not notable these days. It might have been in the very first Olympics. Even Gold may not be enough (especially in fringe sport, such as this)", seem to belie some personal agenda or bias against the subject.-- Cozyalley111 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that the individual described here does have the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required under the Notability Guidelines, not just the notability guidelines for sports and athletes, but also for books and for people. --Georgetownhoya (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be a voice of reason here, as it seems there is some bias on both sides. The request for deletion said this article was based on bad sources and that this person is a “low-profile” individual. But this is wrong. The sources are very strong. Major news sources like a full article in New York Times. And as someone (only tangentially) involved in the sport of rowing in another country, I can tell you that this person is prominent in the sport, as both an athlete and an author. The article’s sources confirm this too. I don’t want to get involved in any weirdness. Just a rowing fan who can confirm the subject’s relevance! 2A02:A210:2044:300:9035:89D7:5988:2D14 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Trim and Significantly Rewrite (disclosure: I was invited to come here through a comment on my Talk page) WP:ATHLETE does not have a specific criteria for rowers. However, in general, the criteria for other non-Olympic sportspersons is that they have won a gold medal at their sports' world championship (if a team sport) or any medal (if an individual sport). If we cross-apply that here, Jack Carlson does not qualify for an article under ATHLETE as he won a bronze medal in a team sport, a view also echoed by BeckenhamBear.

I now move on to see if he meets GNG. Many of the sources in the article are not RS (e.g. blogspot, heartheboatsing.com, etc.). There are, however, many that are (e.g. Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc.). However, the articles that are RS only cover Jack Carlson within the context of his company Rowing Blazers and do not provide any deep biographical information on him. Even a CEO profile story or two would help validate this article but we don't have that. That said, via a search on Google News I found a couple articles which - while still focused on his company - do provide enough scraps of biographical data here and there to pass the GNG threshold, namely: this in The Observer [48], this in the Boston Globe [49], and this in Complex [50]. If the final decision is KEEP, this article should be substantially rewritten to remove statements supported by non-RS, to introduce new RS sources, and to tone down the rah-rah aspects a bit. A short and succinct bio is warranted, however, the current sprawling article is probably overreach. Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the references identified in the preceding post and also by Michig, he passes WP:GNG and the SNG with a bronze medal in a world cup. However the article needs to be carefully checked for neutrality given the SPAs and socks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:08, 11 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 Hand truck. ansh 666 09:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piano tilter

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

WP is not a dictionary. Unclear what this article adds to the project. It is just describing a hand cart used for moving pianos. There is not even a dedicated source, just a mention in a book on piano tuning. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into hand truck. It is basically a variation of that tool. bd2412 T 23:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging makes sense to me. Brentonstrine —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
El Cid, does the entire book have to be about tilters to be a valid source? When you say "project" do you mean Wikipedia? Can't adding information about cool and unique tools be enough? This article isn't about the word "piano tilter" but the concept, that's the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentonstrine (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and briefly merge to hand truck, as per BD2412. OK, so a tool exists, but each one needs to meet WP:GNG and be written about in depth by independent sources. I couldn't easily find any on this topic, but I did find this that shows me what it looks like and how it works. Seems rather like a hand truck to me. . .though it is kind of cool. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to into hand truck and redirect seems a sensible solution. Sam Sailor 22:14, 7 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Confusion

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

Article uses primary sources, and a search doesn't produce this convention as one of the first results. Fails WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTCLEANUP; the sources found by Shelbystripes are sufficient. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article includes a list of multiple reliable secondary sources as references; they just aren't properly used as in-line citations. It clearly needs improvement, but notability appears to exist and is WP:LASTING. Beyond the 2005-era references mentioned in the article, but it was given in-depth international coverage in 2013, analyzed for its economic influence on Silicon Valley in 2014, given a nationwide exposé in 2015, mentioned as a driver of the San Jose economy in 2017... AfD is not cleanup, and it sounds like the nominator didn't adequately search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating. I found those stories in about 30 seconds. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just searched 'Further Confusion' and the Furcon official website came up as the first result, does in fact meet WP:GNG. The only real issue I came across after reading the article was a lack of inline citations which is easy cleanup and doesn't at all constitute deletion. Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:55, 4 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Abrar

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

fails to meet basic WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Störm (talk) 10:38, 6 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 speedy keep withdrawn by nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Fury

