Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 January	10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small World Software

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

Does not seem a notable company. Mattg82 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails CORPDEPTH and GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Burley22 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:12, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Al Helfi

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

No independent coverage, no significant coverage, nothing to indicate this person is actually notable and meets WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real article here just some basic info and some citations. Not encyclopedia quality.Nottoohackneyed (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. There is just not enough. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:11, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lukumanu iddrisu

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:ENT. Sourcing is poor, mostly mentioning the article subject in passing or coming from sources (like his university listing him as an alumni) that are not entirely third party. Iddrisu's main claim to notability is him wining a scholarship (described by the article's sources as an award) to Vaasa University of Applied Sciences in Finland. This in itself does not establish the Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment required by WP:ENT, which Iddrisu must be judged against as he is a blogger and motivation speaker. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Rebuttal -Lukumanu iddrisu deletion: The article has been re-edited and written in a way that meet the requirement of section 1 of Any biography; because Iddrisu received a significant award. Furthermore, the argument regarding the award received being a scholarship does not hold. An award can come in many forms. Award at certain ceremonies comes in the form of scholarship in cash and certificate. That is what the news cited as well.
  Additionally, his thesis work has contributed to improving the poor study or ill-information of the subject matter which is Thought Leadership. Therefore I suggest it is Kept Sasluk11 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO states that individuals can be assumed to be notable if they have received a well-known and significant award or honor. As far as an encyclopedia is concerned, a scholarship to Vaasa University is not a well known (and probably not significant) award. Even if these criteria are judged to be met, the article subject should be judged against WP:ENT as he is now a motivational speaker. See WP:NOT for why this is an issue. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The award for his BS thesis does not establish notability by any stretch of imagination. Rentier (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The only notability criteria he would meet in theory would be for an academic. However getting some award for an undergraduate thesis is just not enough to show that someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:56, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Lightweight Crew

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

Non-notable, non-NCAA sanctioned club team. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources found. James (^talk/_contribs) 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Lightweight Crew has been a state university-sanctioned club sports team at the University of California, Berkeley for decades. The fact that the team is not NCAA-sanctioned is irrelevant to the current significance of this team’s history or future. Please define ‘notable’ and ‘reliable’ in your nomination. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickthebcket (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defined: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

"'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." James (^talk/_contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I see James' point, I agree with Kickthebcket that "...the team is not NCAA-sanctioned is irrelevant to the current significance of this team’s history or future". Best, House1090 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I agree with Kickthebcket as well. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Kickthebcket and Bythebooklibrary. = paul2520 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that NCAA sanctioning is neither here nor there. However, there is no significant independant coverage (keeping in mind WP:ROUTINE) that establishes notability. And the topic does not pass any of the 3 requirements in WP:NCOLLATH. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick search turns up little coverage suggesting notability, beyond the Daily Cal piece. [[1]]. Most of the current sources are race results. Amateur organizations fall under WP:ORG, and under that, race results are excluded per WP:ORGDEPTH. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: That part of the nomination statement is irrelevant is not a good reason to keep an article. Anyways, let's give it another week to see if anyone can find WP:RS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see a sufficient number of independent, authoritative references to support notability. Competition results do not qualify.--Rpclod (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 24 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 10:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kwao Lezzes-Tyt

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE. The article as it is does not provide sources that indicate the encyclopedia value of the subject, as they either written by the article subject or mention him in passing. The two sources that could be seen as passing WP:VER [2][3] are not enough to prove the subject Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment as is required by WP:ENT, which covers bloggers. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable as either "social media marketer, public relations and celebrity brand expert, blogger, freelance journalist" or "reporter". Promo 'cruft & spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, sources are not in depth enough, RS issues. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:01, 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 keep. Promotional content can be fixed through editing. ansh 666 02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Morgan (lawyer)

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

An immense amount of promotional material added by a paid editor has been removed, along with several promotional supporting articles, and a large number of promotional links from attorneys in his firm, but I do not think there is really any underlying notability. There's evidence he supported the failed Florida marihuana amendment, but not that he was the central figure--the claims are all "one of the..." . The news reports are relatively minor. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He really is a well-known lawyer [4]. Easily meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG having been covered in numerous sources in a non-trivial fashion.[5][6][7][8][9]. C'mon, he's even a headliner in The Marijuana Times [10]!- MrX 23:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close per MrX. MB298 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article saying someone is not going to run for governor is not exactly substantial coverage. BVut an equally important reason for deletion is the promotional campaign on WP --see the article history. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: That material has been removed. Past information is not a justification for deletion. MB298 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the governor coverage, a non-notable person would not receive the sheer amount of coverage Morgan got for simply announcing he would not run. MB298 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Move- This is the guy who has like 500 commercials on tv everyday and then's there another lawyer who runs commercials saying that he and his law firm aren't legit. Well, whether you think is law firm is good or not, it seems to be a major operation. The firm claims to have over 2000 employees and 370 lawyers. I've just established notability for his firm. His notability would be founding that firm, but since notability is not inherited, that may be a weak argument. His political activity only adds slightly to his claim of notability. It might make more sense to move this to Morgan & Morgan and then change the focus of the article to his law firm (but retain information about him).--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not the level of reliable source coverage of Morgan as a person that justifies having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he is not notable, as you assert, then why did Politico ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), The New York Times ([16]), The Chicago Tribune ([17], [18]), and many more cover a potential candidacy for governor (he didn't even enter the race!)? MB298 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MrX and MB298. Sources indicate notability, especially since they covered someone who did not run, so it cannot be dismissed as routine coverage of announced political candidates. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for marijuana campaigning and as large political donor ([19], [20], [21]). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:13, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of prolific songwriters

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

Indiscriminate list with an ill-defined WP:LSC and an unfortunate WP:GEOBIAS towards Indian authors. "Where is Justin Bieber?", some might ask. Or "where is Leonard Cohen?", others might ask. Personally I'd prefer to ask something slightly more highbrow such as "Where is Goethe?" Or as 78.26 asked in an edit summary: "For instance, how do you not list Johnny Mercer or Irving Berlin?" I have never been a big fan of neither Mercer nor Berlin, but seriously, where are they? This list seems to be a "list of Indian poets I remember" with four North Americans, Bob Dylan, David Foster (!), Alicia Keys (are you kidding me!?) and Bruno Mars spliced into the list. If "prolific" is defined as someone who "has written at least 100 songs", then this list will soon be long. Delete per DEL5 as a content fork of whatever you can think about, the possibilities are endless. Sam Sailor 22:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per nom. Geobias can be fixed, but this list is un-maintainable, as the topic is too broad. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The title including the word prolific is a dead giveaway. Ajf773 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -in it's current form, it follows only songwriters of India/Pakistan and North America, this misleading and very incomplete as a world wide list. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This listing should be narrowly focused on one region like the India sub-continent and kept.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added Indian artists because statistics about Indian lyricists are easily available in websites like hindigeetmala.net, muvyz.com or atulsongaday, but american lyricists' total song number are counted nowhere. I need time to add all the notable songwriters here. Thank you. মাখামাখি (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In order for this to be !kept it would have to be renamed as something like List of prolific songwriters from India. --Auric talk 01:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; renaming it to List of prolific songwriters from India would not be a prerequisite for keeping it, as it would not fix the inherent problems. Sam Sailor 12:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/78.26. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article seems to be quite informative. It has two references that clearly shows Rabindranath Tagore wrote 2,232 songs and Sameer set Guinness record for 3,500+ songs. Moreorver, the article has improved since its creation when most of the entries were Indians, but Important american, UK and korean songwriters' credits have also been added. So, I think now this article is eligible for wikipedia. 8.37.225.63 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — 8.37.225.63 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. In fact they have not even edited the article. Sam Sailor 13:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ghanian songwriters? Brazilian? Hawaiian? There are no polka musicians listed such as Gene Wisniewski, who recorded hundreds of polkas of his own. (Good luck finding a source on that one, by the way, until a discography of Dana Records is published). I appreciate the efforts, but the focus needs to be narrowed, not broadened. Even if this list were to be pared down to Indian musicians, India is a huge continent with a rich and multi-varied musical culture. Could several lists of Indian musicians be created, focusing on a particular region or genre? I don't want your work to be for naught, but I continue to believe that the humongous scope of this list makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a list with fairly arbitrary inclusion criteria. Vorbee (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scope of this could easily be reduced simply by raising the bar and narrowing the definition (does "song" mean a music track, as used by iTunes, or "a vocal composition sung with or without accompaniment", or something that is habitually called a "song" in reliable sources – Bach never wrote one of those, but he scores 954 in the table). But the concept is innately unencyclopaedic, and close to impossible to research, reference and maintain. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - The article has been improved since its creation. It covers nearly most of the famed songwriters with exact number of songs they written. So, I think this article should stay in Wikipedia. 8.37.225.53 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — 8.37.225.53 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]
Delete per nom, MT Train^Discuss 07:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also see List of prolific singers, a similar list article heavily biased towards Indian singers. MT Train^Discuss 09:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ill-conceived, arbitrary and impossible to maintain. Also, I'm sure closing admin will note the probability of either sockpuppetry or canvasing with the keep votes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE & subjective criteria for inclusion. Does not meet WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the threshold provided (>100 songs) is, unfortunately, arbitrary. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: per @MT Train, I have also nominated List of prolific singers for deletion. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary and quite low definition of prolific. Full of unreferenced claims of records, suggesting WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is a song? That is a really good question, and unless we have a universal answer that all agree on to the question, we cannot have this list. This especially gets tricky because some works were put to music in ways that did not closely connect to their composition. The number 100 is arbitrary. No one has demonstrated that reliable sources ever refer to "prolific songwriters" as an actual group, let alone that there is actual consensus on where the group starts. Beyond this, there is no indication that the work has to have been published. There are people who I could not even say for sure if they should go in here or not. For example Evan Stephens wrote at least 84 hymns and anthems. However that is the number of his works published in one particular hymnbook. It is not clear if there were others published in other works, or songs by him sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and never published in a hymnbook. Also, are song writers only those who create the words, or those who create the music as well. What of cases where one set of music has been used for multiple lyrics? This list is a mess waiting to happen. Total number of songs is hard to reliably source, this is just a huge mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 15 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 and redirect to Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment

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

This university course has no notability independent of the college that runs it, the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Following discussion (not very extensive), I'd merged it to that page. The page creator has unmerged it, so we're back to square one. This appears to be promotion by a determined and connected editor; we don't tolerate promotion. We don't (fortunately!) have a page on every individual university course of study, and there's no reason that I can see why we should have this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, article has been merged and we can do away with all the promo stuff. Ajf773 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per Ajf773. Paul W (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the course relates to its interdisciplinary nature and its focus on soft skills such as leadership and teamwork (both of which are relatively unusual since most masters courses promote technical specialism) and its origins and original syllabus in the ideas of the leading structural engineer of his day, Ove Arup. The course was a response to a meeting of the great and the good from the contruction industry professions held at Madingley Hall in 1991, which again differentiates it from most masters courses which lack this broad support and input. Second, the wikipedia entry is simply a factual account of the course and its operation. To call it promotional is a biased and unhelpful criticism. Third, given the nature of wikipedia, I can't actually see why there shouldn't be entries for every university course of study. Why not? They are not forced down everyone's throat - you look at them only if you are interested. The entry does also feature other similar courses at Oxford, Hong Kong etc. A question: are there justifications for separate entries for a musician's albums - or should they all be redirects to the musicians themselves? Fourth, all wikipedia entires are the result of an individual taking an interest in a topic which is clearly notable and writing about it. That's all I've done here. Finally, I can't help wondering whether your actions reflect Britain's anti-intellectualism - maybe you just don't like Cambridge University very much? In which case, I can assure you that the course has been very catholic in its recruitment, and is by no means full of English public-school boys. It's a course for the rest of us, devised to upskill those working in the built environment, not traditionally a sector that attracts high fliers. I am really unhappy at the two of you PaulW and justlettersandnumbers taking it upon yourselves to censor this entry which is informative and factual, supported by references and footnotes, features competitor courses, and, surely, is entirely harmless in the great order of things. Torino-Topolino (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Razorbove

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Cannot find any secondary sources that would establish notability. Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest this is a charting musician or otherwise notable from coverage or a lack of, in reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Self-promotional, clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:44, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oladeji Olatunji

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

Not sure why this was accepted as it was created by a known sock (upe, etc...) and was previously AFD'd and merged to his older brother. I see no evidence at this point that there is significant enough coverage to warrant an actual article and there is little to no change in those sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really see much significant coverage. Most of the sources look to be mostly unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KSI (entertainer). Encyclopaedic content (ie the Awards section) can easily fit within a section of the KSI article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little confused, 1292simon. That's about his brother. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge per 1292simon.--Rpclod (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)~~Delete per Chrissymad.--Rpclod (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rpclod, 1292simon Again, I ask, why? That article is about his brother, not him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Hi Chrissymad. The merge suggestion was an attempt to salvage something out of the article. However, I can see the arguments for deleting, and think that is also an acceptable outcome. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not merge, do not redirect. Redirecting a BLP to a BLP is idiotic and dangerous, and is one of the absolute worst habits we have on Wikipedia. Merging would all but require we keep a redirect to sustain the history for attribution. If there is anything worth including in the brother article, it likely doesn't need a merge. Re: why this should be deleted? It was created by a UPE sock farm to promote the man. It should have been G5'd a year ago. No need to even look at notability. The content and the history is actively harmful to Wikipedia, and preserving it would go against everything in our core policies: we do not create potential BLP violations (redirecting a BLP to a BLP), and we do not store advertising in histories for people to come along and just reuse. Delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted it at WP:AFC and copyedited it, because he has 8.7 million followers, which is much more than the 250k notabilty number. How do you check if it has been created by known sock? If it is dodgy, it goes. scope_creep (talk)
Delete and Salt with no redirect. scope_creep (talk) 14:20, 19 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 has been withdrawn and the only other delete !vote is based purely on the nomination. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Gartner (psychologist)

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

Therapist with no notability except anecdotal petition of Trump fit or unfit to office. Not known beside this case Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Vorbee (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never heard of WP:BEFORE? He's written two controversial books which received a significant amount of press[22][23][24][25][26][27] [28][29][30] I added brief details to the article but it could be expanded with criticism of his ideas as well as proper biographical data. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somehow I missed those books during my search. I did hear about WP:BEFORE. With the added detail, I withdraw the nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep

I am grateful for the addition of Gartner's books by Colapeninsula. I do regard the initiative to realise the mobilisation of 41.000 mental health professionals in a major society dilemma and violate te Goldwater Rule as a very coureagous and innovating deed. Even more if one is reads the lemma Duty to warn. Nevertheless it is my pleasure to read that Arthistorian1977 is withdrawing his nomination to delete! Haaftjlv (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the basis of noms withdrawal DocumentError (talk) 01:22, 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 keep. This is not a very satisfying debate to close; there's a lot of non-policy being thrown about on both sides of the argument. The results of AfDs on other wikis doesn't have much (if any) bearing here; each wiki develops its own standards. There's also a suggestion that this is the result of undisclosed paid editing, but there's no proof of that. Likewise, I don't put a lot of weight in the previous AfD. While recent, it also didn't see much participation.

In the end, there are plausible looking sources presented here, the strongest of which is the financialtribune article. Many of the other sources appear to be from non WP:RS, but it's really hard for me to judge that based just on the automated translations available to me, since I don't read Farsi.

I almost closed this as No Consensus, but decided to go with Keep mostly on the basis of the Financial Tribute source. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IGap

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

This article was deleted from Farsi wikipedia two times, because it was not notable enough. now the user is creating the article In multiple wikis, I afraid this might be paid to editting, but given the size of this company and its importance in Iran, it is not notable and important enough to have a wikipedia article. Mardetanha (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link to first AFD and its AFD in Farsi wikipedia where native speakers are more familiar with messenger, Article was deleted from ar,tr because of its promotional nature Mardetanha (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI think this article has to be deleted from Wikipedia. This is not a famous or notable messenger. The statistics of the usage of this messenger is no known. There is no any famous web-sites mentioning this messenger. This messenger is not welcomed even in Iran and between Persians. The market share of this messenger is too little and it seems that this messenger is like an internal messenger. Even the claims of the producers has not verified well. The documentations of the claimed "OPEN SOURCE" messenger has not well verified. Even in github project at https://github.com/RooyeKhat-Media/iGap-Android there are many dead links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnshahri (talk • contribs) 07:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs I said in the previous deletion request and Mardetanha mentioned above, this messenger is not a notable app and is not a famous one. The article seems to be a promotion rather than being created as an usual Wiki article.Freshman404^Talk 08:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All news websites in Iran have covered the article.And that you said "paid for editing" is accusation. Wikipedia is not a place for accusations.
see links :

Messaging App iGap to Launch Voice Calls

Iran-Made iGap Messaging Application Rewards Hackers

Iran-Made Iran-Made iGap Messaging Application Rewards Hackers

Two Soroush and iGap messengers will be replaced Telegram.

Interview with founder Of IGap

Iranian iGap messenger in pursuit of telegram

in adition The Iranian leader has referred to this messenger on his personal website. See This Diyarenoon (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am translating one part of text from sputnik, currently 66000 people installed this app on their but 20000 people are regular user, messenger this is size is not notable to have wikipedia Article. WP is not place you get fame with Mardetanha (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AfD was closed as keep not even a month ago. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. (WP:DP) Pavlor (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ali Khamenei and Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi directly referred to this messenger. it is not notable??? This article has reliable sources that makes this notable.Extensive coverage on the Tasnim News and the financialtribune ,sputniknews .... Diyarenoon (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not Mardetanha (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article deals with a an obviously notable instant messenger covered by multiple independent sources, namely Sputnik, Financial Tribune, Farsnews, Tasnim and Tehranpress.