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

Nothing about this game appears to meet WP:GNG. No sources outside of some random blog posts exist. WP:NGAME is about video games, not "miniatures wargames", but this doesn't meet the spirit of it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep. ~~A reasonable WP:BEFORE might be performed before submitting for AfD.~~ On the first page of the gsearch I see this from miniatures.de, a German website. Wargamer.com has this. Neither of these are blogs and both directly detail. Originally these rules were released pre-internet, so most product reviews will be offline. Put this together with the Lowder book and we meet GNG from diverse professional sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I did WP:BEFORE. I wasn't impressed. I didn't think these links counted for much in terms of WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are certainly specialized sources, but not indiscriminate. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is fair, and you do know more about the field than I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not a Video Game - This is a BoardGame in comparrison to something like War Hammer, so I have removed the Video Games tag. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BusterD, and move to ←Fire and Fury (board game) to make room for the new book or a disambiguation page. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject is a miniatures rules system, like AD&D's Battlesystem or the very popular (and laborious) Johnny Reb (game). So I'd not use "board game" as a disambiguator. I'd prefer "miniatures rules" but think Fire and Fury (game) meets the naming standard best. But It's clear with the new book out we'll need a disambiguation page. I can see why the nominator put this up, though. No hard feelings, Muboshgu, and congratulations on your shiny new mop. Truly. The book will certainly one day be a primary topic and this is such a fringe subject that only game nerds like BOZ and I are familiar. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough! :) I agree that is a fine disambiguator. BOZ (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BusterD, but move it to Fire and Fury (game). The upcoming book Fire and Fury will likely be the primary topic. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per my conversation with BusterD at User_talk:Muboshgu#Fire_and_Fury, I'm okay with withdrawing this nom and moving the page to accommodating the new primary topic. (As an aside, while discussing "primary topic", notice that the page views of this article are fairly low, with a serious bump on August 9, 2017. Why might that be? That's because the day before, Trump promised "fire and fury" for North Korea.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 4 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BuildZoom

AfDs for this article:

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

An advertorially toned page on a non notable private business; significant RS coverage to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Much of the article is details on the various research that the company published, but I don't believe that's sufficient in establishing notability and authoritativeness of the company as a source. Has been previously deleted via AfD (Oct 2016) and via CSD (Nov 2017). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again. Per nom, advertisement, no significant coverage. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, fails WP:SPIP WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 10 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life Noggin

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

Not a notable YouTube channel. The coverage is only trivial mentions rather than significant coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 4 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who have scored 20 Test Cricket hundreds

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. This content can be easily sourced from espnCricinfo link associated with: List of Test cricket records#Centuries. I don't see any new to separated them to those who only scored 20+ of them. Ajf773 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ajf773. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary to have a separate list article on this one and the article header is also seems to be a weak one. Abishe (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While 20 is an arbitrary cut-off, number of test centuries is an important statistic covered in many reference books and hence potentially valid. However it's a duplicate of one column in List of cricketers by number of international centuries scored. Redirecting makes no sense because of the figure 20 being so arbitrary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 14:05, 6 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dev (actor) filmography

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

It looks like the filmography is in both this article and the main Dev (actor) article. Please make up your mind on whether it should be split or not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – editor has decided to split the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect ? .... Sorry but why's this at AFD?..... –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

or Keep .... that's a good idea too!, That'll teach me for not checking the article first!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it was doubled since September 2017. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi again AngusWOOF. The main article is already large and it makes sense to have a separate list for not just the filmography but also for the subject's awards. I have removed the filmography list from the main article so that it is not replicated. This perhaps should not have been brought to Afd and you could have initiated a discussion on the talk page of either article. Given the restructuring I've done. would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Thanks, Lourdes 03:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will withdraw. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:35, 4 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator after page improvements. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muy

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

None of the entries on this page is really disambiguating "Muy". There are variations like de Muy, Le Muy, Félix du Muy, and Muy Muy, but it doesn't seem likely that these topics would be looked up solely by "Muy", and certainly aren't routinely known by the name "Muy" alone. The two May Rivers don't belong, nor do the three phrases in Spanish in the Other section that happen to begin with the Spanish word "muy". Finally, over half the entries on the page are red links anyway. It's at best a stretch. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the page at the time it was nominated was a complete disaster, I've cleaned it up and found a couple of other entries. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Now keep (though I'm a bit skeptical about the du Muy entry). Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - great to see pages worked on after being AFD-ed so they can be kept and be useful. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 6 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavijanasrayam

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

I can't figure out what this is supposed to be? A book? A collection of poems? A single poem? The article is mostly a debate over who authored the book. It doesn't explain what the book is about and how it is notable, other than it being old. Half of the article is in Telugu. Is it fiction because it involves poetry? No links to the equivalent article in Telugu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment article was also created by a a blocked user. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AngusWOOF, the references available on Google Books and the references available within the article are enough to qualify the subject over WP:GNG and even WP:NBOOK. This is a much quoted historical text (prosody). I've now given the wiki link inside the article. I do understand your point that the article needs to be cleaned up. But in my opinion, deletion is not the solution for cleaning up. This seems a Keep to me. If you agree, I'll start cleaning up the article and will make it tighter. What do you say? Thanks, Lourdes 03:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be amenable to cleaning it up in draft? The book references aren't clear at all. It's still not clear what it is. A prosody could mean a study on poetry, setting poetry to music. So is it a book of poems? Or a single poem? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current article as is written does not provide any context or reasoning for the page to exist. The references provided are passive mentions and does not establish notability. As suggested by AgnusWOOF the article can me moved to draft or deleted. Hagennos (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now a basic comprehensible overview/introduction, acceptable for Wikipedia. The topic is a notable ancient work of the Telugu literature. Thanks to User:Lourdes for his/her constructive attitude - a great example of how an encyclopedist should approach problems in an encyclopedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TNT on the article does help clarify things a little, but is it a treatise on how Telugu poetry is structured or a list of poems? Or both? Some of the references provided do not mention this particular work, but Telugu prosody in general. If there are multiple names or spellings for the work, they should be listed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a collection of poems ("...Malliya Rechana, the Jaina author of the early work on Telugu metrics named Kavijanasrayam states in one of the introductory verses that he could accomplish that work with assistance rendered to him by certain Vachak-abharana..."[51]) but maybe the theory and poetry could work together in Telugu literature. I don't say the article is perfect but I think it is a good starting point providing some useful and reliable references to a reader. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, in my study, it comes out to be a book that tells the rules – in other words, the Metre (poetry) – of how verses should be formed in Telugu poetry. The wiki link of Metre that I've provided gives sufficient clarification on what is the meaning of these so called rules that the book is based on. Thanks, Lourdes 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article Kavijanasrayam deserves to exist since this is the oldest available piece of Telugu literature and many poets followed this book.By referring this book,scholars such as Charles Philip Brown wrote a book in English on Telugu prosodic techniques. The techniques can be added eventually to this article by other editors.