Due to the restrictions of Telegram (the most popular messenger in Iran) as an aftermath of the recent unrest in January 2018, there has been a wave of migration to new instant messengers and iGap seems to be on the verge of being the lead. That is the reason for significant coverage of this software in media. The fact that Farsi Wikipedia did not like to keep the article (which IMHO is more a political than a professional decision) does not necessarily vouch for deletion a legitimate piece of writing with correct format and referencing here in English Wikipedia.--Charkhin (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2018 (U۱TC)

Delete Small startup-build app that got a little bit of attention because the government wants to push for "home-made" products. This will join a very long list of similar products like "Soroush", "Daal". etc. This definitely won't pass the test of time. Ladsgroup^overleg 07:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, monopoly on Wikipedia is clear because you leave this comment, regardless of the rules, solely on the basis of taste. With all available resources185.81.43.98 (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
other source :

"IRIB3 News, report about Iranian messengers."

Explanatory articles

iGap Free voice calling and high security messaging

Different Iranian messenger - Check the iGap

Introducing, Reviewing and Exploring the iGap Application

iGap, Iranian superpower

Checking Persian Messenger and Encrypted IGap

Diyarenoon (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable due to the Financialtribune source. However, the article currently has many issues, and needs to be pared back to **independent** sources. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It isn't a "monopoly" to follow policies and guidelines. primary coverage does not advance notability. Definitely promotional with things like "...Mohammad Rasool Kazemi, CEO of Za Media Company, announced the launch of a new voice call service..." as well as others. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors for "first and most recent Iranian messaging". Notability is not advanced on advertisement and support by "leaders". Otr500 (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that AfD is about considering the topic in question, not the current state of the Wiki article. 1292simon (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as Pavlor mentioned, the previous AfD was closed last month as keep. I ask, what has changed in that time to make this app no longer notable? = paul2520 (talk) 14:53, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Zirin

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

This WP:AUTOBIO was speedily deleted twice (2x), followed by five (5x) rejections at AfC, before being accepted on the sixth attempt.

Unfortunately, I can't see how it's improved to pass WP:GNG.

The subject has written two books which are claimed to have been "bestsellers" (the claim sourced to an autobiography on nyc.gov), however, the actual name of the bestseller list is not specified and I can't find.
4 of the seven references listed are unambiguously WP:RSSELF; a fifth is "probably" RSSELF (the probable autobio on nyc.gov); the sixth and seventh are short reviews of the subject's books that provide no biographical information on the subject.
Large sections of core biographical information of this BLP are unsourced and will never be able to be sourced due to the paucity of RS information about this person. We don't even have enough RS information to establish such basic elements of a bio as an approximate date / place of birth.
His service on the New York City Commission to Combat Police Corruption does not pass WP:NPOL.
Hosting a show on a college TV station does not indicate notability.
His former work as an AUSA is not notable as there are thousands of AUSAs at any given moment.
The claim that one of his books has received a Kirkus Star is unremarkable; Kirkus Reviews is a (partial) pay-for-play reviewer and 10% of their reviews receive a Kirkus Star. It's not the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award.

I recommend that, if deletion is approved, this article then be WP:SALTED or we will be in a revolving carousel of continual recreation for the next decade.
(Pinging previous persons active on the draft and deleted versions of this article: User:Chrissymad, User:Ladypaperclip, User:Kvng, User:Sulfurboy, User:C.Fred, User:Mr. MacTidy.) Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check 1. Book reviews do, in fact, establish notability as per WP:AUTHOR #.3; Contrary to Chetsford's assertion, below, it is impossible to pay for a marriage announcement article in the New York Times (you can pay for a boxed ad announcing anything you choose, but weddings are editorial and cannot be bought); and Contrary to Chetsfords assertion below, there are many articles with WP:SIGCOV, in addition to article Zirin wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it looks like you just fill-out an online form and the Times will run your wedding announcement for free [31]. Chetsford (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial as this is, you are wrong. The NYTimes gets inundated with requests to cover people's marriages. So they have a system: you fill in the form, they decide if you're notable (highly accomplished bride and/or groom, or child of highly notable parents, or unusual and interesting couple) they assign a journalist to fact check and writer the actual copy. It is important to read links you use to support an assertion carefully, or to know what you're talking about. This link reads: The Times does not charge for publishing these reports, but space is limited and we cannot guarantee publication. If it is published..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears correct. From my understanding, the NY Times has regular announcements and a more in-depth Vows column. Both are fact-checked (FAQ's: "Submissions are rewritten, fact-checked and edited to Times standards"). This Times article, "Writing the Vows Column Means Crashing Weddings for a Living", states: "Anyone can submit an application online, from which Ms. Wilcox and her staff choose "very subjectively".... Chosen announcements are then thoroughly fact checked... For those that become a full Vows feature, a Times reporter and photographer attend the wedding ceremony and reception...". --Animalparty! (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? I was agreeing with you. Chetsford (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His books have received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as the Economist and Slate. Doesn't that make him notable as an author? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews don't establish the type of deep biographical information necessary for a BLP. They don't tell us about his birthplace, his DOB, his education, his career background. They only prove he is a living human. Being a living human is not sufficient to establish notability. Chetsford (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the notability criteria for creative persons book reviews do establish notability for an author. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention" I think it would be strange of an artist or authors works were notable but they weren't. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment The article was speedily deleted twice due to copyright violations not because the subject was found not notable. The number of attempts at AFC is not so relevant as there were more copyvios which were corrected, and there is a learning curve for new writers. I am surprised to read this long opinionated assessment of the nominator here today, when he has been so busy at AFC reviewing over 100 articles in 24 hours on his first day of AFC reviewing, with 21 in one hour during that time. 2 to 3 minutes per draft is hardly time for most editors to even read over the draft and do a copyvio check. It looks like perhaps that your speed has made the AFC process and wikipedia suffer, much less the probable loss of many first time editors. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to play this game I'd note you have a 59.1% match rate [32] here at AfD while I have a 91.6% match [33]. So perhaps we should keep the comments focused on notability of the article, and not attack each other's competence as editors and reviewers. Sound good? Chetsford (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Yes FloridaArmy it does. There are multiple reviews of his books in WP:RS and with the other references as well the subject certainly passes WP:GNG. Also the nominator stated will never be able to be sourced. New sources come online all the time, as well other sources which were not found previously could turn up. One really cannot make that statement accurately. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews (can) establish the notability of books, not authors (see: WP:BKCRIT). Per our WP:GNG: significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. The two book reviews only establish that he wrote two books. Notability is not demonstrated simply by proving a person is real and alive. As Chrissymad explained to Mr. Zirin on her talk page after she rejected a version of his autobiography substantially similar to the one you approved: "The issue is that neither of these sources are coverage of the individual." [34] Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline - it's not a great article - Zirin does seem to have written a lot of articles for the Washington Times, but that doesn't help improve an article. If federal judges pass WP:NPOL why don't federal prosecutors? Federal judges aren't elected either ... Im leaning towards thinking a federal prosecutor meets the guideline. But I'm not sure how much improvement can be expected in terms of content for the article. SeraphWiki (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, SeraphWiki. I think the reason federal judges are notable, and prosecutors are not, is that (according to our article United States federal judge), there have been 3,294 in the 242 history of the United States. Meanwhile, there were 5,300 federal prosecutors just in the year 2008 alone. [35]. (To be clear, though, the 93 United States Attorneys are notable, however, Zirin's unsourced claim is that he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney; of which there are 5,000+ at any one time, ranging from seasoned litigators to freshly minted 25 year-old JDs). Chetsford (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment The claim you state is unsourced is because you keep removing the sourced citation for it as part of your disruption to the article. ^[1]Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lacypaperclip - could I kindly ask you to please properly thread your comments so they're easier to follow? It can be disruptive when you push each of your comments into the first position and slap a new bolded alert onto them. Also, I know I've asked this before but if there's a way I can convince you to focus your discussion on the notability of the subject instead of attacking the intentions of other editors that would be great. It does sidetrack the process a bit. You created a dedicated space here to question my competence so perhaps you could corral your commentary about me to that space? I appreciate your help. Chetsford (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment When an editor makes a comment they can use comment to delineate it. I have done nothing disruptive here. I was pointing out that your statement that the claim was unsourced is not true. I have the right to point that out and explain that you kept removing it so everyone could understand why the statement is unsourced at the moment. I am keeping other discussions now at their proper venues. You do not need to convince me of anything or "tell me how to focus on discussion". Please keep your comments on the content not the contributors. I was focusing on the notability of the subject and a claim about him which is supported by a reliable source. That is not attacking others intentions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "International Academy of Trial Lawyers". Home. January 10, 1940. Retrieved January 10, 2018.

Comment I searched newspapers.com and I did find quite a bit of significant press from the 60s and 70s-one article about corruption charges where he is mentioned by name 6 times. Others are passing mentions but a lot of them, mostly in the publisher's extra pages I don't have access too but it looks like content that could be pieced together to make a reasonably decent article. Not every article needs to have multiple full length books dedicated to the topic to be worthwhile, but I think the current article is more a G11 issue than AfD.SeraphWiki (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too and was thinking the same thing! On further investigation, though, it appeared to be a quote in the same AP story about a single trial. Because it was an AP story it was syndicated/reprinted by dozens of papers. And, unfortunately I don't think Mr. Zirin's 14-word quote about a criminal defendant in 1970 contributes to his own notability (though, perhaps, about the defendant). I agree that, if kept, this would be an exceptionally odd bio. It's unusual to have so little RS on the subject that we can't even reliably say what he was doing during the 43 year period between 1973 (when he was a junior prosecutor) and 2016 (when his book came out). Mr. Zirin is truly the J.D. Salinger of American jurisprudence! Chetsford (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Terrible terrible article. It certainly does not pass WP:BIO WP:GNG. If it did, there would coverage. scope_creep (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with no prejudice against recreating the article in the future. Like Seraph, I find this borderline. He seems like someone who "should" be notable but the sources don't quite seem to get us there. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an article with so many claims to notability, there sure aren't many independent sources to back them up. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which are currently found in the article. It should be pointed out that when this article was nominated it had only 7 references and the coverage on the subject has been increased to over 40 references which include New York Times, La Times, Forbes plus many others too numerous to mention here. Also, as FloridaArmy stated there are several reviews about his books which are from reliable sources. Another editor mentions a lot of coverage on newspapers dot com from several decades ago. Remember sources only have to be available, not necessarily already placed in the article. This article with it wealth of sources passes WP:GNG and needs to be expanded not deleted. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"over 40 references which include New York Times, La Times, Forbes"

Note that all of these are op-eds written by Jim Zirin himself. IOW, the NY Times, LA Times, and Forbes are not writing about Jim Zirin. Getting the NYT to publish your letters to the editor and op-eds doesn't meet the requirement of BLPS for sources WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, as Chrissymad explained. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::15 of the 40 are op-ed pieces not all. Please do not mis-represent the facts Chesterford. Thank you. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually there are 17 total, 15 are op-eds, 1 is a paid obituary [36] and 1 is a paid marriage notice. Chetsford (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Don't try to obfuscate now. There are 15 op-eds not 40 like you wrote previously. More importantly now there are even more references listed than before, the largest majority being from mainstream sources. I was wondering Chesterford do you have a COI regarding this matter? The reason I am so politely asking is that you seem to so adamantly object to anything at every juncture. It has even come to the point where you have marked a New York Times paid death notice as unreliable? You must be confusing the fact that a paid notice can, of course not be used to help with notability, but to call the New York Times unreliable? Maybe you need to step back from this article, and let the article and AFD be judged fairly by the community. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, that doesn't seem right. By my calculations we have 17, not 40. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And that's okay! As for paid notices, please see WP:RS. Advertisements are not considered RS. A paid death notice is simply a classified ad that appears in the obits section of a newspaper. It is not subject to the editorial control of journalists. Chetsford (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Gee, Chetsford, why can you not just admit your error? Bythebook librarian said 15 were op ed pieces, yet you keep saying the two other items are as well. The two paid notices are not op eds. I really think By the book gave you some good advice. You seem to have claimed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, and most of the time will not let improvements stay in the article. Part of AFD is working to improve the article. On another topic, I would like to know the answer to the question you skipped above? It is an important issue to note. Simply do have a COI with this article subject, have you ever met him, do you know someone in the family? Is there any link to him, or maybe do you not like attorneys? Please just leave a simple yes or no answer. Because if you happen to say yes, your arguments here may be seen under a different light, and the closing admin has a right to know the information. Thank you. One other thing I have found a source about the books being on the bestsellers list. I am going to try and find one or two more then I will add that info back to the article. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Chetsford, have you been involved with many afds involving an author as you are incorrect when you state "Book reviews don't establish the type of deep biographical information necessary for a BLP." and "Book reviews (can) establish the notability of books, not authors (see: WP:BKCRIT)." According to WP:NAUTHOR "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [an author's body of work are their books]. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." so with Zirin, Mother Court is held by around 290 libraries and Supremely Partisan 370 libraries, that could be deemed as "well-known" for these kinds of books, but what about reviews? well, Supremely Partisan (SP) has a Kirkus starred review, you state "The claim that one of his books has received a Kirkus Star is unremarkable; Kirkus Reviews is a (partial) pay-for-play reviewer and 10% of their reviews receive a Kirkus Star. It's not the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award." is misleading as although this may be the case here (and with other of their recent reviews), as a book review magazine that is over 80 years old it is not necessarily true about all their reviews (but i digress:)). SP has also been reviewed in The Times here and The Spectator here Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries (Choice) here, The East Hampton Star here (may be deemed "too local"?), and ABA Journal here, so meets WP:NBOOK; with Mother Court it has been reviewed by Choice, ForeWord Magazine Reviews, Library Journal here, The Providence Journal here (another local?:)), The Law Society Gazette here, The Times here, The New York Review of Books here, New York Law Journal here, Quest (lifestyle magazine) here, The Journal: of the Law Society of Scotland here, and The Economist here, it too meets nbook, so Zirrin has authored two books that are well known and have received multiple reviews meaning that he meets WP:AUTHOR and so is a Keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great points and supporting arguements Coolabahapple I agree with you and will duly update my !vote rationale and say this subject passes WP:AUTHOR and passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject has created two works which have received significant critical attention. In addition, this encyclopedia article need not be long to be complete, neutral, and well-written, and subjects can be notable without all biographical details being substantially documented. However, it just so happens that Zirin has biographical entries in Who's Who in America 1994 (pg. 3781) and Who's Who in America 1998 (pg. 4785) which verify birth date, parents, academic career, and professional career up to 1997. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete surprising not more has been written about him ... I see the Who's Who but this appears to be a pay for play Who's Who scam version of Who's Who ... opposing proposal to salt Burley22 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Burley22 but the claim that being included in Marquis Who's Who is a "scam" is absurd, baseless, and borderline conspiracy theory territory. What 'scam' is involved in getting your biographical information in published books year after year? True, if self-nominated it doesn't prove notability on its own (this is explicitly noted in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note4-6. But the Who's Who entries don't need to satisfy notability, Zirin's books do: read WP:AUTHOR. And there is no compelling reason to doubt the information therein, especially if it is not contradicted by other sources (and yes, even reliable sources may sometimes contain errors or contradict each other, but so what?). In an earlier time, many journalists and researchers would start with a Marquis book or other biographical directory. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think we can use a bunch of opinion pieces written by the subject of the article as reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject of the article. Without those, there's nothing substantial. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not using his opinion pieces to satisfy notability. Read WP:AUTHOR: "The person's work (or works) ... has won significant critical attention" Zirin has authored two books (The Mother Court and Supremely Partisan), which have received significant critical attention from independent sources. Zirin's work has undoubtedly been recognized. In addition to the reviews Coolabahapple has listed above, Zirin's work has been reviewed by The New York Times (here), The Federalist (here), Above the Law ( here ), and Foreward Reviews (here). In addition to print, Zirin's work has been discussed on television: Here's Zirin on Morning Joe. Here's Zirin on C-SPAN. Here's Zirin on KTTV, Los Angeles. If someone is invited on air for national or major regional television, I think that indicates notability. Zirin's own syndicated talk show (Conversations In The Digital Age) appears in public television outlets in New York as well as Kentucky,[37], Texas[38], and possibly elsewhere. From existing sources, Zirin's works have received attention in England and Scotland, as well as the United States.

And while Zirin's op-eds alone do not vouch for notability, the reception of such Op-Eds can. Zirin's essays have been cited in multiple books,^[1]^[2]^[3] and at least one essay has been reprinted in an anthology.^[4]

Lastly, I want to remind everyone that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the present state of an article. A person need not be covered extensively since birth to meet notability criteria. WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" For Zirin, we have two notable books, and sufficient verifiable biographical information to flesh out a short biography. An article need not be long to be notable. A concise biography of two or three paragraphs is probably all that is needed to neutrally and accurately assert what Zirin is known for. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Weidenbaum, Murray; Hughes, Samuel (1996). The Bamboo Network. New York: Free Press. p. 137. ISBN 9780684822891.
^ Torr, James D. (2005). The Patriot Act. San Diego, Calif.: Lucent Books. p. 47. ISBN 9781590187746.
^ Nancy S. Lind; Erik T. Rankin (2015). Privacy in the Digital Age: 21st-Century Challenges to the Fourth Amendment. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-2971-0.
^ Friedman, Lauri S. (2006). The Patriot Act. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. p. 30. ISBN 9780737735253.

Delete This article relies to heavily on works by the subject to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that notable works establish the notability of a subject. He's an author so producing notable books establishes his notability. What would you have an author be notable for? And being an author is only one aspect of his notability.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy That would be true if there were any other non-primary, run of the mill sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what makes sources such as this New York Yimes Book review about his work run of the mill? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment No, of it is not run of the mill! It is the new york times! lol. I would like to update my !vote, to add that due to Zirin's two notable books he passes WP:AUTHOR, since there has been critical discussion about him and the books in RS, and that, as well this article subject clearly passes WP:GNG for significant coverage over some 45 sources which are WP:RS. Also, please let me remind everybody, when this article was nominated there were only 7 citations in the article. I feel that with the help of several editors, we have greatly improved this article. Lurkers and commenters that have not placed a !vote and rationale yet, there is still time to do so if you wish. Pinging participants here who have only commented, but placed no !vote yet: FloridaArmy, DocumentError, SeraphWiki If I missed anyone who has not voted, I am sorry! Also wanted to let every one know, I updated and added a new section for Philanthropy with multiple citations from The Associated Press and the New York Times. Please read over the article if you have not lately. Thanks. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the books aren't notable either; read the "articles"; they're just like the bio: trivial coverage like perfunctory reviews, so they don't pass WP:GNG either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Same goes for the two stubs on his books, Supremely Partisan and The Mother Court. Wikipedia's just being used to promote this man and his buyable work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep a great deal of sourcing for the man, his career and his books exists. Article needs improvement, but coverage is there, going back years, with, but mostly without middle initial. Suggest the use of keywords, I looked using the book titles (short versions, without subtitles) and book reviews, coverage of books NOT by Zirin, reported stuff and book reviews in major papers coma up. I added a few of the book reviews. Granted, page needs editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coolabahapple and Animalparty have ably outlined the guidelines-based rationale. His first book was reviewed by The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.[39][40][41][42][43][44] His second book was reviewed by The Sunday Times and The Spectator.[45][46] These eight reviews alone meet WP:AUTHOR criterion #3 and then some. The subject is notable. Any other problems - autobiography and overuse of non-independent sources - can be dealt with by editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sustained coverage of subject found. Article still needs improvement, but it satisfies WP:AUTHOR and passes WP:GNG as it now stands. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A 'No consensus' close would be possible at this stage, but I think it's worth relistin/g Hopefully a way can be found of parsing the nature of the sources presented, in an attempt to assess what weightj, if any, should be given them in establishing notability: Reliable and independent, or paid op-eds? That is your question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er... wrong question. The fact that Zirin has penned op-eds and articles (some may have been paid placements - I don't know) is irrelevant, raised by some iVoters as a straw man. The question for editors here is the usual question at AfD: Is there WP:SIGCOV in secondary WP:RSes?

Note I regularly edit AUTHOR AfDs. In gauging the notability, writing a book that gets reviews published in multiple significant venues is seen as passing WP:AUTHOR # 3. In addition Zirin is frequently quoted in articles like Judges Playfully Dispute Whether New York’s Federal Court Is the Oldest (New York Times), and his personal life, career and philanthropy are reliably sourced MoMA’s Makeover Rethinks the Presentation of Art. Even the book parties introducing his books get coverage in mainstream media [Supreme expert], an article in The Times (of London) about a celebrity book party for Supremely Partisan held in 2016 at the Savoy Hotel. Mirin passes WP:AUTHOR. Keep (as I wrote above).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That would apply if an author were being reviewed in general-audience publications, but that's not the case here. This is specialist writing reviewed in specialist publications that make a point of trying to review everything new that comes out in that field; it's trivial, rote coverage. Whether an author is cited/quoted by others doesn't establish notability, or we'd have 100,000+ more articles on academics than we do. Many people also make their living as "spokespeople" being quoted on things in the press (it's what gets them invited to be speakers at events for which they get paid, and so on). For example, I've been interviewed for publication many hundreds of times, been on various radio shows, interviewed on BBC News and other TV shows, presented at conferences, etc., but that doesn't make me notable, just competent at PR and media relations. Having had various op-eds published (BT;DT myself, too) also indicates competency as an essayist, not notability. I'm also a published author (Harper Collins, 1998) and have had articles written about me in highly topical, not general-audience, publications, and again I'm not notable. My book has been reviewed multiple times, again in highly specialized works for the most part, and is – guess what? – not notable. Zirin isn't special, he's just very self-promotional like all people in his line of work. This isn't really any different at all from a band that actually has an album that wasn't produced at home and has had some reviews in 'zines and (these days) websites devoted to their genre and some airtime on college radio. If they're not covered in-depth in general-audience publications, they're not notable. Highly topically specialized publishing, especially that dedicated to churning out reviews, essentially fails WP:INDY because it lacks distance from the subject matter, and is highly, often entirely, dependent on the advertising dollars of the publishers the output of which they're reviewing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Reviews of his books have run in The Times (of London), The Providence Journal, The Spectator, The New York Review of Books, The Economist, the New York Times, and other mass-circulation, non-specialist publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is attacking the (imagined/inferred) method by which Zirin's books became noticed, not the fact that they have achieved notice. If all media coverage were merely repackaged press releases, then a case might be made . --Animalparty! (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If, as some arguing for deletion have suggested, Zirin's two books do not warrant notability due to perceived insufficient depth of coverage, a plausible compromise could be to merge the two books into this article, as again, WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It is clear that Zirin's writing is what he is most widely known for (here's a magazine article on Zirin's book release party). To be fair, based on presently existing sources I can't foresee either book article becoming much more than stubs while still meeting WP:NPOV, and even if they meet WP:GNG, consensus may determine they are better off presented in the author's article. I again remind all that the current state of this article does not impact notability. In my opinion it currently devotes too much text to trivial or affiliated sources, and could easily be consolidated by a third or more, but Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Zirin's books have received widespread secondary coverage in both general and specific reader sources. His biographical details are less widely covered, but verifiable due to reliable publication in Who's Who and New York Times. And even primary/affiliated sources, and those self-published by the subject can be used sparingly per WP:PRIMARY, WP:BIASED, WP:SELFSOURCE. Zirin is by no means the most notable lawyer or writer in New York, but from existing coverage, a policy-compliant article can be made that follows the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer Lacypaperclip and Bythebooklibrary have both been indeffed as sockpuppets. For ease of bookkeeping, I've taken the liberty of striking their comments as suggested by the essay WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 23 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. J04n(talk page) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D-Block Boys

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

Non-notable street gang lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are all brief statements that someone belonged to the gang. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very torn on this. We have two New Orleans T-P articles, a federal court record, and others, however, coverage is not all that detailed. Do we allow greater leeway for underground organizations, which a criminal street gang is by nature? DocumentError (talk) 01:26, 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 19:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards Keep or possibly Weak Keep. I think the references available points towards notability. But I think the article needs to be improved and more references needs to be added to bring even more clarity to the subject.BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or possibly merge to an article on gang activity in New Orleans. I searched: "D block" + gnag + Algiers (the New Orleans neighborhood where this gang is active:
Panel notes spike in Algiers violent crime ; Police optimistic cases to be solved, Friedman, Brian. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]15 Apr 2007: 01...been particularly effective in prosecuting members of Algiers' violent "D-Block"...4th District hit a "proverbial blip on the radar," said Algiers Police Advisory...abatement team on Algiers' streets in response to the recent crime spike..."
Girl's killing triggers sweeping indictment: Street gangs targeted in charges that include racketeering, Simerman, John. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]10 May 2013: A.1...as alleged members of the "D-Block Gang, " which police claimed sold prodigious...The D-hitBlock case was the first use of the state racketeering statute in...to be the broadest street gang indictment in New Orleans history, also names..."
Editorial: Going after violent gangs, Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]08 Sep 2012: B.4...."D-Block Gang" in the 6th Ward. Prosecutors said gang members sold large..., Six of the defendants charged in the "D-Block Gang" had other pending charges in..."
THE DANGER BLOCK: Authorities are using racketeering charges on 11 men connected to a 6th Ward block that turned violent after Hurricane Katrina; Reckdahl, Katy. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]01 Jan 2011: A.1....gangs have never made inroads in New Orleans, the city has long had identifiable......ago to indict 11 young men in the so-called D-Block Gang who, police say, sold...
And more similar, including the spate of stories in November 2017 that seem to have inspired the creation of this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DONTBITE - we have here a very new editor who brought WP:RS to create an article on an urban gang that has gotten WP:SIGCOV dating back to at least 2006. It would be nice to encourage newbies, rather than plastering the newbie's page with a "Welcome" template followed by no fewer than 3 deletion templates for this article (two SPEEDY plus this one).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:40, 21 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. – Joe (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Dye

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

Delete or redirect to Laura San Giacomo (former wife) as Dye is insufficiently notable as an ACTOR and article has no sources. Quis separabit? 20:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any sources besides IMDb. We have way too many articles here on Wikipedia using this non-reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laura San Giacomo#Personal Life. For reasons outlined by Quis separabit?. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm somewhat familiar with this actor and he has had significant roles in all the movies listed on his wiki page except for Men at Work. Six all together so I believe he meets WP:ENT. Valley Girl, Joy of Sex, Body Rock, Fraternity Vacation, Scenes from the Goldmine and Out of the Dark. Other than articles covering his marriage and divorce from San Giacomo, I could only find one reliable source that addresses him in detail. Cameron Dye Tulsa World article GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some sources to the article. Only one really addresses Dye in detail, but four others that confirm things in the article about Dye. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The original nomination was good, but I think the subsequent improvements get this article just over the line. DocumentError (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that with the improvements this article should be retained. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actor with significant roles in several films. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:50, 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. – Joe (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Voice

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

Non-notable pressure group; only RS coverage was about the event of its founding, which are only routine coverage and so do not pass the criterion of significant coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Totally suitable and should not be deleted. It is similar to the Tory Reform Group and Conservative Friends of Israel and more as listed in List of organisations associated with the Conservative Party (UK)

Conservative cabinet minister support is enough to warrant significant coverage as required by Wikipedia (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by "Conservative cabinet minister support is enough to warrant significant coverage"? The only relevant guidelines as far as I can tell are WP:N and WP:ORG, neither of which relate to Conservative cabinet minister support, which isn't really "coverage".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralbegen (talk • contribs)

Sure thing Ralbegen, it means that it has governmental authority if it is an active Prganisation set up by a cabinet minister and endorsed by them (which CV is!). Hope that helps. (Thepoliticsexpert 11:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Thepoliticsexpert: I'm struggling to see how that relates to the inclusion criterion of notability and why you think it's significant coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message @Ralbegen:. We should keep this article because of its notability, which does not stem per se from cabinet authority but also from the fact that, as the article does say and give evidence by citations/references (#8) for, Conservative Voice has a "follower base of just under 10,000". I think this is ample (though not all) evidence why this article fulfills the notability criterion on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert (talk • contribs)

Duplicate !vote de-bolded. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ORG, the only relevant notability guideline that considers size: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources". Size is not sufficient, and the source used here is not independent. And again: support from cabinet ministers is not inherited. Ralbegen (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as the existence of the group doesn't automatically confer notability. Neither, despite a rather hopeful (if non-policy-based) claim to the contrary, does the fact that cabinet ministers support the group. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it does mean that it has governmental authority and support if it was founded by a cabinet minister.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ariticle/organization has reliable sources such a The Telegraph[47] and The Independent[48]. In addition, right-wing political parties are rapidly gaining more and more power in Europe so it would be shortsighted to delete this article. Knox490 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph and the Independent are reliable soruces, but I don't think that these articles constitute significant coverage, as rquired by WP:N and WP:ORG. From WP:ORG, these articles both seem to be largely based on press releases and so don't contribute towards notability. Beside that, routine reporting [...] like announcmenets [...] is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Separately, notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time per WP:SUSTAINED. These articles do not demonstrate sustained attention, and when I looked for more sources to do so I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Ralbegen (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Founded by David Davis and Liam Fox so it has governmental authority. Follower base is also substantial.Thepoliticsexpert (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Explicitly: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. Size is also insufficient for notability without substantial coverage per WP:CLUB. Ralbegen (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the Conservative Party (UK) - the giveaway is in the title. Obviously exists and is sourced as such but it falls under the umbrella of the main political party and isn't important enough for a stand alone article. Szzuk (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But as Conservative Voice is not officially part of The Conservative Party (UK)^[1] this would not b right. Their HQ is not at [CCHQ]. They are affiliated with, but not condoned by, the Conservative Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert (talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vote changed to delete. As noted WP:Sustained isn't satisfied, the group will just disappear and another will be created. Szzuk (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: The two sources in the article that could contribute towards GNG aren't sufficient, because the coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED. They're both about the founding of the group. I think that the lack of sufficiency of the articles in the Independent and the Telegraph to meet the GNG is also highlighted by how little of the content can be drawn from them, and how much of the article has to be drawn from non-reliable, non-independent and primary sources. Ralbegen (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, no WP:LASTING coverage and thus no notability. Only coverage appears to be from when it was founded in 2012; I can't find anything else on it since. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - As noted above, very notable as follower base of 100,000 Conservatives, and cabinet minister support. Notable and influential, clear references, definitely keep. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticsexpert (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—duplicat !vote struck. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn pressure group; the follower base does not matter if the subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Featured in multiple reliable sources, with high-profile names. It is a borderline case though as most sources seemed too be related to the launch of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KU2018 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources here are laughable. A quick search finds nothing better. If this is the most that's been written about it, this does not meet the GNG. DocumentError (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:K.e.coffman. 2.25.221.187 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment editors might like to see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage showing that the group has influence on political outcomes. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:01, 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 no consensus per sources presented by Northamerica1000 appear to pass WP:AUD. The strongest sources presented are Oxford University Press and The News & Observer are non-local sources giving the cafe significant coverage. Others have argued that these sources are not enough for notability. The vote count and arguments lean toward keeping, however there is still disagreement, hence a lack of consensus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe

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

Non-notable restaurant in a college town. All of the in-depth coverage is from the The News & Observer, the regional paper for this area of North Carolina, and given the proximity to Chapel Hill, it really is more local puff coverage than anything else. You have other coverage in IndyWeek: a local piece that does reviews of virtually every resturant in the area, and the Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper of UNC-Chapel Hill, which doesn't count towards notability. There are some mentions in larger publications such as HuffPost and The Guardian, but these are just passing along with other coverage of Chapel Hill food establishments, and don't meet the significant coverage threshold. This is simply a generic Indian place that has gotten some press because of the social-justicey feel of its background. That is quite common in the area, and nothing about it really stands out. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination strikes me as odd. It clearly passes the general notability guideline, because a plethora of reliable sources that have more than "mentions": The News & Observer, Indy Week, The Story with Dick Gordon, Grist, etc. No part of the general notability guideline says that it has to have national coverage or anything remotely close. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- IndyWeek is a local publication that reviews literally every restaurant in the greater Triangle region at some point. The News & Observer is the only real journalistic publication in the region and this type of coverage would be typical for many restaurants: it is routine and doesn't come near our notability threshold. Grist is an interview with the owner, which means it is a primary source that doesn't establish notability. Even if we change the GNG to include primary sourcing, it would fail WP:ORGIND for lacking intellectual independence from the company. Chapel Hill does have some notable resturants (Top of the Hill Restaurant & Brewery being the first that comes to mind), but this isn't one of them. There are literally three Indian restaurants on the same block, and this one is nothing special. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because a publication regularly reviews restaurants doesn't make it inherently not meet the GNG. Also, ORGIND says nothing about interviews, and saying that other restaurants exist that are more notable doesn't make this one less. You may wish to see my working page which lists bare URLs of sources, such as the coverage on PBS (albeit a local affiliate, it's still a reliable source). --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The GNG requires secondary sourcing that is intellectually independent. Interviews are neither secondary nor intellectually independent. We never count them at AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You may never count them at AFD, but many do. A media organisation choosing to interview and publish the interview is of course an indication of notability, as it is an editorial judgement on whether the subject of the interview is notable and so UHameltion is correct to bring them up as an indicator of notability. Egaoblai (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disregarding the interviews, the restaurant has still been covered, see for example WP:AUD: "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" and that would be The News & Observer. One article in particular is "Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe starts next 5 years with $100,000 recipe for success", much more than a "puff" piece. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really. The News & Observer piece you cite is also primarily an interview that fails WP:ORGIND, particularly other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Additionally, like most regional press, theNews & Observer splits it's coverage between local and statewide/regional stories. In this case, the stories themselves are identified by the paper as being local (Chapel Hill and Orange County). These are human interest pieces that don't establish notability. We routinely delete organizations that are significantly more notable than this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that things get deleted that are notable, like PDQ (restaurant). I'd like to emphasize that just because things are local or include quotations doesn't meant that they don't establish notability. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is so homespun, so full of corny sentimentality ("the restaurant's policy of not turning away people who could not pay") that I can almost imagine the main chef sitting on her porch making dinner for the whole town while she whistles "They'll be Coming 'Round the Mountain." Not to mention the mild case of plagiarism from the News & Observer shown here, this article is remarkable only for its puffery.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reasons for deletion. I invite you to improve the article. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn business only of local interest. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD, and is mostly WP:SPIP: interviews and PR driven puff pieces. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article was created on 21:04, 26 December 2017‎ (link) by a relatively new user and then nominated for deletion 20 minutes later on 26 December 2017‎ (diff). Then, the user's work is chastised here with commentary such as "...homespun, so full of corny sentimentality", etc. Not commenting on notability at this time, but sheesh, really? See also WP:BITE. I hope the editor that created the article won't be discouraged and cease contributing to Wikipedia because of this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:BEFORE searches, meets WP:AUD per the book source and meets WP:GNG. I agree that the article would benefit from copy editing, but the topic does meet notability guidelines, although not on a grand level. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Forked: A New Standard for American Dining. Oxford University Press. pp. 52–63.
"Vimala's Curryblossom Café receives national grant". WRAL-TV.
"Vimala’s Curryblossom Cafe starts next 5 years with $100,000 recipe for success". The News & Observer.
"Trump’s immigration ban hangs over refugee welcome lunch in Chapel Hill". The News & Observer.