I think the direction of the article changed because one of the editors(SubhashiniIyer) was continously disrupting the page based on these aspects.

1) Jain Origins and 2) Nativity of the poet 3) Antiquity (940 AD)

The editor(Abrahmad111) has provided groundbreaking evidences from Telugu books on the above aspects.The editor who disrupted initially is shell shocked from the past 5 months and not even a single evidence has been challenged.The prejudiced and unintellectual editor 1)cannot tolerate the fact that Jain religion Telugu literature preceded Vedic religion Telugu Literature. It is a kind of religious intolerance extended to wikipedia.2) wanted the poet to belong to her home state(province) 3) cannot tolerate any Telugu Literature to be placed before 1050 AD since she assumes that all literature started after 1050 AD only after poet Nannaya, who belonged to her home state(province) .

Now that these biases were totally disproved,we can move those aspects to the talk page or retain them in a concise form in the actual page

Telugu evidences 1 2 3

English references 4 5 6

Finally,the editor(Abrahmad111) was blocked based on only suspicion of sock puppetry but not proven.What is more important is the evidence he left.SattiPandu (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the TNT, the article was all about debating the authorship, which should have taken place on the talk page. If the debate was among scholars and not the editors, then a section summarizing the debate supported with secondary sourced news articles could be provided. But it was a complete mess at the time of the AFD. As for poets following the book, there could be a Legacy section discussing how later poets have referred to the book as a template for their writings. But at this point, it needs significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources first to show notability. If it's indeed the oldest piece of Telugu literature, the article needs references from secondary sources to support that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a book has survived for over a thousand years, it's notable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ! It should have been in a talk page.Unfortunately not done because editor(SubhashiniIyer) directly put the discussion on the page.Please see the history from the start.Where as ALL scholars call it a JAIN work, she just puts her personal opinions that is NOT a Jain WORK.Where as editor(Abrahmad111) provided Central Sahitya Academy reference, P.V.P Sastry,C.P.Brown,Nidudavolu Venkat Rao,Veturi Prabhakara Sastry,Chaganti Seshayya,S.V.Rama Rao and many more references.The editor (SubhashiniIyer) wants us to believe her opinion and reject Central Sahitya Academy run by govt of India and all references which are not inline with her biased mindset...

With regards to the earliest available Telugu Literature so far.. Mallia Rec 9th century poet Malliya Rechana-First Telugu Author (940AD) , Kavijanasrayam,Vemulawada Karimnagar,

With regards to Jain origins, the English links are self explanatory.. Jainism: art, architecture, literature & philosophy Jain literature. All scholars call it a JAIN work.Show me ONE author which calls it a non-JAIN work?.Please refer the Telugu links as well.

Books won't survive for 1000 years.They are copied and copied by generation after generation. Kavijanasrayam is available in 50 copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SattiPandu (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you want to add back the Jain phrase. The 50 copies needs to be sourced, but that's a later detail. The English source for C.P. Brown only uses it as a passing mention along with another work. Are there any other texts that give it significant coverage? Can you confirm from the Telugu references presented, since the English ones so far have it as passing mention? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the earlier content and references. 40 copies are available. Please check with some one who knows Telugu Unfortunately no english ref is available for this.. Significant coverage is done in these books. The references which were again removed. At least please read the English Meta-data in the archive.org

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.333847 Kavi Janasramamu by Malliya Rechana

Publication date 1950 Topics City Collection digitallibraryindia; texts Language Telugu

Read the english meta-data or english preface.. https://archive.org/stream/kavijanaashrayam020695mbp#page/n3/mode/2up

Kavijanaashrayamu-Chandashastramu by Jayanthi Ramaiah

Publication date 1932 Publisher ANDHRA SAHITYA PARISHATH Collection universallibrary Contributor SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYANDRA BHASHA NILAYAM Language Telugu SattiPandu (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed it. Perhaps it was Lourdes after the TNT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm convinced there is now enough significant coverage on the book. The preface was helpful and should be integrated into the article. We can continue improvements on the article at the talk page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 4 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusters International