Only the book source counts towards notability per our guidelines. The rest are primary as discussed above, and thus specifically excluded from counting towards notability by WP:N. That isn't even taking into account the local nature of the coverage. This is not enough to meet the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This source has only one quote from the subject, and the rest is written entirely from the journalist's perspective. This source also has significant independent analysis from the journalist. It is quite normative for reporters to actually speak a bit with people involved in the companies they are reporting upon; to not do so would be biased and journalistically unobjective. Also, I'm a bit concerned that I had to come in here and present the book source in the first place. Are users actually researching notability via WP:BEFORE searches, or just basing it incorrectly upon the state of sourcing in articles? I found the book source simply by selecting the Gbooks link atop this discussion; it's the first link on the search results page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a review by the local TV station that reads like a press release and includes no journalistic analysis at all. It is a feel good local puff piece. The News & Observer piece you site isn't about the company at all: it is about the impact of the Trump administration's policies on local refugees who have lunch at the restaurant. That is not coverage of the restaurant, but of Donald Trump's immigration policies. Even if we were to agree that the content meets our standards for businesses (which it doesn't), they are also both local sources. I could literally create an article on every restaurant Franklin Street (Chapel Hill) based on this sourcing, because all the town has is a university, bars, and food. There is no way that any of this subject comes remotely close to meeting our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that the article about the lunch doesn't offer a lot, but I view this as contributing to notability. It's a bylined news article objectively written by a journalist that is published by a reliable source and provides significant coverage about the topic, as does the book source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a local TV station. It fails WP:AUD. As does all the coverage form the News & Observer because it is from the local section, not their statewide or regional pieces. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AUD, " at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" to qualify notability (bold emphasis mine). Every source does not have to meet AUD, only one does. WP:GNG does not state that every source has to meet AUD, nor should it. Note that in my !vote above, I stated "meets WP:AUD per the book source". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources: local sources for restaurants in a small city normally cover essentially all local restaurants, and are therefore indiscriminate. Using them implies that all restaurants are notable. The promotional style of the article is also cvcery heavily marked, particularly the biographical details in the first paragraph, which in this case completely irrelevant to the importance of a restaurant (obviously bio details about a restauranteur's career are relevant, but usually not their childhood). DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that "promotional style" can be fixed and several sources heavily draw on the restaurateur's childhood as a means of conveying influence over the food served. Your comments on editing are helpful; thanks! --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a strongly sourced article. A reminder to previous voters for delete that interviews are perfectly valid sources of notability, as choosing to publish an interview is an editorial decision and that local sources are welcome (and encouraged!) on Wikipedia. Some of the complaints about the article could be solved with WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Egaoblai (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not. They are primary sources. Your keep vote has no basis in the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Quoting Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." --Lambiam 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but Retarget/Rename The focus of much of the available sources, and hence the article, is about her rather than purely about the restaurant itself, hence the article is poorly weighted and feels like COATRACK. Rename the article, and retarget to focus on her, with the cafe as a redirect to a section and material that doesn't really belong in the current article included. Additional coverage in the journal Southern Cultures (UNC published but presumably with a broader distribution), and long interviews on WUNC's The State of Things and the Story(NC regional, but may have been rebroadcast through other public radio). Brief mentions in the Guardian, and Mlive and key note at Chatham University in Pennsylvania. The grant was publicised in Forbes and Enterpreneur (these may not usable as RS due to paid placement?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hydronium Hydroxide, these all appear to be primary sourcing. Is there any secondary sourcing that you would be able to find that would meet the GNG? If you think that the owner is notable, but the restaurant isn't, then this page should be deleted and a new article created on her. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyBallioni: The sources were mainly expanding on AUD (though several are not entirely primary), and NA1000's book find and the independent coverage (weakly) address N. I sit by retargetting as facilitating better structure, tone, and content but in the absence of support that's not the (Chapel) Hill I plan to die on. If there's something that is to be kept, then deletion plus recreation plus restoration to draft plus copyandpastemerge plus historymerge is excessive. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hydronium Hydroxide: that’s the thing, there isn’t anything here that remotely should be kept under NCORP, the creator has done a good job of WikiLawyering to the point where it is easy to ignore that the sourcing itself is significantly below anything we would expect for corporate notability, as is the coverage of the owner in terms of a BLP, for what it is worth, though there is a stronger claim here. The other thing to consider here is that the claim to notability is essentially that she is a poor business owner: she almost bankrupted her business and needed the grant to survive. That type of coverage, especially in local papers, should be strong evidence that a local restaurant is NOT notable, if anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing obviously fails the portion of WP:N that looks for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos:: I invite you to change your conclusion. The guideline on notability states in WP:AUD that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". This exists per NorthAmerica1000 above, and if it's the state of sourcing actually in the article that bothers you, you can see that I've begun to add more. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"At least one" doesn't mean "if one exists the article must be kept". I went back through and looked at every single source and frankly I don't think it passes. They're almost all local (including a student paper), or they focus mainly on Vimala herself rather than the restaurant. The Grist one is not intellectually independent given that it literally starts by describing Vimala as a friend of the author's. The only really strong source is the segment from Forked. I think it's possible that Vimala herself could swing a GNG/ANYBIO pass, but I don't think the restaurant does. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica1000 passes WP:AUD 42.111.196.105 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — 42.111.196.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The Oxford University Press book Forked: A New Standard for American Dining provides significant coverage of both Vimala Rajendran and her cafe.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The Oxford University Press book source is clearly a national or international source. The other sources from the regional newspaper The News & Observer and the local television station WRAL-TV also provide significant coverage. There is significant independent journalistic reporting and analysis. That the journalists included quotes from Vimala Rajendran is standard journalistic practice and does not make the sources non-independent.
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An argument to keep a local street restuarant that has a human interest side with the continued can of worms (OH! now other stuff exists) that everything in the world should be on Wikipedia. A problem is that even if there are local arguements NOTDIRECTORY states "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.". There is also the specific #6, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". NOTADVERTISING states "...so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable.". The "University of North Carolina Press" sponsors the quarterly Southern Cultures: The Special Issue on Food. This publication also includes such things as Bernard Herman on Theodore Peed's Turtle Party and Will Sexton's "Boomtown Rabbits: The Rabbit Market in Chatham County, North Carolina,". This doesn't give a green light to have an article by Courtney Lewis on how the "Case of the Wild Onions" paved the way for Cherokee rights... or other local cultural aspects of southern living, These things are also printed by the University of North Carolina Press. This is twisting the local printing, allowed by an otherwise "regional" publisher, to be Wikilawyered into meaning pretty much all things in the world can have an article. Wikipedia:Notability states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."

This article is covered by number 2 with "WP:NOTDIRECTORY" and "WP:NOTADVERTISING". Most universities have a press. LSU ("one of the oldest and most prestigious academic publishers in the South") prints "general interest books about Louisiana and the South" including "Foodways". With the evrything in the world deserves a Wikipedia page mentality I can find an LSU printing of many small businesses, some coverage in the local newspapers, even TV news (as well a YouTube), and can have an article on hundreds of local businesses and twist significant coverage to mean everything in the world. I would cover it better because I would want some neutrality or maybe controversy and provide the Heath Department restaurant inspection. We could likely find similar university or college presses across the US and in fact I am sure we can. However, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Not everything in the world deserves a page on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Northamerica1000's comments above. I like 42.111.196.105's mention of WP:AUD. = paul2520 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed as delete. But, I have decided to relist it an additional time after a brief discussion. So to make this easier in 7 days, here's the big question: Does the singular Oxford Press book's detailed mention of this restaurant along with the routine local coverage meet the requirements of WP:GNG? Keep in mind that, while I saw this argument used several times here, WP:AUD does not give a standard of notability... it gives a standard of being able to determine notability at all. As there is one larger than regional source available, a discussion regarding the notability can happen on the merits of all of the encompassing sourcing. Therefore, I'm allowing a relist for that very purpose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If anything, I lean deletionist when it comes to businesses, after spending years filtering out spam, but this satisfies WP:N. It's a bit of an unusual topic, half the cafe and half the founder, but the coverage spreads beyond Chapel Hill. I suppose The News and Observer might be considered in the same "region" but it is actually in a completely separate metro area, the Triad, not the Triangle, so it isn't like Greensboro is constantly covering Chapel Hill topics: it has 1.1 million people in the Triad to cover instead. Keep in mind there is a University of NC in both metro areas, UNC and UNCG, so they aren't the same, certainly to those of us that actually live in the Triad or Triangle. Jayaraman's book certainly qualifies and doesn't need further explanation. The book "Southern Cultures" also goes into great detail, so two book citations should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG by themselves. Being a local business, it shouldn't be a shock that most coverage is local, but there is more than adequate other coverage to pass the bar here, and yes, the local coverage matters as well. Google books shows a couple more books have written about the place in varying detail as well, one of which seems to pass WP:SIGCOV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis Brown: the N&O does not cover the Triad. It covers the Triangle. The Triad's paper is the News & Record. I'm unsure why you are talking about UNC Greensboro: this is a Chapel Hill only restaurant that is literally one of three Indian restaurants on the same block and is the least well established of the three (original research there, but sue me for being a Carolina alum). The UNC press is also not out of Greensboro, but is attached to UNC-CH. My concern here as someone who is very familiar with the area is that we could write an article on just about every restaurant in Chapel Hill using this sourcing: the combination of the university, the journalism school, and there being nothing in the town but bars and restaurants means that this coverage is the norm for most of the non-chain places. That shouldn't be what notability is about. If this closes as keep or no consensus, I'll likely try to get it deleted again in a few months (hopefully after NCORP has been beefed up). This is a local shop that has done a good job of promoting itself using feel good human interest pieces, but it isn't an important restaurant even within the small world of the Triangle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One good thing that will ultimately be decided is the difference between "scholarly publications", that was the intent of the notability standards, and simple "general interest books" published by such nationwide presses. The University of North Carolina Press, a nonprofit publisher of both scholarly and general-interest books and journals. UNC press as well as many others prints these and UNC acknowledges it. We have to have a determination or, since we all know local newspapers cover local restaurants and this has been discussed above, we will have articles on every such ~~small local garages~~ restaurants covered by these type publications across the US. Sounds good to those living in those areas but is not something for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the coverage is essentially either local or PR, and neither count for notability. The book reference is essentially a mention. I don't seethe content as naïve, I see it as `probably promotional--or possible an naive immitation of promotional. Cute origin stories are not encyclopedic content, but rather the stuff of human interest sections or tabloids. It probably does make sense for us to have greater coverage of restaurants than garages, and it's true we have no fixed standards. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided by other editors above show that this passes WP:N. feminist (talk) 03:57, 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. So Why 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Mitsuhara

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL. Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't pass NBASKETBALL, but I think we might be able to get him up to GNG status between his domestic and international appearances. I added some quick refs after a few minutes of searching. South Nashua (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those references is that they only mention Mitsuhara in passing. There's absolutely zero in-depth content that can be used to build a proper article. Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 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 19:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, and played for Japan internationally, which is a plus. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:18, 23 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 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BreezoMeter

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

Non notable startup article, full of PR,social media links as references. No indication of notability. Article is also written poorly that contains trivial information like their play store app and also general fundraising info. Contains a long list of non notable awards which should not be added per WP:ORGAWARDS Mar11 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing and look of the newly created article is atrocious. And the vast majority of startups at this stage are not notable. However, this one is. Passing mention in this book - [49]. About 10+ references in journal/conference papers - [50]. Some pretty wide (and multi-language) news coverage - e.g. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71].Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a new article that must be improve, but the company is notable as can be seen in the new references, it is also in the same status as many other companies in Category:Companies established in 2014 that were approved. Bambiker (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've checked the references listed above and the ones in the article. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The book reference above is a passing-mention and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Likewise, the conference papers are passings-in-mention and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The news coverage looked promising but I cannot find one that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Many rely on interviews/quotations from company sources and those references therefore fail WP:ORGIND. Others list the company in a list of other companies or mention the Breezomoter API being used to power other apps and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. It may just be WP:TOOSOON. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems very borderline. A lot of sources are company press releases, however, those are also largely minor points of contention. The meat of the article is sourced to things like CNBC and Haaretz, though in those cases I question CORPDEPTH. DocumentError (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable; sources provided are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:TOOSOON. Just self-promotion, which Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable for stand alone article at this point. Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explara

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

A highly-promotional article on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine announcements, WP:SPIP sourcing such as yourstory.com and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Judging by the talk page of the article's creator, the page was speedy deleted in Sept 2014, and then recreated by the same contributor in Dec 2014. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advertising platform nor an alternative to a corporate website. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure why this was relisted twice. The subject fails WP:NCORP, the sources fail WP:SPIP, and the article fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Rentier (talk) 22:59, 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 delete. UInsourced, therefore little point in keeping to merge anything. A redirect can be created editorially. Sandstein 21:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Cansino Jr.

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

Cansino was a bit part actor. It is not clear he ever had a significant role at all. It is a bit hard to tell because for example the plot summary of Miss Sadie Thompson is so bland and formulaic, but Cansino is not even listed among the 12 identified roles. The same problem occurs for The Mississippi Gambler, no listing of Cansino. He is listed for The Great Adventures of William Kidd, but this was a low budget production, Cansino's role is "native", and without fuller plot summary I cannot tell if Cansino was present in just one episode, or most of the 15 chapters. So we have nothing that appears to be a significant role. The only source listed is IMDb, and this may well have been the only source since 2007 when this article was created. This article seems to be a legacy of a time when some editors thought Wikipedia should have alrticles on everyone who ever had a credited role in a film produced within the Hollywood System. Fortunantly we have moved beyond this goal. A google search turned up only mentions in non-reliable sources, like an entry at Find a Grave. So the one source here is not reliable, and not meant to limit its scope to notable people, there is no indication of significant roles, and no sources to come even close to the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT: agree with above comments but salient info ~~and should be~~ added to Rita Hayworth article and page should be a redirect as he is an immediate relative. Quis separabit? 19:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout Cup (speedway)

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

Deprodded as "clearly notable" but I'm not seeing it. No sourcing found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing found anywhere? How about in the article as I said when I deprodded? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant national competition in what has at various times been one of the most popular spectator sports in the UK. --Michig (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding lots of coverage such as here from the BBC. Tennerife and Ipswich Times coverage also. The article doesn't explain how the competitions work or scoring but the subject seems abundantly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with FloridaArmy. Lots of sources pop up on a simple google search. Lacypaperclip (talk) 18:09, 15 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. As noted by many commenters, the sources presented are not in-depth coverage and the subject does not pass the GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Curtis (lifestyle blogger)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

So, after a little WP:BEFORE I thought maybe she was notable but nearly every source is a passing mention or quoting her about her name being Alexa and Amazon's Alexa ruining the lives of women named Alexa. Simply, fails GNG at this time and all sources are primary/fluff pieces and many claims in this article are greatly exaggerated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the given sources look impressive at first glance but in part are not independent and in part do not cover Curtis in any detail; many of those I checked are blatantly misrepresented, having little or nothing to do with the content they're cited for. Unsalvageable without rewriting it from scratch (if better sources can be found), and written with a clear intent to promote Curtis. Borderline G11 speedy deletion candidate. Huon (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article knowing fully well that Alexa Curtis met the notability requirements. She is featured on
- CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/25/health/13-reasons-why-teen-suicide-debate-explainer/
- New York Post https://nypost.com/2017/01/27/amazon-has-forever-changed-the-lives-of-women-named-alexa/
- Fox Newshttp://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/01/26/whats-in-name-for-people-named-alexa-new-digital-connection.html

and other media as given

I also did a quick search on googlenews. She scored several hits. See the link

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=Alexa+Curtis+lifestyle+blogger&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin-qa648vYAhXRCewKHTg4BLMQ_AUIDCgD

Just search "Alexa Curtis lifestyle blogger"

Please, I stand to be corrected if I'm mistaken. Let's other editors judge

Thanks all!Albaubamkpo (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albaubamkpo Not a single one of those links cover *her* in-depth and they are greatly misrepresented in the article, as Huon and I both pointed out. Additionally, google hits are meaningless, it could be anything from a mention to social media, neither of which establish notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a closer look, I discovered the topic passes WP:BLP. The young lady appears to be notable in the newsFatima 77 (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima 77 You wanna back that up with any sources or...? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the indepth coverage in reliable sources needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not well sourced and fails WP:GNG due to lack of in depth coverage. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Observation

To the admin that will judge this. I'm quite discouraged about what I see the nominator and other editors post on their DELETE votes.

Perhaps, they are very much in a haste when looking at the topic.

I keep crying as a lone voice here!

I spent some time reading the notability guidelines here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

I strongly believe that Alexa Curtis passes the WP:GNG. One of the lines there says

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Alexa Curtis is featured in-depth in the following news-related references that were used.

These are 3rd party news-related references..

If you search ""Alexa Curtis lifestyle blogger" in googlenews, you'll find more here

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=Alexa+Curtis+lifestyle+blogger&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin-qa648vYAhXRCewKHTg4BLMQ_AUIDCgD

Check it, the topic is fully referenced and scores high mark in notability than thousands of pages I see being created by many editors here.

Let the Admin take a look before taking the final decision.

I rest my caseAlbaubamkpo (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albaubamkpo Rest away. None of these establish notability, they're all passing mentions, fluff pieces or primary sources.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"CHRISSYMAD"

"Rest away" is an offensive and discouraging word. I only stated facts.