AfDs for this article:

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

Basically advertising. A list of their successes and services . It belongs on their web page, not an encyclopedia . Kept back in 2008 when our standards were lower. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are business periodicals or local papers so it fails WP:ORG. Tacyarg (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom and Tacyarg. Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:14, 5 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elyson de Dios

AfDs for this article:

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

An under-sourced BLP on a reality TV show contestant and actor whose roles have been minor. Significant RS coverage not found. Article sourced to routine news about the show, interviews, and passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. The article was deleted in 2015, as not meeting notability guidelines, only achieving top 4 in the show. The subject has not done anything significant since then, so I recommend deletion at this time, in line with the first AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Frame

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found. As a CEO of semi-notable company, does not meet WP:ANYBIO. 30 under 30 and similar accolades are likewise not indicative of notability. Article is sourced to routine notices about the company, interviews, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by Special:Contributions/Cocohickman, an account with one total edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 5 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. Nobody explicitly contests deletion. Sandstein 22:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling artists in South Korea

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

Fails number 7 at WP:DEL1. The list is almost entirely unsourced and has been unsourced for several years, and even that few entries that are sourced, are from unreliable websites (like Insider Monkey), therefore no point of having an unverified article, where anybody can randomly change the numbers since they cannot be verified anyway, most of those numbers are original research, taken from fan forums, and IPs are changing those numbers at least once per day. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed WP:V ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, does this subject meet WP:LISTN or not? as for problems with numbers being changed, editors can place article on their watchlist or it can be semiprotected, to confirm the numbers references can be obtained from the music group/artist's wikiarticles, suggest that article has invisible words (only seen in wikiedit mode) that numbers have to be reliably sourced and are from those pages, anyway, suggest a rename to music artists, with a redirect. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 01:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there are ways to improve this article. The articles List of best-selling singles in South Korea and List of best-selling albums in South Korea appear to be better sourced and more up to date. So we could start with those sources in order to verify and update the info in this article. That being said, this article (if properly sourced) probably wouldn't provide information that's not already available in the other two articles. Would like to hear what others think. Lenoresm (talk) 02:47, 17 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Clips

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, no source for the "Rookie of the Year Award" and it doesn't appear as if they were a recurring cast member. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 4 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 keep. ansh 666 09:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady B

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

Notability-tagged. Main claims to notability (one of earliest female rappers and earliest to record album) are unsourced. Thought it good for community to have a look. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she was certainly well known in early hip hop circles – she made her single in 1979 at the very beginnings of hip hop's breakthrough into the mainstream, and then hosted a radio show in her native Philadelphia. Her recent sacking from the station has made it into the Philadelphia Inquirer [52] and a Google Books search will show she's been name-checked in several books about hip hop [53], [54], [55], [56]. She was also editor-in-chief of Word Up! magazine for a while. I'd understand if other editors consider that one single and a local radio show isn't enough to pass notability, and it is difficult to find non-internet sources, but she is definitely a respected name within hip hop. Richard3120 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of substantial third party coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rather sad forgotten bio, however I think this can be saved as I think I have found enough coverage. [57] [58] Mattg82 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I've updated the article I think this is a keeper now. Mattg82 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with extra references added for a close pass of WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expanded sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Cockfield

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

No evidence that he meets WP:PROF. Unimpressive list of coauthored books, and the only reference in the article is to what appears to be a fly-by-night academic journal that he founded himself. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom's summary is accurate. Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep holds prestigious faculty position at a major Uni. Cited and quoted often as an expert on tax laws. Theres2 also coverage of his role in government tax writing. And he writes on tax issues. Influential and significant figure. Notability established. Articles could be improved. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on "prestigious faculty position"? This is one of the criteria in PROF, but I don't see that he holds a named chair, distinguished title, or other official designation that would qualify. Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's been a research chair, department fellow, and is a prof at a prestiguous Uni. Queen's University. His influential status and roles along with his work and substantial coverage establish his notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fellow" is generally a junior title and "professor" is not notable per se. "Research chair" is not a standard title, unless you are perhaps referring to Canada Research Chair. Does he hold this designation? Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if FloridaArmy could share some of the citations of the subject as a tax law expert.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 01:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After some amount of checking, it has become clear that the subject is not a Canada Research Chair. Several institutional and personal webpages list a "Fulbright Visiting Chair", which is presumably what FloridaArmy has referred to as a "research chair". The Fulbright web page indicates it is an application-based program that facilitates 1-semester educational exchanges for Canadian scholars wishing to visit a US institution. As such, it is clearly not an award that satisfies PROF #2. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lot of references, quotes and reliance on his views as a tax expert and his writings and scholarship on tax havens and tax. here are some examples. His books on taxes seem to be used at unis which also adds to his notability. i believe a text used by colleges and unis is notable per Wikipedia criteria? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:ACADEMIC as above, his position is not a notable one.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 12 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 keep. The consensus seems to keep this, at least as a redirect, which can be achieved by editing. So Why 10:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikka Costa (Album)

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

Non notable and does not cite any references. Abishe (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to Nikki Costa#Discography this album was certified platinum in Spain. Richard3120 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It probably sold few copies back then, but she clinched WP:N in her adult life, thus making this notable as her debut album. I moved the title to (album) rather than the capitalized (Album) per MOS. Nate • (chatter) 18:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikka Costa. A supposed platinum certification proves enough people bought the album to receive that certication, but without additional coverage in reliable sources, a redirect suffices here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While being certified platinum is usually enough for inclusion, reliable sources to make it notable are thin on the ground. I was going to say redirect but there is not much point IMO as it is a self titled album anyway. Mattg82 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extra references have been added to the article and as it went platinum there is a strong likelihood of offline sources for this pre-internet release Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 11 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 speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Neupane (musician)

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

Queried speedy delete for " This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject - Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable. ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This shouldn't be delete at all. He is a gem of Nepali hiphop society, who has strongly made his move to the mainstream hip-hop with a variety of songs. I would rather suggest to revise it, at least with a minimal words. Nepaligirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.224.81 (talk)
Speedy Delete - Copyright violation of [59] and an advertisement for the subject. reddogsix (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deleted this as a good match on the remote site. The creator complained that there was no match - on checking there is zero match now, seems someone has removed the copyvio text from the web site - I'll let others draw their own conclusions. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there no match to the site and the Wikipedia article has not significantly changed isn't that still a since the original article changed? Once it is published, it is copyrighted.reddogsix (talk) 20:00, 7 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 US Open of Curling

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

Non-notable future event. I'm not sure if curling is notable enough of a sport to have an article for this specific tournament. Perhaps this page could be redirected to US Open of Curling. Natg 19 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It Is a notable Sport there is lots of other event pages Curler1200 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please explain how this is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the major World Curling Tour events held in the United States and is a warm-up for the upcoming Olympics for the US teams. Though, I can understand that at present the article lacks sufficient sources and formatting issues to stand on its own. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need work, but I agree with what's been stated by Earl Andrew. Also, the winners (and several participants in the event) are notable per WP:NCURL and have participated in events held by the World Curling Federation and Canadian Curling Association, the two most important curling associations in the world. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:33, 9 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 redirect to Psychoeducation. Redirects are cheap. However this is w/o prejudice if anyone wants to go into the article history and migrate it to Wiktionary. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoeducational

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

dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychoeducation, as a useful search term per WP:ATD-R. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a very sensible suggestion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the term is used in multiple contexts; "psychoeducational assessment" is commonly seen in school settings in regards to assessing for learning disabilities and such. I'd lean toward either deleting the article or turning it into a "may refer to" page. TimD ^[talk] 03:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move to Wiktionary No, @Rathfelder: it doesn't seem "a very sensible suggestion" at all. As @Tdowling: says, the term is used in varying contexts and the article psychoeducation (which focuses on a type of therapy) doesn't fit with the assessment and educational focus of this one. This page should be moved to wiktionary and broadened to include other usage such as that in psychoeducation (an article which also needs work, obviously). Famous _dog (c) 10:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary per the comments above. (For what it's worth, I'm the one who created this article—although it severely fell off my radar shortly thereafter) TimD ^[talk] 21:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or transwiki?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:10, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. One major problem for source-finding is that this series was released under different names for different markets. In French, it was Le Monde de Pahé. In Portuguese, it was Como Irmãos, etc etc. I tried to pillage the interlanguage links for sources, but nobody else has anything reliable we can use.

I'm confident it existed based on the clips I've found, but the utter lack of sources means we can't support an article about it. Refund absolutely applies if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde de Pahe

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

Non-notable tv series. Other than single passing mentions in a few interviews and a really old, no-info iMDB page, I can't even verify it's existence in the context portrayed in the article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited 19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)) The title is incorrectly capitalized; it should be Le monde de Pahé. The Plot section is poorly written and reads like a copyvio translation from the series itself. There may be sources in French, but I have only basic knowledge of that language. There are articles in German, Spanish, and Portuguese, but not French.LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Also, there is no episode information. Is 74 episodes/season the norm in French television? 19:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaundryPizza03 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 4 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Gautam

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of the mu;ltiple items of coverage needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the sort of article to which WP:SYSTEMIC applies: the best sources are likely not internet accessible and not in English. Yet despite that barrier, we have one reliable source already in the article, and I was able to find a second and third: strong evidence that Gautam was a notable Nepalese musician. Υπογράφω (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per the source in the article and those linked by Υπογράφω. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 4 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 keep. (withdrawn informally although never completed by the nominator) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chapo Trap House episodes