My thesis is addressed to the wiki admin not you pls.

You nominated the page for AFD and you've been watching and commenting on the "Keeps" vote. Are you the only one who has the right to comment?

Is this how the AFD process work on WP Eng. That's discouraging ....Albaubamkpo (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The topic passes the notability guidelines stated in WP:GNG and also in line with WP:BLP.

I just read the piece on written by CNN corresponded, Jacqueline Howard here. To be candid, the writer Howard featured Miss Alexa Curtis very richly. He address her mostly as "Curtis". It's a rare privilege to be featured on CNN.

I also read through those other references as listed by the article creator. for eg, this, Miss Curtis is well featured. Curtis as a lifestyle or fashion blogger also scores several hits on GoogleNews.

However, I agree, some of the references especially the ones on interviews look primary and some only mentioned her in passing. for eg this That notwithstanding, the refs that featured her richly are far more greater in number that those that merely mentioned her. Hence, I guess, the topic should be kept.Canadihot (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established in accordance with [General notability guideline] although the page has too many references both secondary and primary. But yet the page needs more improvement. Fluffy and primary sources that are not fit can be removed by a more experience wiki editor.Ghanalelem (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanalelem What portion of GNG does this meet? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I checked all the references, and had to remove plenty, sadly. Other parts contained blp information that were only sourced to blogs. Still other refs were there, but Alexix was not mentioned in them. She does not pass WP:GNG and this article will likely get deleted. Lacypaperclip (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)¡[reply]

Clarification

Thanks "Lacypaperclip" for cleaning up the page and removing non-suitable refs as one of the editors suggested above.

Just to clarify u. Her name in those refs is not "Alexix". Her name is " Alexa Curtis". In most of the refs, the writers used mostly "Curtis" her surname. The CNN ref is a good example. So, I guess she passed the Notability requirements as some editors already pointed out.Albaubamkpo (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Albaubamkpo I just miss typed Alexa. I know her name. She does not pass notability because many refs left are just brief mentions which cannot be used toward notability, Neither can interviews which do not support the article text. Short videos where she is promoting companies and their merchandise do not give any notability. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the given sources are reliable like CNN, FOX etc. but not in very detail but bit rewriting can make it better as per references so I would suggest Strongly KEEP the articale :)

Randomlike (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source can be reliable but not WP:COVERAGE. That's the case here - this isn't coverage of her, it's not independent and at best, are passing mentions or primary. An interview doesn't equate to notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:16, 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 keep. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Lanova

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

Delete: as non-notable writer and dancer. Quis separabit? 19:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a writer or a dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Literary award winner (just added) and scope for more expansion from the 2011-created French article (other awards), will possibly be obits as sources as she died 26 Dec 2017. PamD 09:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN: NOW IT IS AN ENCYCLOPAEDIC ARTICLE! Quis separabit? 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is NOT clean-up. Another case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx -- NO : this was not a matter of cleanup. The article had virtually no information and someone had left a misleading and, frankly, false, {{Under construction}} tag. It was not under construction and should not have been created if the person who created it was NOT going to do what needed to be done to bring the article into compliance. (see [72]) Now that the it is, I have withdrawn the nomination. Rather superfluous given the keep votes but an action I believe is necessary in an AFD when an article has been brought into compliance. Quis separabit? 02:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable author with article references satisfying WP:BASIC. Thanks to those who fixed my typos in the additional information I added yesterday. I got called away from the keyboard before I could do that or !vote here. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the Schiller Award addition, I think this meets BEFORE/GNG standards now. South Nashua (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the Schiller Award now noted. Passes WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:54, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External Rate of Return (ERR) Platform

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

This article was published in Wikipedia by a CoI editor after having been rejected several times at AfC and abandoned as a draft there. I do not believe the subject is notable, being a term invented by Mark Florman, another part of this CoI editor's portfolio. The Spectator mentions the topic, but I found no confirmation that the term was in wider use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have enough coverage to be independently notable. At best, merge to Mark Florman (which also seems to be a promo puff piece...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:41, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Van Zyl

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

Non-notable American cartoonist. Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 14:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:41, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paviors Lodge Number 5646

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

This article was published in Wikipedia by a CoI editor after having been rejected several times at AfC and abandoned as a draft there. I do not believe the subject is notable as I find nothing when I search for it online. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BRANCH.Tacyarg (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delphine Roche

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

Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:CREATIVE. independent reliable source no found CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's a published journalist but that does not make her notable. Inadequate sources to establish notability by any criteria.104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing near the level of coverage we would need to show she is notable as either a journalist or an artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 15 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. Closing per WP:SNOW, given the lack of deletion rationale and the eightfold expansion of the article since the time it was nominated for deletion. No prejudice against renomination, provided the case for deletion is articulated. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biology of bipolar disorder

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

Propose deletion or merge with bipolar disorder, at the very least. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The page is still under construction, as there is a lot of info on the pathophysiology of BPD that would be excessive to add to the bipolar page. In a similar way that the biology of depression, mechanisms of schizophrenia and biology of OCD is split, the biology of bipolar should be kept. I don't know why you were so quick to delete to put it up for deletion(29 minutes), but precedent exists for an article of this type. Petergstrom (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this article does have a lot of information, and while it is true that it could be better structured (the opening paragraph could summarise information in the article better, and this article lacks a conclusion) these concerns would be better discussed on the talk page of the article than here. Vorbee (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article was given 29 minutes of being up before being nominated for deletion. I barely had time to create the skeleton for the article, let alone organize it, and effectively summarize it in the intro and a conclusion.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is sufficient material for a whole article. Work to improve the article rather than deleting it. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adenrele Sonariwo

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

Works as a curator but no significant contribution on personal work or originate new concept or lead an artistic movement. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the references in the article talking about her work as a curator? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the curator of the Nigerian pavilion at the Venice Biennale. Art exhibitions do not get any bigger than that. The references in the article are good. Many, many more can easily be found by searching. Meets GNG and CREATIVE for the Biennale gig.104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:1EVENT seems important here. ^{[Username Needed]} 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. She is recognized among her peers as an important person in the field, per the sources. See WP:CREATIVE.104.163.153.162 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being selected to curate a national pavilion at the Venice Biennale is a very significant honor. It is the curator's equivalent honor of when an artist exhibits there. WP:1EVENT doesn't apply because she has done multiple other things (run gallery, started school, won awards, etc) I note she also won the "The Future Awards Africa Prize For Arts & Culture’ in 2016" [73]--Theredproject (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was the curator at Venice Biennale for the Nigerian pavilion. That is a big deal. She meets WP:CREATIVE right there. With multiple relible sources notated in the article that contain significant coverage this article subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:15, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylords Reborn

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

Currently in closed beta and thus non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of WP:WEB qualification --Safe My Edit (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - Article says it's a continuation of BattleForge. Maybe merge the information with that page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skylords Reborn became a complete own project. It may started as a reboot of Battleforge, but in the state, that it is now in, it could be better described as a fan based Battleforge 2, as it will be not exactly like Battleforge. It will have a completely own story, maps and I bet, even own gameplay. Besides, Skylords Reborn isn't the first Wikipedia page of a game or thing, that isn't published yet. Deletion of this article would suppose, that you are also forced to delete the Wikipedia Page Kingdom Hearts III for example, which is also not published yet, not even closed Beta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leomide (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best WP:TOOSOON, but probably fan cruft. The "other stuff exists" argument is invalid.--Rpclod (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whilst it may be a great project, the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to advertise. Ifnord (talk) 15:07, 24 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 10:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Fakis

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

Primary sources. No major achievements/awards - Does not meet WP:ARTIST. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians,

the section A7 forsees the deletion of an article about a real person that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, therefore widely known, even in a specific demographic group, for instance: classic Italian super-mini car collectors. The article in question regards Andreas Fakis, the lead curator of the biennial Public Art Festival and the founder of the independent cultural foundation Studio 4. Andreas Fakis is perhaps the only curator in Greece that specialises in the public art genre, so the deletion of his page would not only be outside the criteria of the section A7, but could "pose in question" the articles of other well-respected curators that have not achieved a "museum-director" status, within and beyond Greece. The information I have provided is not backed only by web articles, but also by conferences that have been recorded, tv and radio interviews, newspaper articles and some web articles. Since wikipedia is such a collective place, I would find it kind enough if articles like this were not nominated for deletion, but instead were improved by the community according to wikipedia's standards, for instance non-web sources could be a good fit for this article.

FAA4891 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is based on coverage of subject in reliable independent sources. I'm not seeing any for this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Not in depth coverage of his work; mostly listings, press releases, and self-presentations. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability might exist if the author sought to develop the article further. But lacks in-depth coverage as it stands nowNottoohackneyed (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article is even close to an independent, reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 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. WP:SNOW. No point leaving this open. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Grice Young

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

Not even remotely notable. There were THOUSANDS of people on the Titanic, to the point that it would be very unlikely if there weren't LGBT passengers, (openly or not); hence being an LGBT passenger on the Titanic is not notable. She doesn't seem to have been otherwise heavily involved with the incident, (if she became a maritime safety advocate then would be notable), but nothing about her is really that notable. She is not a current prisoner of conscience, officeholder, activist or in anyway notable and media that mentions her mostly consists of brief statements or is from incredibly niche sources, and there is/was no undue censorship of her from such media to account for such lack of mention. She was not famous before the incident nor did she become famous afterwards (ex Dorothy Gibson), nor was she an engineer or decision-maker that had a role in the disaster (ex, J. Bruce Ismay). She did not take charge of a lifeboat to return to the scene of the accident and rescue more people (ex Harold Lowe), nor was her survival the subject of a film/musical/book/etc (ex Edith Rosenbaum) She ends up as just one of many people who survived the Titanic, (who could have been an LGBT person among a group of thousands of people) and that itself is not worth an article. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she was famous before the Titanic as a sought after piano teacher in Washington (the references in the article are just a few of those you can find in newspaper of the time) and moreover at least two of your motivations (she did not take charge of a lifeboat and media that mentions her mostly consists of brief statements) are false: these article said exactly the opposite, [74] and [75]. She was by the way the last First Class women passenger to leave the Titanic (another thing that is more than once reported in newspapers) and she is often cited in books about the Titanic, for one reason or the other: 10 results as "Marie G. Young" and 290 books as "Marie Grice Young". If you search newspapers.com during her lifetime, "Marie G. Young" return 66 articles: [76] and "Marie Grice Young" 31 articles: [77], without considering "Miss Marie Young" (the name she went for) in New York and Washington, 93 article: [78]. I think this is more than enough to prove notability. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in a newspaper is not much for this scenario considering that newspapers would want to interview Titanic survivors, especially. Being a good piano teacher is not notable unless said person is Beethoven, Mozart, etc. After the titanic sank lists of survivors and deaths with descriptions of the person were posted everywhere to help families find there loved ones. She is not the subject of a major work of popular culture, and like I said, it doesn't matter if she was just in charge of a lifeboat, but if she went against orders from higher-up or used force to get the boat to return it would be notable (see Margaret Brown). Assisting a lifeboat wouldn't have been unusual, lifeboats required many people to operate. A niche research compilation about Titantic would turn up some biography of nearly every passenger, that doesn't mean every passenger was important. She didn't cause the accident, she wasn't the subject of popular media adaptions, she was nothing more than a passenger with a sightly above-average life. Doesn't merit whole article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is not "A mention in a newspaper", she is in the headlines: "Miss Young, Passenger on Titanic, Taught Music to Roosevelt" [79]; “Miss Marie G. Young, An Interesting Piano Recital by Her Pupils” [80]; “Last Pupils’ Recitals Given by Miss Young’s Students” [81]; “Miss Young’s Pupils, The President Attended Their Recital Saturday Afternoon [82]; “The Misses Young Safe” [83]; “Last Good Bye” [84]; “Miss Young to Give Reading in Slaterville” [85]; “Lives Saved by Woman’s Insistence” [86] “Miss Marie G. Young, Former Music Teacher at the White House, Rescued From the Titanic, Describes the Sufferings of Some of the Survivors” [87]; “103 years later, OutSmart dives into the lives of LGBT passengers aboard the Titanic” [88]; “New Musical Reading of Enoch Arden” [89]; “Miss Marie Young Dies” [90]; "She Saw Maj. Butt with Col. Astor Go Down to Death” [91] Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This book: "Titanic: women and children first" [92] has a chapter about her and White and a photo of the both of them... among thousand of women (and men) they chose to talk about her. Again notability proven

Keep: looks like enough reliable sources to me. I feel like the argument "niche sources" needs to be better explained; I would argue that plenty of niche topics are present on Wikipedia - wouldn't Star Wars lore count as niche? Regardless, what guidelines do we have on niche-ness of sources and avoiding such sources?

I agree with Elisa.rolle that there are plenty of books mentioning Young; this one mentions that she was a former music teacher at the White House (the article should perhaps feature this detail more prominently). = paul2520 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sourcing. Not all sourcing comes in big write-ups; sometimes you have to pick the information out of numerous sources to form the whole. At least one of the sources I saw above described her as "the White House music teacher". Plus, she helped save lives during the Titanic sinking - she was a public hero during an historic tragedy. Just so happens that all of this occurred before the era of radio and television talk shows, otherwise the Titanic and White House associations would have her making the rounds. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, the RS found by other editors demonstrate that WP:SIGCOV is met. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comfortably passes GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There were "THOUSANDS of people" is slightly misleading; there were 324 passengers in the First Class. Reading through these headline coverage from the Washington Post and the Evening World at the time, it would be unfair to call these coverage "trivial mention"; significant coverage does not need to the main topic. One argument may be that these newspaper are trying to cover the narrative of survival, but I wouldn't imagine a non-notable person could receive interview from several major publishers; the Evening World source presumably describes Young's connection to the Roosevelt family to establish her credibility. Alex Shih (talk) 05:16, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Komal Rao

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

Does not meet WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Very promotionally written but with no real substance behind the claims.PRehse (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E since the only independent coverage is of her single MMA fight (an exhibition) because it was against a male. The notability claim is based on her being the first woman to ever defeat a man in MMA, but there's no overall governing body to show that's true. Even the Asianet coverage says "she has allegedly become the first ...", so it's a claim without real proof of being true. As far as relevent SNGs go, nothing to show she meets the notability criteria for MMA fighters or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 20:40, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria LePage

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. It took a collaboration of editors a while to sift through what could be verified and what couldn't as the article before the investigation sat as a hallmark WP:SOAP, but it has become clear to me that outside of the WP:FRINGE communities, this person is not well-known. To that end, she also fails WP:FRINGEBLP since there does not seem to be notice of her writings by those not taken in by the New Age flights-of-fancy she entertains. jps (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is mostly "referenced" to her own website (which no longer exists, although an older one still does) and it fails to make much of a claim of notability anyway. One of her books ("Mysteries of the Bridechamber: The Initiation of Jesus and the Temple of Solomon") is published through Simon and Schuster, which is at least a mainstream publisher, but the other ("Shambhala: The Fascinating Truth behind the Myth of Shangri-la") is through Quest Books which seems to be something to do with the Theosophical Society or maybe just not a notable publisher at all. Discounting the second and focusing on the first: Does it get any Google News or Scholar coverage? A professional review? Anything RS at all? Um, no. In fact I don't see anything to suggest that she is very widely known of even within the fringe interest circles that these sorts of books are aimed at, which is even less than what the nomination credits her with.--DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mysteries has low double-digit holdings, but WorldCat shows nothing for Shambhala. Article is an unreferenced CV, ORPHAN, etc. Can't find anything substantial in GNews. GS shows total citations in low double-digits. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really can't find any independent coverage of significance whatsoever. Kb.au (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Not finding coverage. MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Agricola44, you were unable to find library holdings for Shambhala? here it is: around 80 libraries it was also reviewed by Nexus (magazine) but haven't found anything else. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The resource I use to interface to WorldCat either did not show that (not likely), or I just missed it (much more likely). It is obviously in the database, as you've shown. Thanks. At only double-digit holdings, it's consistent with the rest of the picture of this person's notability, as discussed above. Many thanks for the correction! Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Stuart-Kotze

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

Unsourced and moderately advertorialized article about a writer who has no genuinely strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR besides the fact that he and his work exist. This reads more like the kind of author profile one might expect to find on his own self-published website than like an encyclopedia article -- and the context of the books listed in "further reading" is unclear, as at least two of them were published before he or his work could possibly have been addressed as a subject in them (a management book published in 1954, for example, cannot possibly be relevant to the notability of a person who was only 15 years old at the time and didn't even start working as a management consultant for another decade-plus). And a third is the PhD thesis of a person with whom the subject directly coauthored other works -- so even if he's cited in or the subject of any content in that thesis, it would fail our requirement that sources have to be independent of the subject to support notability. As always, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn -- he's not entitled to have an article on here just because he exists, but his notability isn't being properly demonstrated or sourced by this article. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because if he warrants a WP article then I and a bunch of my friends do too (note: we haven't got one). Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 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 merge to Fireworks policy in the European Union. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks policy in the Republic of Ireland

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

largely copy-and-translate from the second source. Might by a copyrights violation. The Banner talk 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does seem to paraphrase the Trouw article quite closely. Concur it may be a copyvio (and hence susceptible to CSD-12). Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it to avoid a copyvio, and added a specialist book on the topic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:23, 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 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fireworks policy in the European Union- There's not much to say on the topic, it can be covered there.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~~Comment~~ With the issue of copyvio fixed, and on further evaluation, I have a hard time seeing that it could be effectively merged to the EU article. While this may only be stub-class, I don't think that necessarily restrains its notability. This is a nice addition to the series of articles that include Fireworks policy in Belgium, Fireworks law in the United Kingdom, etc. I hate to see articles with incredibly niche, albeit valuable and meaningful, content like this deleted. On the other hand, I find it difficult to argue against Rusf10' rationale for merge. I hope that the content of this article gets preserved somewhere, either in its original form or at Fireworks policy in the European Union. Chetsford (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fireworks policy in the European Union. This standalone article is unnecessary, considering that there is very little to be said on the subject. CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:36, 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 nomination withdrawn as Tokyogirl has successfully located better sourcing for this than I was able to. Bravo. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bring It On: Worldwide

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

Completely unsourced article about a direct-to-video film. Every film that exists is not automatically presumed notable, but rather some evidence of reliable source coverage about the film (e.g. film reviews in reliable publications, etc.) has to be shown for an article to become appropriate. This was originally created by an established editor as a redirect to the overview article about the film series, and then converted to a standalone article yesterday by an anonymous IP -- but there's no sourcing, and no claim of notability per WP:NFILM, to make a standalone article keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bring It On (film series). A quick search engine test shows no content that would befit an encyclopedic article about this film. Mentioning it on the film series article seems sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79's improvements, making this article more substantial. Good work! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bring It On (film series). Revert to previous redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogger (talk • contribs) 14:46, January 9, 2018 (UTC)

Keep based on Tokyogirl79's additions. Bogger (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sourcing, if anyone wants to take a look. I don't really have much of an opinion either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's more like it. It's usually so hard to properly source direct-to-DVD films, so I'm impressed. Consider this withdrawn accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 10:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MAQ Software

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

Nonnotable "consulting" software company. Sources are regular PR babble. Claims of notability are laughable. Created by a sock master, most probably for money. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I marked this for G11 and agree with the nomination; the sources are nothing substantial and the concerns about UPE editing are what tips this over the edge. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are book mentions, but "mentions" don't amount to WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned by CNMall41 DocumentError (talk) 01:47, 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 Thigh-high boots. Sandstein 21:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinky boots

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

merge to thigh-high boots (!vote changed after discussion) Unreferenced for 10 years. There is no such specific model of boots. This is just a word collocation: boots that are kinky. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This "word collocation" was the title of a Broadway show that was nominated a record-breaking thirteen Tony Awards and took six. Rhadow (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Memoirs Found in a Bathtub is a novel and a word collocation: it is about memoirs found in a bathtub. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom. The Broadway Show sounds like the title for a different article, and is thus completely irrelevant to this discussion. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on deletion but if deleted, then Kinky boots (disambiguation) should be moved to this title. Madam Fatal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kinky boots a.k.a. fetish boots are a real thing discussed in the encyclopedia entry here. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, two sentences. Very encyclopedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three sentences actually and they debunk your argument that the terminolgy is simply word collocation. You are correct that it's not a particular model of boots. An entry in an independent and reliable encyclopedia should be enough to confirm this subject's notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read your encyclopedia carefully, you would notice that the encyclopedic term described is fetish boots. The text also says that there was lots of other kinky things: kinky shoes, kinky accesories, etc., in other words, yes, it is just a word collocation, one of many. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Lavish boots for day and evening were a specialty of the house, which also created some of the most extravagant fetish boots ever made with heels up to ten and a half inches high. (The fetish models included high, rhinestoned platforms, a precursor to the styles so fashionable in the late 1930s.) " -- i.e., the expression "fetish boots" was already known in 1920s. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Is fetish boots a better title fpr the article? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can say is that someone has to work diligently with sources, to write a correct wikipedia article. The current one is untrustworthy. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will also find the article Thigh-high boots highly instructive. And IMO it would be a good merge/redirect target. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to thigh-high boots. The nominated article would be an appropriate section of the merge target, and this way a permastub is avoided. The disambiguation page should be moved to this page. Many of the disambiguated items are well-known, leading to no primary topic. James (^talk/_contribs) 10:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reasonable outcome if a link of the terminology is made to the appropriate section where kinky / fetish boots are discussed. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to thigh-high boots as per User:James Allison. Freikorp (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 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 speedy delete per CSD G5. Any good faith user is free to recreate. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Egypt rivalry

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

WP:CFORK and literally copy/pasted (without attribution) from 2009 Egypt v Algeria football matches, with the list of matches being the only minor exception. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It might need work, but it is interesting, especially for footballers (which I am not). C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is kept, the title should be changed to make clear that it is about the rivalry between the two national football teams, rather than between the countries themselves -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with Chris, the article title is misleading. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a look at the article, it's a fair bit more comprehensive than the article you said it forked from. I also agree the title needs fixing. Also WP:overlink needs to be applied to the article. Other than needing a cleanup and project tag on the talk page I see nothing against why it should be deleted, it's quite an interesting subject. Govvy (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NRIVALRY. Not sure of the need for two articles. If the outcome of this AfD is keep then 2009 Egypt v Algeria football matches should be redirected to the general rivalry page. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Maybe the underlying rivalry needs a parent article after all. I made a few major changes, including this edit, which replaces all the content under the "2010 FIFA World Cup qualification" section with a very brief summary that was copied from the lead section of 2009 Egypt v Algeria football matches, pending a full rewrite. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NRIVALRY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G5. Störm (talk) 14:10, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs censored or banned in Malaysia

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

Almost all songs on the list are unsourced, as is the lead section. Most of the reasons, and possibly the inclusion of the songs, are likely WP:OR and/or WP:SPECULATION. It is tagged as possibly failing WP:LISTN; preliminary Google search turns up no reliable lists. In fact, there are few lists at all, only news reports about "Despacito" being banned. The list is self-declared incomplete, consisting entirely of hit pop songs. There is no explanation for the cutoff date of 2010; this just seems to be arbitrarily chosen. Note that we have no similar lists for other countries, just List of songs banned by the BBC. All three amboxes applied to the article date to June 2011. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom has said everything here. Content is inherently unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an WP:OR farm - even individual songs' articles don't remotely mention censorship. Some of the few references that exist are to YouTube! Ajf773 (talk) 19:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in American commodity farming

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

Completely unfocused essay. Topic is too specific, sources are too vague to verify, and the article doesn't seem to be something on which a coherent article can be formed. If this is a notable topic after all, then WP:TNT and start over. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I would not say it is is unfocused. Google search for "commodity farming" quickly shows quite a few text which discus precisely the article subject: problems associated with commodity farming. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: If there is content worth keeping, why not just merge it to commodity farming? "Issues" is too vague a term, and leads to slapdash examplefarming (pardon the pun). And oh wait, commodity farming doesn't have an article either! Is this even a thing? Why not make a parent article first, instead of a random collection of "issues"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever you say, colleague, but this is not the topic of AfD. The collection is not "random" and issues discussed are real and severe, i.e., of encyclopedic value. I agree the text is essayish and probably may be split into subtopics. For example "Environmental effects" section is hardly limited to "American" and will nicely go into Environmental impact of agriculture. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the essay/OR-like content, commodity is redundant in the title (farmed crops are commodities), which is partly why TenPoundHammer didn't find an article for commodity farming. It's not a useful redirect/merge in addition to not being a likely search term. Environmental impact of agriculture already covers most of these ideas attempted here, and the author likely didn't know about Intensive crop farming. Any topics remaining are too broad of hand waving to justify keeping for content elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I am often persuaded by the usefulness of invoking WP:TNT in articles where just so much is wrong. Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 24 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harkamaya College of Education

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

Article on a for-profit college, sourced entirely to the company's self-published report. I could find no significant, independent coverage and certainly nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Deprodded because "deletion of articles on accredited degree-level colleges is far from uncontroversial", but accreditation does not equal notability. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have missed something, but I can find no evidence that this is a "for-profit" college. And, as far as I am aware, no officially accredited degree-awarding college has ever been deleted at AfD. Is there something about this one that means that it should be the first? Or should we apply the same standards to colleges in India that we do to colleges in the anglophone West? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is the same whatever the organisation and wherever it's located: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I have made a good faith attempt to find it for this college, and found none. This isn't a major centre of higher education, it's a small, privately-owned teacher training college. I don't know about you but I have absolutely no idea what it takes to get a "B grade NAAC accreditation" so I don't think it's a good idea to presume that it's an indicator of notability. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "In 2006, the college became the first institution in the state of Sikkim to offer the Master of Education degree". At worst it would be merged to the parent university. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but it only says it's "affiliated to", not part, of Sikkim University (which itself is a very minor regional university). The Sikkim website only gives it the barest mention, as one of fourteen (!) affiliated colleges [93]. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a officially accredited degree-awarding college affiliated to the Sikkim University which is a Central University and the degree is recognised by the University Grants Commission (India) .I have added some references to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: You added a primary government document that just includes Harkamaya in a table; a book that mentions it once in a directory of colleges (and doesn't verify the statement it is attached to); and, most bafflingly, to support the statement "the college was founded in 2003, and was initially affiliated to North Bengal University in West Bengal," you added a reference that mentions neither Harkamaya nor North Bengal University, and was published ten years before the college even opened! What on earth were you trying to achieve with that? – Joe (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment :It was founded in 2003 and it was originally affiliated to the North Bengal University in West Bengal after the Sikkim University was founded in 2006 it got affiliated to the Sikkim University .Sorry I wrongly added a wrong link which I wished to add to another page thanks for pointing it out.It is recognised degree issuing college as per Sikkim Government site mentions it and this book states It was founded in 2003 and is affiliated to Sikkim University and the NAAC as per this gives it a rating of B+ it is not a run a mill private college. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those facts are disputed. But being affiliated to a notable university or accredited by a notable body does not make this college notable. Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources? – Joe (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as a for-profit institution it needs to meet WP:NCORP. No sources have been presented to this effect by the Keep voters, and my searches do not bring up anything suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I see no reason to suppose that this is a for-profit institution. A large percentage of the world's universities and colleges teaching to degree level are private but not for-profit, for example all of the Ivy League universities, and I see no evidence that this is any different. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly and completely irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without reputable third-party material sources other than the institutions' own marketing materials, and without some self-inherent claim to notability, simply existing and being a college does not meet notability requirements, which a lot of people seem to utterly fail to understand here. Or do I seriously need to quote WP:ORGIN, WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG, all of which are pretty clear cut? Simply existing does not confer notability. besieged^talk 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Assessment and Accreditation Council is reputable and is not part of this institution's marketing department. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have long considered that all accredited degree-awarding institutions are notable. That is a longstanding consensus. Clearly that's what you utterly fail to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sikkim University, this article is about a college or appendage that is a part of a notable university. Since the Harkamaya College of Education does not have multiple, reliable sources a stand alone article does not meet WP:N and may be included as a short summary under the notable institution. This institution does appear to exist but it looks like a distance learning facility according to: (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Harkamaya+College,+6th+mile,,+Tadong,+Gangtok,+Sikkim+737102,+India/@27.3105755,88.5975893,3a,66.8y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCAoSLEFGMVFpcE5wZmV3NWVKUzN3RXpsaTdTMkpRWDJuTUlMYVJDNjlLUWZQcFRr!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x39e6a500ffffffff:0x23a61f2ea1d6c738) which suggests that it is Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, we appear to have confusion about the status of affiliated colleges in India. These are not "part" of the university to which they are affiliated. They are entirely independent institutions whose degrees are simply accredited by those universities. A merger would thus be entirely inappropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there is a specific reliable source, besides the College's own page, that indicates factual evidence to support your statement that Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education actually is not Harkamaya College of Education? Because at this point there is significant ambiguity about the existence of the institution and it's organization. Don't throw around simplistic statements. In any case, a merger of affiliated colleges has been done where appropriate. See College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally, according to the Harkayama website Sikkim University awards the degrees at Harkamaya College of Education. It could be easily argued that there is no difference between this type of organization and traditional Collegiate university or between this and remote distance learning sites at American institutions with satellite locations. 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    - It can actually be easily argued that there is a very definite difference. It has in fact been so argued successfully numerous times before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would add that this college pre-dates Sikkim University, so cannot be considered part of it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - 86.17.222.157, absolutely it can. If an institution has a relationship to another then it can be considered a part of another institution founded later. Mergers and separations happen. So do other formal and informal partnership agreements between institutions. See List of university and college mergers in the United States for a litany of examples. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are simply using guesswork here rather than recognise that your interpretation of "affiliated" has been explained to be wrong. For the first years of its existence this college was affiliated with one university, and then when a state university was established in Sikkim it switched affiliation. This is a demonstration that "affiliated with" does not mean "part of". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for repeating ad naseum your opinion. Affiliations can change, time in case you weren't aware, goes on. Your opinion does not discount my posts above and your are not 'correct' in defining how it should be shown anymore than I am. As I stated above the degree granting institution is Sikkim University. Even so, there is precedent that two independent affiliated universities can exist on the same page as in College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. So your point to me is not relevant and does not have any meaningful bearing on whether to keep, or, delete the page. In any case, I believe that based on the lack of notable references we should move forward in merging all of the 'affiliated' small institutions with the page that contains the degree granting institution. This is in effect how collegiate university are currently shown and an appropriate way of explaining their relationships to the reader. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am baffled that the keep !voters would rather argue the finer points of institutional affiliation and accreditation in India than simply provide a few sources. If this organisation is actually notable, it shouldn't be this hard to prove it. – Joe (talk) 21:44, 19 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. J04n(talk page) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkUKnow

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, no sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 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 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of secondary sources show that this campaign is notable, see e.g. [1] [2]. Iffy★Chat -- 21:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE found these [94], [95] and [96]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:13, 23 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 10:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Blanco

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

Fails WP:NACTOR - In the news recently because of what she wore. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fanpage with no RS and no claim to notability. Willing to change position if these 2 problems can be conclusively resolved. Agricola44 (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it is this page lacks references other than IMDB. This actress may qualify if proper references are added that may be out there. She was in recent news for wearing red dress at award show. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:57 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete there is no evidence at all that Blanco is notable. Even if the red dress issue could be sourced (I am still not sure how wearing a red dress could approach notability), it would have major one-event and not news issues. The article has exactly Zero reliable sources, and is a prime example of why we do not source article to Wikipedia. It is also one of the few actress bios I have seen that shouts out "we need to delete this to stop Wikipedia being turned into Linkedin". That is normally what shouts at me from bios of businessmen and businesswomen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been no demonstration of notability. Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources are present. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I don't know why you users are prejudice to Blanca Blanco, she is an actress and model and listed on the IMDB. I believe many of you are prejudice because she's a woman of color, and hispanic. I've noticed some Asian users like User:Yunshui, who deleted the page, often delete pages about Hispanic Women. In the world of BLM and me too, this is a perfect example of people being elitist toward different ethnics groups, and to women in general. WP:GNG. 03:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaxson (talk • contribs)

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 Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Sandstein 21:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey W. Jackson

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. As I stated at the article's Talk page, this article is ostensibly a coatrack for Jackson's testimony at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Pertinent information is already at Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. Jackson otherwise fails the GNG.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anthony Morris III also fails the GNG and should be redirected to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Non notable except in relation to specific events (WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:NBIO). —Paleo Neonate – 03:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a horribly POV-pushing article, clearly written by people who have no desire to include any consideration of the Jehovah's Witnesses views on being subjected to human governments into the text of the article, and intent on portraying what happened in Australia in the light that is most negative to Jackson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about 'human governments' aside, would you have a problem with redirecting the article rather than deleting?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 15 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 10:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Gohari

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

Recent PhD, fails WP:PROF. CEO of small consulting company. Sources in article are mainly self publications and organizations he is affiliated with. BEFORE doesn't show much more. Doesn't seem close to passing GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page is thin about accomplishments. Yes, Gohari wrote six articles but what was the impact? The article was virtually built by one editor, @Lyonex:, and I'd like to know if WP:COI comes into play. Lyonex also created the article about Global Risk Intelligence, Gohari's company; that article was speedily deleted.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plausibly even an A7 speedy deletion. The article presents neither any accomplishment that could plausibly be a claim of significance nor any in-depth reliably-published independent sourcing about the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Bibliography is mostly self-published works. I'm more notable than this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability, either in the article itself or in my own search. And the text of the article offers little more than what already appears on the subject's own website. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:43, 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. ansh 666 09:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple pictures

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

I can find no evidence that this term is widely (or even occasionally) used in English to describe this type of image. Just translating a German word into English doesn't make it "a thing". In contrast, the term "ripple image" is used in a number of other contexts including graphical and scientific representations. Lithopsian (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Tabula scalata, as motivated in "keep" comments below
~~Redirect~~ Weak redirect to Lenticular printing#Ripple pictures and expand that section if necessary: this subject doesn't need a standalone article. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: now moved to "Turning picture", a term found in literature about this type of image (see source links in article). Although the terminology is somewhat unclear and not very common, the actual technique it describes has been quite common for some centuries. Redirecting to Lenticular printing#Ripple pictures and expanding that section would clutter up the Lenticular printing article, while it is only a predecessor of that subject and not a form of lenticular printing. I hope to find more relevant content from useful sources soon. Possibly better terminology can be found. Joortje1