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

A separate Wikipedia article listing the episodes of Chapo Trap House? Chapo Trap House barely meets the notability requirements. A list of episodes for this podcast surely doesn't? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some precedent for similar articles, here: episode category. I believe the article should be kept.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snooganssnoogans, hope you're well. I don't see a reason for deletion given in your nomination statement. I do understand your opinion that you don't wish a separate list. In my view, Chapo Trap House seems notable enough and including the list within that article would editorially elongate the article beyond requirement. Per WP:LISTN, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". However, the list of Chapo Trap episodes itself seems notable as various episodes have been discussed in Medium, Paste magazine (check the material before the interview), Washington Post and others. As per WP:LISTN again, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." I personally feel this qualifies on LISTN and should be a Keep, both for informational purposes and for pure notability reasons. What do you think? Warmly, Lourdes 03:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy when it comes to lists, so I'll heed the advice of more knowledgable users. There does seem to be a precedent for listing episodes for podcasts if the podcasts themselves cross the threshold of notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snooganssnoogans. You could leave a note at the top of this Afd that you are withdrawing the nomination. Warmly again, Lourdes 03:35, 4 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xilent

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

Most of the sources listed here are music blogs and YouTube videos. The amount of reliable sources on this subject do not have enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If genuinely notable there would be more sources to cite than just self created

material on youtube or user-created-content forums SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:21, 7 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay McQueen

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

Written like an advertisement, probably by someone close to the subject. No referencing, content only comprehensible for a very select audience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlymanjaro (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually Hawkeye gave no reason to keep this article. It lacks even one source that is an indepdent, secondary one that counts as a reliable source. Beyond that, the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the editor nominating an article for deletion to make a case for it. As to yours, it doesn't matter if the article is a stub, or has no sources. Rather, you need to demonstrate that there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the article is far from being stub, it does have sources, although they are not cited properly, and independent, reliable coverage does exist. His role as a pioneer of an obscure sport adds to his notability, as coverage reflects more than routine coverage of events, and he has participated in world championships of his sport. ie competed at the highest level. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lack of sources does in the article does not equate to failing notability guidelines. He's undoubtedly a world class competitor, but in a decidedly minority sport. The coverage that exists largely backs up much of the content of the article, e.g. [60], [61], [62], [63]. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- I can't read the Spanish articles, but they seem to mention Mcqueen multiple times and may help establish notability. It debatable if he participates in a legit sport, but I don't see why he can't be notable as a stuntman. Of course the current state of the article is garbage, it needs a lot of work. Some sources seem to exist, but they need to be cited. Regardless of position, everyone who votes here should give some type of policy reason for their vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While article provide no incline citation, sources do appear in the article. As subject is active in minor sport, independent coverage do meet WP:SPORTSPERSON basic guidelines. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:28, 16 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosslet, Dumbarton

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

Non-notable street. No sources for over 10 years, no significant coverage found in search for reliable sources. It is a real street and there are some articles that mention the street name in passing. Gab4gab (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage on the web. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NGEO. Tacyarg (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest this is a particularly notable street/area.Dunarc (talk) 22:00, 5 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miri Hanai

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an online directory. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PORNBIO is irrelevant here since she is not a porn actress. Even her Japanese Wiki page does not categorize her that way. She is a gravure idol, which is different. A brief search of Japanese news sites come up with the kind of coverage one expects of a well-known gravure idol: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], etc. Since it is hard to apply WP:NACTOR to gravure idols, it might be best to simply consider her in relation to WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- well, the coverage seems to be of tabloid variety, interviews, and publicity / promotion, as in:

"What kind of images can be seen?【Hanai Miki】 I am dancing at the stairs and shaking at the rodeo machine. The costumes are fascinating in the Showa style, and there are quite a lot of things such as high-leg transparent."
Hanai, who appeared in a nurse cosplay [uniform] at an event [to promote the DVD] that contains a lot of cosplay scenes, said, "There are cosplays and classic massage scenes this time. There is no overall story, but photographers improvise; I would like you to see my vivid figure to respond to it." Etc.

I don't believe that this is sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make an argument about WP:V, you need to argue that the sources themselves are not reliable. Picking what you in your personal opinion think are frivolous quotes is not an argument. (I can find quotes from the same articles that give pertinent information about her career, etc.) Some of these articles are from major news organizations in Japan such as Tokyo Sports, Sankei Sports, ASCII, Asahi Geino, Shukan Playboy, etc., which are used all over the English Wikipedia, especially in entertainment coverage. WP:V, again, does not ask us to judge whether the content fits some standard of "serious" coverage (a word it does not use; it also does not mention the word "tabloid"), precisely because it wants to avoid personal bias. The issue is whether the publication sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you have an argument that the above newspapers and magazines do not fit that, please present it. Michitaro (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not challenging the sources based on WP:V. I’m challenging them based on WP:N. As a gravure idol (pin-up model), the subject falls under WP:ENT, which leads to the same guidance as WP:NACTOR. I don’t see evidence of her meeting this notability guideline; she appears to be a run-of-the-mill model. The sources presented are interviews / WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY: Ms Hanai talking about herself and promoting her work. For the subject to be considered notable, we’d need independent, secondary coverage that provides assessment / critique of her career, not self-promotion. If such coverage exists, I’d be happy to review it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Whether she does porn or is an actress really isn't important. She still fails WP:ENT.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage of this gravure aetist as cited avove. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I addressed the sources above; they are:

Self-promotion,
Tabloids,
Passing mentions,
Etc.