Comment: I've carried out a Google Book search and a Google Scholar search for "turning pictures": the only relevant results all trace back to an essay by Alan Shuckman in the Art Bulletin. While this publication appears to be a wholly reputable source, I'm still not convinced that a single is essay enough to prove that the phrase passes GNG criteria. I'm open to persuasion, though, so I've changed my !vote to reflect this. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While I think I can see where the original editor is coming from, I don't agree (as it says in the article) that Anamorphosis is an imprecise term for the thing on the 1-pound coin (just to use the most familiar example in the article). Rather, I think the thing on the coin is one type of anamorphosis, in its sense as a general term for perspective-based optical illusions. The turning pictures described in Shickman's article are elsewhere called “channel anamorphosis," after the appearance of the image slices in ridges or channels. 1 2 With that said, the Wikipedia anamorphosis article is very scattered. It looks like it started as an article about anamorphosis in European painting and gradually turned into a grab bag of 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional and lens-based perspective illusions, without a thesis that pulls them together. I'm not confident that adding Ripple pictures to that article will immediately strengthen an understanding of either anamorphosis or turning/ripple pictures. But I do think putting it there will get it to the right place for when someone tries to clean up the anamorphosis article. KR26740 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that this can be regarded as a type of anamorphosis, although it arguably is slightly different in that it conceals more images and these images are not really distorted in the way that other types of anamorphosis are - it is more like they are scattered and reassembled when viewed from the correct angle. "Channel anamorphosis" would be a more precise term, but also seems very uncommon. I found the term "tabula scalata" which seems to be much more common, and moved the article again. I also put a few lines about it in the Anamorphosis article, but don't believe merging would work. I'll check more sources now I've found the right term and I intend to keep expanding and editing the article.Joortje1 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 8
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update from the original proposer. In case anyone is struggling to know where everything went and now is. Following this AfD, Ripple pictures was moved to Turning picture. Then Turning picture was moved to Tabula scalata. Then the Ripple pictures redirect was retargeted to Lenticular printing#Ripple pictures (the article exists but that section does not). Tabula scalata was briefly turned into a redirect to Lenticular printing#Ripple pictures and the double-redirect bot edited Turning picture to match. Tabula scalata has now been returned to a standalone article, although as of right now there are no redirects to it. Lithopsian (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 3 main article links in the history section of Lenticular printing which give pages with further information, one of them for the article being discussed here. The article under AFD offers useful encyclopedic information and the refs look ok. The article creator appears to have been involved in adding substantial new content to many pages in this field, a valuable commodity, and rearranged pages accordingly. Szzuk (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I did some more digging around to see what is going on here...first off this is a separate entity to anything else on wikipedia that I can find. It isn't Lenticular printing because that requires a) a lenticular lens and b) printing, neither of which is satisfied. It isn't anamorphosis because that requires a distorted image and a real one, once again not satisfied. Second the phenomenon is historical and goes by a few different names hence the confusing article moves around the time of this AFD. Based upon a reading of the refs and googling I think the article should be left where it is at Tabula scalata and Ripple pictures and Turning pictures should redirect to Tabula scalata. This may not end up being the final name, whichever the case I don't think the project is improved by deletion. Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current name does appear to be used, and the content appears to be sourced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TreadWright

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

Small company (20 employees). Scant coverage - mainly PR releases, product reviews and announcements, and trade publications. Not promotional enough (I think) for G11. But coverage clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would like to see more coverage in reliable independent sources but the Tire Business article and other coverage seems to establish notability for this industrial scale tire retreading business that's been around a few decades. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is coverage, but mainly brief mentions, announcements, and industry publications. Nothing showing WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Companies of 20 employees are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robinhood Markets

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill financial services company with an app. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and rely almost exclusively on company provided data and information or quotations/interviews. There are no intellectually independent references. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of major media coverage on this company from credible sources such as Bloomberg, TechCrunch, thestreet and more. WP:ORGCRITE In addition, it appears to be the only company right now offering free stock trades. It also passes a few of the Wiki qualifications: WP:ORGIND WP:CORPDEPTH Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:22 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Morrissey, Janet (2017-02-18). "With No Frills and No Commissions, Robinhood App Takes On Big Brokerages". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
  The article notes:
  
  A start-up called Robinhood Markets is taking on the big brokerage firms with its commission-free trading app, and appears to be making headway. Since its introduction in December 2014, the app has attracted a million users and executed more than $30 billion in trades, up from $2 billion in 2015.
  Despite the app’s hype and surging popularity, some industry experts question if the free-trades business model can survive, or if it will wind up joining other start-ups that have crashed and burned. The company currently makes money primarily from interest on customer cash balances.
  At Robinhood, there is no minimum deposit to register an account, and there are no trading fees for customers who buy and sell United States-listed stocks and exchange-traded funds. To keep costs down, the company, in Palo Alto, Calif., takes a no-frills approach. It has no storefront offices. It does not provide research reports, analytical tools, stock screening gizmos or options trading on its platform.
2. Roberts, Daniel (2015-03-12). "How Robinhood, an investing app, is luring stock-market newbies". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
  The article notes:
  
  Vlad Tenev and Baiju Bhatt are betting there’s a big, untapped market of millennials curious about buying stocks.
  Their waiting list of more than 700,000 people would suggest they are right.
  Tenev and Bhatt launched pick-up-and-go brokerage app Robinhood (no connection to the charity foundation of Paul Tudor Jones) late last year, and began with an invite-only beta. Word-of-mouth buzz built the app’s waitlist up to more than 700,000 people. Today, Robinhood has announced it is letting in everyone on the list, and its service will now be available without a wait. The company also suggested to Fortune that it has plans for an app catered to the Apple Watch. It has raised $16 million to date, from investors that include Index Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz.
  Robinhood’s selling point is that it allows for quick buying and selling of stocks—for now, only U.S. stocks on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq—with no commission per trade and no minimum balance required.
3. Braithwaite, Tom (2017-07-28). "Free stock trading for millennials comes at a cost". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-29. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
  The article notes:
  
  It was during the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011 that Baiju Bhatt decided to democratise finance.
  Today, as he wraps himself in a blue blanket against the chill of the air conditioning at the Palo Alto offices of his $1.3bn start-up, Mr Bhatt says Thomas Piketty’s study of wealth inequality also inspires his mission.
  That explains the company’s name: Robinhood, whose last funding round in April sent its value above $1bn, crowning it as one of the newest “unicorns”. As for the means of social change? Free stock trading for millennials.
4. McLannahan, Ben (2017-04-26). "Kushner venture fund helps turn Robinhood into a unicorn". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-04-26.
  The article notes:
  
  A venture fund run by Josh Kushner, brother of the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, has joined a new funding round for Robinhood, afree stock-trading app that has forced a fierce price war in America’s online brokerage industry.
  Robinhood said on Wednesday it had sealed a $110m Series C funding round that valued it at $1.3bn, putting it in the exclusive club of so-called unicorns worth more than nine figures.
  The Palo Alto-based company, which offers commission-free trading for all US stocks and exchange traded funds, did not disclose a valuation at its last equity injection in early 2015.
  ...
  Robinhood’s new funding round also features Yuri Milner, the Russian tech investor who runs DST, best known for its pre-IPO investments in companies including Facebook, Twitter, Groupon and Zynga. Existing investors Index Ventures, NEA and Ribbit Capital also participated in the round, which brings Robinhood’s total funding to date to $176m.
5. Huang, Daniel (2015-01-06). "Young, Poor and Looking to Invest? Robinhood Is the App for That". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-02-04. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
  The article notes:
  
  Robinhood, a Silicon Valley upstart, launched on Apple Inc.’s App Store in December and is courting young investors with as little as a few dollars to invest. The year-old company, based in Palo Alto, Calif., promises to let investors trade without a fee or commission.
  Robinhood, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and celebrities Snoop Dogg and Jared Leto, has already invited roughly 150 thousand people to create an account. The company had over a half million prospective customers who signed up to be contacted about joining.
  But beneath the buzz lurks questions about the company’s profit potential.
  The company says it plans to make money through margin lending, a feature in which customers are charged for loans they take on to make trades. There’s also interest revenue, which the company will gather from the idle cash balances that customers put in their accounts.
6. Long, Heather (2015-03-12). "New app offers free trading. Millennials jump in". CNN. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
  The article notes:
  
  You can now trade stocks for free.
  As implausible as that sounds, the new Robinhood app allows you to trade stocks for no commission. That's a fat discount to the $7.99 or more that other online brokers such as E*Trade (ETFC) charge when you buy and sell stocks.
  The app officially launched Thursday after having amassed a list of 800,000 people on a waitlist. It can be dowloaded for free on the iPhone (an Android version is in the works).
  Besides offering free trading, the app also doesn't require a minimum balance to open an account. So someone could put in as little as $50 to $100 and start trading.
7. Marte, Jonnelle (2016-08-11). "How to start investing if you have $100 or less". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
  The article notes:
  
  With the investing app Robinhood, customers can buy full shares of individual stocks and ETFs but they don’t receive any advice on which investments might be a good fit for them. Because investors are not buying fractional shares, the app requires users to have enough money to buy full shares of a stock or ETF. However, owning full shares also means having more direct exposure to individual companies. Take someone who wants to buy a share of Disney, which was recently trading at $96 a share. That investor will need at least $96 in their account to buy that share and the value of their investment would change directly with the price of the stock. So if that stock sinks to $80 a share, investors would lose $16 for every share they own.
  It’s possible to use the app to build and manage a diversified portfolio using individual stocks. But investors who want that kind of diversification may need to have more cash to invest through Robinhood than they do through Acorns and Stash. Another option is to diversify by buying shares of an ETF, which already invest in a group of stocks or bonds. Robinhood customers don’t have to pay trading fees, but they are left on their own to decide which investments to buy.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Robinhood Markets to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:43, 15 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 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juan German Marcos

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

PROD declined. Sourced to OBIT, blog, and a Lapresse piece. BEFORE doesn't show much else. Created by a SPA with a possible connection (per username) to the subject a month after the subject's death. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate coverage to meet even GNG.104.163.153.162 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing to local death notices is rarely enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FBPE

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

WP:DICTDEF fail, my BEFORE doesn't show this passing SIGCOV - DICTDEF issues aside. Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication this acronym passes WP:N. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DicDef, NotNeo. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brexit#Public_opinion_and_comment. --jftsang 20:28, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Björk (footballer, born 2000)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Hasn't debuted yet on Sweden's top flight. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY, and it doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG. Sjö (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even see him in the squad list for IFK NORRKÖPING, Govvy (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for sources, I did not find any that would make subject pass our general notability guideline for people or the subject specific notability guideline for association football figures. Sam Sailor 12:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:46, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Service

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

Non-notable person. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. — Za wl 14:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strange nomination, if you weren’t aware of him even a quick google gives plenty of notable references. Article merely needs improvement, easily passes WP:GNG. Mramoeba (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

his author bio at Faber and Faber, his journo profile at The Guardian, a review of his book in The Daily Telegraph proof should it be required that he hosted the BBC3 flagship classical music programme, from the Royal Opera House ...need I go on? Suggest WP:SNOWBALL. Mramoeba (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I've added a couple of refs to bulk the page up a bit, but even a cursory search will reveal that he is one of Britain's foremost classical music journalists. His work at the Grauniad and BBC (R3 and BBC4) alone satisy notability requirements. Mcewan (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person's notability as a radio host cannot be supported by his own staff profiles on the websites of the radio stations he works for, and his notability as a writer cannot be supported by his author bio on the website of his own publisher or his staff profile on the website of the newspaper he wrote for — his notability for either endeavour has to be supported by reliable source coverage about him and independent of him: namely, media outlets he doesn't work for publishing news content in which he and his work are the subjects of coverage and analysis. But that's not the type of sourcing being shown here. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source him better than this, but none of the sourcing Mcewan added cuts the mustard at all and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the current references are significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, nor could I find any from a web search. Qwfp (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep. I've added references to reviews of his work from The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, New Statesman, The Economist and Opera News. Mortee (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm somewhat gobsmacked - without impugning in any way the good faith of the proposer, or their understanding of the rules - that it is even possible to nominate him. It's obviously not the right venue for me to explore that, but I do wonder if we've got something wrong here in terms of the guidelines. Best to all DBaK (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for clarity I should add that nothwithstanding the above, I feel it's safe now - even though it should have been before - since the extra material was added in today. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I have also added reviews for his second book, information about his 7 years presenting The Proms and his documentaries. I agree with the above comment, he is one of Britain’s most highly regarded classical music journalists and presenters, although perhaps this isn’t known outside classical music or maybe even outside the UK. And with respect to Bearcat, as I didn’t make it clear, the links I posted were intended to show he “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment” without me actually having to go through listing citations for everything mentioned. I am well aware his own staff profile is only used to “to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge”. Mramoeba (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially with additions. Well-known broadcaster. Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep – reviewed author, broadcaster, chief classical musical critic for The Guardian, inaugural winner of the Classical Music Critic of the Year Award. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah Christian Training Center

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

Fails notability, unreferenced, very unlikely to be improved to Wikipedia standard Mramoeba (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is nothing in the text more recent than 2001 and the statement that it had 24 pupils in 1996. Is it still going? How many high school age pupils? Secondary Schools are commonly notable, but I have no idea what to make of this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this basic knowledge cannot be verified from an independent source then this is not a notable school. Even if it exists, and it is not clear that it does, that is not sufficient to merit a page. Mramoeba (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. There simply isn't the secondary coverage necessary for writing an article here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 15 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. And redirect to the disambiguation page, Super ace. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Aces

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

Can't find any sources. Coin945 (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the disambiguation. --Izno (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like someone actually deleted the article all of these could have been merged too List of video poker games Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a redirect to the disambiguation, as suggested by Izno. In addition to the lack of sourcing, the article fails to explain the subject's significance.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:22, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matteela Films

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

Nothing significant about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, topic fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Sure, the references might all be from reliable sources, but in order to meet the criteria for notability they must also be intellectually indepedent and they are not, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now there is simply not enough coverage to show this production house passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:55, 24 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. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMGC Global Entertainment

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

Nothing significant about the company in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, topic fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Sure, the references might all be from reliable sources, but in order to meet the criteria for notability they must also be intellectually indepedent and they are not, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is simply not enough coverage to show this production house passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 24 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 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Stevens (comedian)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate secondary biographical sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The edit history informs me that I was the creator of this, although in reality all I really did was convert the undabbed Darren Stevens into a dab page after somebody else turned the existing article about the cricketer into an omnibus article about the cricketer and the DJ and an online wrestling gamer. Wikipedia times were very different a decade ago, and we didn't insist on sourcing to the same degree that we do now or have such strongly defined criteria for the notability of radio personalities. But in 12 years this hasn't been improved at all — there are still no adequate sources, and no claim of notability compelling enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of adequate sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to satisfy notability requirements. Mcewan (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable radio personallity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been demonstrated. Fails WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:49, 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 keep. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The_Sentinel_(Staffordshire)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

~~The Article has had multiple issue tags since 2012 without any improvement despite multiple attempts to rectify. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Article reads like an advert with out citing references in multiple sections. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Article makes numerous unsubstantiated claims, no references, and nothing can be found when searching for references from third parties. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this Article has been nominated before and tagged with numerous major issues for 6 years with out being able to improve it seems unlikely that this Article is in keeping with Wikipedia’s standards. Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Stefan Sperl (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC) — Stefan Sperl (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see how any of the points above invalidate the article's claim to notability. The Sentinel is a prominent local newspaper and newspapers with its circulation seem to be regarded as notable. The article should be improved, not deleted. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mattythewhite. AfD is not cleanup. I see that the nom has gone out of their way to make the article look worse than it is, with over-tagging at the top of the page and going OTT with CN tags through-out the article to make their point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that the first issues tags from 2012 are will unresolved despite many clean ups and the article reads as an advert full of opinion rather than a factual entry into an international encyclopedia it would be very hard to see this as notable by any stretch of the imagination. I would suggest adding the title as a section or mention on a parent page for regional papers from the country rather than a page in its own right.LewisChu (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Struck above comment from blocked sockmaster per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article hardly meets the standards of Wikipedia and as mentioned above these issues have been on going since 2012 with multiple attempts at clean up and correction. With regards to notability; I would agree that this article should be a subsection or note on a list or parent page instead of an entire page itself. DanielLSmail (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC) — DanielLSmail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — DanielLSmail (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks to be some sockpuppetry going on here. Look at the similarity in comments of the nominator and the two editors !voting delete, and in their user pages. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now now gents, let’s keep things factual. Looks like some fair points poorly put across from both the keep and delete votes. Looks fair that this is clearly a genuine newspaper no doubt. Also looks clear that it is a p*** poor effort at making an impartial and factual page with references. If the article can be fixed and made decent then there is no reason to delete it. If it can’t be fixed then yeah, merge, delete, whatever’s best. BenWilks (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC) — BenWilks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — BenWilks (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed the disproportionate number of individual "citation needed" tags which were recently added. As Wikipedia's guidelines on tag bombing make clear, there is no need to tag every single unsourced statements when a page or section hatnote will suffice. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Suggested: Wouldn't it be easier and cleaner to just merge this page to become part of the Trinity_Mirror page? It seems a little messy and unnecessary on it's own, but also would seem unfair to remove it entirely. Saira Ibrahim 85 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — Saira Ibrahim 85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Saira Ibrahim 85 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Another newly created account, the user of which claims to be an academic, commenting on this AfD. Funny that. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable local newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand, an old and wide-circulation local newspaper covering a major city and several other important towns. There is no good argument whatsoever for deleting this article and many common sense reasons to keep it. Also clearly passes WP:V and WP:N. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page's own talk page provides a list of proofs and edits that this is a paid article, meaning that professional writers were paid to write the page with PR in mind.SamanthaFinmore (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — SamanthaFinmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~~First edit, not only edit, someone is clearly spamming this page with ridiculous tags and nonsense comments. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — SamanthaFinmore (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of participation from inexperienced users and a couple of highly experienced users making WP:AADDs, so another week of discussion might help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 13:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing an article about a newspaper dating from 1854 is seldom a problem, and we are here well passed GNG based on a review of available sources. The other problems mentioned in the nomination are basically all WP:SURMOUNTABLE. On a side note: Apart from 1 !vote, all other delete/merge opinions have been made by accounts created after this discussion was opened. Also, this is not the third discussion, the article has never been up at AFD before and should be moved from its current location at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sentinel (Staffordshire) (3rd nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sentinel (Staffordshire). Sam Sailor 13:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I started an SPI case. Sam Sailor 10:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All editors not voting "keep" have been CU blocked. Sam Sailor 17:35, 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. Sandstein 14:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Agarwal