None are suitable for establishing notability for a BLP; hence the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the absence. I've been off Wikipedia for three weeks. I still think there are significant faults in most of the nominator's claims, beginning of course with the gross error of not understanding who this person was before nominating for delete. (That was why I quickly accumulated some sources to show that WP:BEFORE had not been properly performed.) Most of the sources I listed are not self-promotion in that they are produced by reliable third party sources, and are not self-produced. I already made the argument that the claim of "tabloids" (and thus that these fail WP:V) is not supported. Also, all of the sources I provided have her name in the title and thus are not "passing mentions." However, the nominator has made one important point, which is that many of the sources available are close to what one could call interviews. There is an argument that can be made that the very fact someone is interviewed by a reliable third-party publication is a sign of notability, but as WP:INTERVIEW states these have to be treated with caution. I finally had time to do a bit more searching, and I must confess I found it hard to find articles on the net that are not in that category (with some exceptions, like [77]). I checked Web Oya, the database of the Oya Soichi Bunko, the primary scholarly database for popular magazines, and she has 138 articles listed, but about 130 of those are classified as gurabia or interviews. There are a few of articles not classified as either of those in well-known weekly magazines such as Flash (June 2009 and March 2003) and Friday (April 2006), but I cannot check those personally. Again, it is clear from the fact she has had 138 articles that she is a popular gravure idol, but I am not well versed enough in that world to judge whether she "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to the gurabia world. She thus still might be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER but I confess I don't know that world enough. That is why I still have not voted keep or delete. My initial participation in this AfD was, again, to correct some major errors on the part of the nominator. Michitaro (talk) 03:08, 25 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. The weight of argument here comes down pretty firmly against the subject's passing WP:BASIC with very weak coverage. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Dowling

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

Non notable priest. Dean of a cathedral is not a position giving presumed notability. Medal of the OA is the lowest position, awarded in unlimited numbers. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- to be consistent with what I said in another AfD, being a rabbi is not automatically notable and neither is being a priest.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like Rusf10 I am also reminded of the currently up for dletion article on a rabbi, where one person alleged all rabbis presiding over synagogues are notable. This would be like saying all rectors/cathedral deans are notable. Well, clearly all rectors are not notable. While Cathedral deans are probably a step closer to default notability than rectors, only bishops are default notable, and I have to admit while this makes sense to me in the Catholic context (limiting Catholic to those bishops recognized by the Pope in Rome, not Old Catholic and other breakaway groups, which sometimes are extremely small), I think the attempted application of this principal to Episcopalians and Lutherans has at times mislead us. Many Episcopalian dioceses are extremely small in number of total congregants. Dowling is at a level where we would need broad coverage in multiple reliable sources, coming from outside his local area of operation, and we lack that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Outside of his priest activities, I think Gerald Dowling's 40+ year radio career is worthy of notability (https://www.misacor.org.au/index.php/emagazine/current-news/141-fr-gerry-dowling-family-cou-nsellor-on-air ), along with his work as a Club historian for the North Melbourne Football Club. Happy to do some further work on the article in the next couple of weeks to expand it more to reflect those areas. Disclosing that I have been a member of his last parish too. Jbro68 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At most weak keep -- Anglican deans where #Anglicanism is the dominant religion are probably notable. Catholic ones outside Catholic majority countries may not be. Football club historians are probably also NN per se. I am not qualified to judge the prominence of his radio career, but if with a major radio station the combination might be enough to push him into notability. I note we have another person of the same name. It may be this article should be Gerard Dowling (priest) freeing up the present name for the other person. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there is WP:SIGCOV. WP:HEY we evaluate priests the way we do any other profession, by searching for sources. I ran a proquest news archive search on his name , and added the first few articles dedicated to him (an interview on being a football fan, a profile of his radio work, news coverage when he was hospitalized for cancer,) I stopped after adding these few; there were more. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable either as a priest or a radio personality. Sourcing is in passing, routine and / or WP:SPIP. "...is known by many for his pastoral outreach" is pure WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable by what is shown. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, in addition to those already on the page, include Radio priest defies grave illness Herald Sun, 2006; a number of 1996 articles on the 25th anniversary of his radio program, like this:

"ACROSS 25 years the most noticeable change has been the scourge left by drugs, but otherwise, says Father Gerard Dowling, the problems of people and the willingness of others to help remains basically the same. Father Dowling, the spiritual director of Melbourne's Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, ought to know, because this Sunday his weekly radio talkback show, The Family Counsellor, reaches its 25th birthday. It's a remarkable run for a show that debuted as a one-hour program in the 11pm slot on Father's Day 1973 on the then 3UZ. It moved to 3DB, then TT-FM when the station changed format, before returning to Sport 927 in recent years. Over 1300 programs (the show hasn't missed a single week), Father Dowling has offered advice to listeners, or advised them on how to seek help from other sources.

"People are under tremendous pressure these days; there's a lot of uncertainty," he says. "But I still find it uplifting that people are actually looking for help. The fact that people are ringing means they believe there is some answer to their problems. For many, just having someone to listen to them is something." At last, a chance to air grievances; Radio Waves in The Age. He was President of the charity St. Vincent de Paul in Victoria $7.5m for poor from St Vincent describes here by The Age as "one of Victoria's largest charities]. out of time for now, but there are more articles, article just needs a news archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources above are not suitable for notability. For example, the extensively quote piece is an interview, as in:

"...otherwise, says Father Gerard Dowling, the problems of people..." Etc.

The other sources are likewise not sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 13 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 keep. So Why 10:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Efiwe.org

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

Fails the criteria for establishing notability. Some references are from reliable sources but they are not independent of the subject and do not contain independent analysis and/or opinion. Fails WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the profile to be more encyclopedic and less newsletter-y like it had become before. Hi @HighKing: do take a look and let me know if you're satisfied. Igwatala (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Igwatala, it is less advertorial in tone now, but there are no indications of notability and the only purpose to have an article is to promote the cause. I nominated the article because it requires two intellectually independent references in order to meet the criteria for notability and this article has none. Every reference is a PRIMARY source, either directly published by the organization or its an interview with Philip - those references fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As a partner organization fufilling a similar purpose to Wikipedia. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough sources in its 14 references to show notability. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to me that the keep lines (both experienced editors) are not addressing Wikipedia:Notability and WP:ORGIND. There's no evidence of "partner organization" status, and that's not the guideline anyway: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Of the 14 alleged sources, 9 are written by Efiwe.org, of which 3 are the same press release deliberately cited from different websites; the other 5 are local to towns around Southern Illinois University Edwardsville:
1. local: The Telegraph is near SIUE (and also filled with abusive JavaScript, link spam inserted visibly in some pages, and scam ads like "Login to Your Account" to a website that wants you to tell them your e-mail account and password).
2. local: The Edwardsville Intelligencer is near SIUE
3. local: Alestle is SIUE's own newspaper
4. self: The Ktravula article is labeled "For Immediate Release" — it's a direct press release from Efiwe.org
5. self: RiverBender.com is local coverage in Alton/Edwardsville, and is a direct copy of the same press release from Efiwe.org
6. local: The Edwardsville Intelligencer is near SIUE
7. self: Efiwe.org main website
8. self: Efiwe.org Facebook post
9. self: Efiwe.org's Instagram
10. self: Efiwe'org's Twitter
11. self: Efiwe.org's LinkedIn
12. self: Philip Alabi's own prose, and no evidence of editorial control: "We tell your story as you want it to be told."
13. local: Belleville News-Democrat is near SIUE
14. self: same press release again, marked "Content is submitted and reviewed before posting on STLtoday.com, but not verified for accuracy." and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is arguably near SIUE

Making 1 press release look like 3 independent sources isn't a good sign. --Closeapple (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new source that isn't based in/around Edwardsville and isn't derived from the press release. Igwatala (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The social media references will need to go, but there is now coverage on two continents. scope_creep (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The social media links have been removed. It looks good to me too. Igwatala (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources such as Nigeria News that have been addded to the article and the likelihood of further African coverage showing this is more than a local interest project Atlantic306 (talk).

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) 07:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery

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

Non-notable company. There is no WP:INHERITORG from Heaven Hill. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Heaven Hill as per WP:ATD-M. Source searches are falling short to qualify a standalone article, but the suggested merge target article has only one lone passing mention in the form of a link to this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is very little content here except the non-notable list of products and the apparently original research about water quality, and the Heaven Hill article already mentions the brand. Tacyarg (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional cruft on a nn brand. The parent article already mentions it; there's no suitable encyclopedi prose worth merging and there's no need to preserve the article history, since it only contains spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 6 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Music in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

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

Non-notable book. The title gets 6 google hits. The article was started by William Forde Thompson, who is the author of the book. Vanity page. Was put through PROD, but not AfD. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources and this is using Wikipedia to promote his publication which is against policy. WP:NOTADVERT. He both edits his biography and this article with his account and several IPs like 58.172.242.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 58.172.253.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to promote both himself and the book Ammarpad (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: anyone else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of secondary sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Me too! Fails the GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:58, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ R3DLINE

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

No reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic are cited, so he doesn't seem to meet GNG, and he doesn't seem to meet any other relevant WP:NM criteria either. KSFT ^(t|c) 00:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject seems to have many sources listing performances and venues; but none discussing the subject per se. Fails to qualify on the GNG/CREATIVE threshold. Lourdes 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source 'ATV Motocross' is a national publication covering the professional sport of ATV Motocross Racing. 'do312' is a Chicago-based events company that also publishes events around the country under the 'doXXX' designation. The YouTube link shows a segment from The Big Ten Network's live broadcast, with Anthony 'Spice' Adams giving "DJ R3DLINE" a shout out. Discogs & MusicBrainz are approved sources on a large number of DJ profiles throughout Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsmith105 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zemith, YouTube is an unreliable source and cannot count towards addressing notability concerns. None of the other sources you mention are either reliable or discuss the subject significantly. Do you have reliable sources that discuss DJ R3DLINE significantly? If you need help in understanding Wikipedia's notability guidelines, please feel free to ask. Thanks, Lourdes 00:30, 9 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.