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails GNG.Promo-article filled with PR sources and trivial listing(s). Winged Blades^Godric 09:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article clearly meets GNG. (1) Sources meet the "significant coverage" guidelines. There are multiple, widely circulated sources including The Seattle Times, Inc. magazine, and the Puget Sound Business Journal. These were all independently authored articles with no ties to the subject. (2) Alternative sources include the Penguin Random House website, the largest book publisher in the world. (3) Subject was referenced as a notable authority in multiple articles (BBC, The Seattle Times) as founding one of the first software startups in the Seattle region to use an international workforce for a 24 hour per day business cycle. If the article needs more clarification on why these matters are significant, I'm happy to provide it.Lazerquick (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article meets notability guidelines. Author of 2 books by leading publisher, Penguin. XYZ1001 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reworked article to better meet GNG. Addressed issues with sources. Please let me know if you have more suggested edits to make this article suitable for approval. Thank you.~~ Lazerquick (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. MT Train^Discuss 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rajeev Agarwal is a notable entrepreneur. His company has been on the Inc. 5000 list nine times. Out of more than 20 thousand companies have made it onto the list, only 1% of those companies keep sustained growth to be listed on the list nine or more times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgee235 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Mcgee235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to the AFD closing editor: ~~The above three accounts that have voted keep are no more than 10 days old. MT Train^Discuss 08:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)~~ The accounts XYZ1001 and Lazerquick are just around 10 days old. MT Train^Discuss 06:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion relevant to the article. As per the AfD rules, this discussion is supposed to stay on topic and suggest specific issues that need to be improved in the article. The WP:FIXIT guideline states that we need to work on fixing the specific issues. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources to show that this is notable topic, so if this is a matter of specific concerns, let's address those.Lazerquick (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MT Train, I don't know about other accounts, but I'm sure that my account is not less than 10 days old. Can you provide evidence to support your statement? Also, please stay on the topic of this discussion. Have you read Mr. Agarwal's two books? Personally, I've found many useful advice from these two books. 172.58.40.248 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgee235 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, is close to a A7 candidate, and source searching did not bring up anything further to add. Sam Sailor 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 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. No agreement about whether what the sources describe are, to quote one opinion, "new breeding techniques (generic) [or] New Breeding Techniques". Needs expert attention. Sandstein 21:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Breeding Techniques

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

Attempt to hijack an extremely generic term for a very specific application; has not yet been widely used in this regard, if it ever will. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be merged to main page, plant breeding. RedFlame 09:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the refs might be useful (if the explicit appropriation of the term in the text can be avoided) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable for secondary coverage on the term, nor is it a phrase really useful for a redirect or a merge with respect to plant breeding topics. Seems like an attempt at a WP:NEOLOGISM, and deletion is usually better in those cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few keep votes below that actually further justify the rationale for deleting, so it's worthwhile to flesh out those issues since there seems to be some confusion I was already concerned about happening:

1. The term is not encyclopedic and violates WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEOLOGISM. Even this source outlines it is not a scientific or regulatory-based term and is pretty ambiguous (i.e., neologism). Instead, plant breeding is an area to outline additional plant breeding techniques or else genetic engineering, gene editing, etc. with individual techniques like Zinc finger nuclease and TALENs getting content on their own pages.

2. New is just a qualifier. As seen in discussions below, one can google the term and get many results, but that's why deletion should occur. In most cases, "new" is just referring to current generation breeding techniques, which is a level of nuance that often is glossed over in AfD discussions. In some cases, the phrase is capitalized as New Breeding Techniques, which makes it seem like it's a more notable term, but that's mainly an artifact of using an acronym and capitalizing text. It's not a term to center an article under where these newer techniques eventually become older techniques and there will be new "new" techniques. NEOLOGISM cautions against these very kinds of things for notability discussions.

3. Redundancy. Plant breeding and related articles were already mentions as places to discuss newer breeding techniques (and they already do). However, as this article being discussed has been expanded it's also become mostly redundant with GMO articles too. Problems with lumping different methods into an article are already discussed in addition to terminology nuance, so discussion of the techniques without the new qualifier (as Elmidae mentioned above) need to be fleshed out in the context of those articles (if not already present) in order not to run afoul of WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT where the article is already contradicting itself or other articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In short, trying to argue the term should be notable for an article is putting the horse before the cart here in addition to conflicting with being encyclopedic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Sheesh, does nobody do WP:BEFORE any more, or do those casting their votes just look at the article and don't both using Google for 2 minutes? There are clearly enormous numbers of very respectable sources showing that this is a relatively new but very legitimate and important subject, currently being legally addressed by EU courts, and possibly being used to circumvent current legislation and definitions on GMOs (genetic engineering) worlwide. How it is addressed by governments could well have major global implications on food production. Rather than even suggesting a redirect to GMO or genome editing or synthetic biology, which are already all quite sizeable articles, I suggest its retention and improvement here, at least in the first instance. I've not time right now to enhance this (admittedly very poor) article, but I'll just place these links here for now, and come back and see what I can do to ensure its retention, or possibly modify my !vote in the next few days:

Should, heaven forbid, there be a consensus to redirect or delete, will the closing admin please draftify this article, too, and I'll work on it as I'm able. I genuinely think this could be extremely important. Just a shame its such a cr*ppily-written page at the moment! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've just put in a few hours' editing to make some basic improvements, though a lot more still could be done. Nick Moyes (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I admit I found hardly any of these sources that deal with the term as a specific current concept; it seemed pretty much submerged in general use examples. I suppose it helps if you know beforehand that there's something to it. The background material certainly makes a better case for notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE is why deletion was recommended prior. None of those sources establish notability, which is why my vote was delete after seeing many of these sources in a google search before you posted. In this case, adding "new" in front of breeding techniques is a WP:RECENTISM violation. Whenever scientists talk about a "new" set of methods, that doesn't make "new X" notable as as term. We don't create articles for new software, new chemistry, etc. The relative age of a method within any changing discipline is just handled under that topic's article. Any scientific sources I've seen are just using new as a qualifier and sometimes using it as an acronym for shortening. Switching from my editor to scientist hat, even when I pop over to agronomy related scientific meetings where crop breeders cover a lot of the agenda, I've yet to see this term be used in quite the way it's being proposed here by the keeps. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep covered in recent independent high quality reviews PMID 26027462, 27059762, 28278120. Boghog (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't cover the term in a manner satisfying WP:N though. The first just uses NBT as a shortened acronym to describe newer breeding techniques (i.e., how do these new methods apply to organic). The second just uses the new qualifier again in an also superficial manner. The third goes into discussion of NBT too in the context of them being newer than older genetic engineering methods, but that doesn't rise above WP:NEOLOGISM either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is debatable if the above sources cover the subject in a superficial way. The first source refers to NBTs 23 times through the entire length of the article. Here is another source that I think treats NBT in more than a superficial way:

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (23 May 2017). "Chapter 3.3. New breeding techniques (NBT)". New Techniques in Agricultural Biotechnology (PDF). Brussels: European Commission. pp. 56–70. doi:10.2777/574498. ISBN 978-92-79-66222-5.

Boghog (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they use the term multiple times, but it's the same neologism issue of basically saying "Here's our newest set of breeding techniques with no unique definition for the group." That's a problem I've been running into repeatedly as I've tried to deal with contradictory information from sources at the article on attempted definitions. In nearly every source, it's used a header or catch all to go into depth on relatively new things like gene editing and a mix of other methods that overlap with "traditional" genetic modification too.

It's partly a real-world vocabulary mess even in the larger topic, but for us on the encyclopedic end, the true title of this article is really more, "Breeding techniques that primarily began to be used after 2010" or something like that. That's the functional problem for article building once you start really digging into the content matter (and the case for treating the techniques at other articles rather than lump). Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does looks like a set of different techniques intended to circumvent existing legislation on genetically modified organisms. This is not a scientifically justified terminology. It appears like a journalistic-like term, but it does appear in a number of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing appears in a number of sources, but that usage here in the keep logic amounts to WP:OR . Part of that is what I just described above, and part of it is a misapplication of WP:N simply because a particular qualifier is used (and often is for discussing scientific updates without implying notability). As you've alluded to, this term is not encyclopedic (journalists don't get to define something pretty squarely in the realm of a scientific discipline). The techniques have only been loosely categorized as new because the new techniques are a mixture of gene editing and others (all covered above a few times now). Discussion of individual techniques that don't fit in the GMO regulatory framework belong at the individual technique articles instead of us trying to cobble together a single article of unrelated techniques aside from being under plant or animal breeding. If this article survives AfD, those problems are only going to compound when the next set of "new" breeding techniques comes along in the next 10 years, etc., which should be a strong indication of how unencyclopedic this is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not tell "this term is not encyclopedic". I said this is not a scientifically solid terminology. But yes, this is an argument in favor of deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources mostly refer to new breeding techniques (generic) not New Breeding Techniques, and there are a lot of new breeding techniques that don't have anything to do with what is being presented here. I don't think it represents a true collective topic as opposed to simply a term of convenience used to lump together a bunch of plant breeding techniques that simply happen to have been recently developed. Agricolae (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently, this is an umbrella term for techniques used to bypass GMO legislature. The term is misleading and possibly was created to mislead. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 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. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Island Cricket

AfDs for this article:

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

Almost all links are dead. Alexa Internet is not showing their rank 1. Very hard to pass WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . This is a difficult one to me to judge on this situation. This website is a popular cricket website in Sri Lanka and since the links are dead, the article is in a risk of deletion. Abishe (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But to have article on Wikipedia you need sources, not popularity. Störm (talk) 15:08, 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 08:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep Based on the claims of the site winning awards in different years. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have so low Alexa rank that Alexa doesn't show the rank. If claims are verified by WP:RS which is our core policy then I will happily vote keep. But without sources I will go with delete. Störm (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: Just a quick reminder that you've already !voted (as nominator) to delete the article. I've de-bolded your advocacy of "delete" in the above comment to avoid confusion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, doesn't pass WP:NWEB completely. Articles are kept based on existence of, or proven evidence of sources not blind assumption. More popular and more authoritative website on Cricket, i.e Cricket Archive was recently deleted due to lack of sufficient sources not even lack of sources at all. To give rough comparison, CricketArchive was widely used across Wikipedia to support Cricket Articles (See How many times it's is cited on Wikipedia) and compare with (the Island Cricket's number) which doesn't even have secure website yet. Further, CA has far better Alexa rank than this one, and at least one academic sources (if I remember correctly) but all these didn't save it. Fancy website design cannot establish notability for this one also. I agree its homepage is well designed.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not covered enough in independent sources to pass GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article references 8 and 9 are reliable sources coverage in Asian Tribune and Ceylon News Today for a close pass of WP:GNG. Cricket Archive was a controversial close and could easily have been no consensus with more editors wanting to keep it rather than delete and is a candidate for a deletion review. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 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 delete. Little discussion, but it is actually the "keep" opinion that provides no argument and is therefore discounted. Sandstein 21:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HornFans

AfDs for this article:

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

Alexa rank of 1,288,532. Fan-stuff site. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination ignores previous consensus to Keep and offers no additional justification. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A commercial fansite, nothing remarkable. Since hornfans is a commercial entity, it should also be looked at in relation to the criteria for organizations. None of the references in the article (or quoted in previous AfD's) meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, article fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have we kept it twice before? Asserting non-notability without clarification seems a bit vague. Buffs (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I thought stating that None of the references in the article (or quoted in previous AfD's) meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, article fails GNG was crystal clear. Certainly a clearer justification than your "It passed AfD previously". I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 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 08:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Hinduja

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

References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Has previously been speedy deleted, so looks like we need to go through the full process this time to avoid further recreations. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She married into a very powerful and wealthy family, but I'm not finding substantial coverage of her or her projects, just mentions. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article requires independent coverage on her, and the biography belongs to her not to the family. @FloridaArmy,Maniksha.sharma can keep after rewriting if qualifies WP:BIO.Genome$100 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and FloridaArmy, not seeing much SIGCOV. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:10, 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 no consensus. One opinion to delete (nom) and one to keep is functionally equivalent to a contested PROD. An exceptional third relist is unlikely to be helpful. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TexAgs

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

Nothing actually in WP:RS. Much of the site is sourced with primary sources, blogs, opinions. CBS has this piece [97] . Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [98][99][100][101] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well-sourced and has notability (sixth-most visited) + references by CBS Sports and Fox Sports. Buffs (talk) 19:37, 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 08:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VisiRule

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

Promotional article of non notable software created by SPA who has since ceased editing. No coverage from secondary sources Ammarpad (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 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 delete. Not contested, I guess. Sandstein 21:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkTanks

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

Absolutely no coverage. Coin945 (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coverage from EuroGamer among others. However, I'm not sure if this is the same game, due to it having different release dates. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - disqualified from WP:NVIDEOGAMES--Safe My Edit (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 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 American Laser Games. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shootout at Old Tucson

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

Can't find any sources. Coin945 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE was apparently not employed sufficiently. There are a dozen mentions in GBooks. Redirect to the producing entity. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Laser Games. Not sure about this one's notability, but my own researches never turned up any references to the game, and glancing over those GBook results I'm not confident that we'll find significant coverage there; it looks mostly like just simple lists of ALG's output. Incidentally, the article's statement "Soon after the game appeared on the market, American Laser Games went out of business, which, along with technical issues which limited its popularity in the arcades, further contributed to the title's obscurity." is outright false. As sourced in the company's article, ALG didn't drop out of the arcade business until November 1995, and they continued to produce console games for a while after that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:18, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yogeshwar Surender Dev Mahadev

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

Fails GNG.Typical non-reliable/PR/interview sourcing. Winged Blades^Godric 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable guru. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Magicboard Online

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

This online game does not seem to be notable. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article notes:
Disney Magicboard Online (迪士尼魔幻飞板) is a racing online game based on characters from classic Disney series. This online game was released only in China on December 10, 2007. It was developed by the China game developer Shanda under license of The Walt Disney Company.
A search for sources using "迪士尼魔幻飞板" as the search term returns many results.
Cunard (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 张健, ed. (2007-07-08). "迪士尼魔幻飞板将亮相2007年Chinajoy" (in Chinese). China Central Television. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
2. 刘剑俊, ed. (2008-01-18). "最可爱美女军团入驻《迪士尼魔幻飞板》". zh:天极网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
3. "迪士尼魔幻飞板宝贝古装照比拼四大美人" (in Chinese). zh:17173. 2008-02-21. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
4. "《迪士尼魔幻飞板》内测后的寂寞等待" (in Chinese). zh:17173. 2007-12-18. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
5. 晃点, ed. (2007-07-23). "盛大新游《迪士尼魔幻飞板》CJ精彩回顾" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
6. "《迪士尼魔幻飞板》游戏介绍" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2007-08-23. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
7. "《迪士尼魔幻飞板》之飞板的秘密" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2007-12-13. Archived from the original on 2018-01-15. Retrieved 2018-01-15.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Disney Magicboard Online to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirriam Macwilliams

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

Struggling to find any independent sources fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to pass GNG. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 02:06, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Azerbaijan Friendship Association

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

No evidence of notabilty.Too soon by a mile:) Winged Blades^Godric 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello Winged Blades of Godric, the article was created in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia first. It was created by White Demon, a sysop in Azerbaijani Wikipedia, who is active since 2014/2015. The article should be kept, because it is the first organization to be created by Azerbaijanis and encompass a whole US state. It is a newly created organization, but it is believed that they will play huge role in the Azerbaijani-USA relations. I hope this is enough for keeping the article. White Demon can say more about the article. Sincerely: oyuncu aykhan^{fikrini de!} 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't care for other versions of WP do and are editorially independent.And, I believe that the organisation will deserve an article, only when they will play a huge role.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 04:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The organization was established on December 20, 2017 and the only coverage appears to be based on the press release about their launch party. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing doesn't matter at all here, and I haven't reviewed it: I don't need to do that to be able to make a determination. This organization is small and was founded 27 days ago according to the infobox. Sourcing be damned, it isn't notable. If it is, then our guidelines are seriously flawed. Yes, this is a IDONTLIKEIT delete !vote, but it is one based on commonsense and reasoning, which we are supposed to take into account when it comes to forming consensus. We don't need an in-depth review of sourcing when something doesn't even present a prima facie argument for itself to be included, and we lack one here. Some common sense in the deletion process would be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Gopan

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

Non-notable Indian actor and low-league cricketer Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either an actor or cricketer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 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 19:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actor has only a minor role in a regional film and fails [WP:NACTOR] Hagennos (talk) 03:25, 22 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. If someone wants to merge this material into another article, I will userfy upon request. MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paritosh Uttam

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR.One of his book(s) was adapted into a film which garnered covg. in reliable sources but had only trivial mentions about the author/book.Seems to have featured in 1/2 promo-interviews, though.All in all, too soon. Winged Blades^Godric 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we should focus on strengthening this article and on how to keep it here. I am on it though. Dial911 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE reveals quite a few articles on the author, just because the article is not notable doesn't mean the subject isn't, as per WP:JNN. Egaoblai (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Egaoblai:--I would highly appreciate your's reading the nomination statement prior to casting your !vote.Please provide the articles in reliable sources that are not interviews (In Indian media circles, sans a few almost all are paid-self-promo-tools and are hardly independent) and that manages to provide significant non-trivial coverage about the subject.Winged Blades^Godric 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help the article in surviving this AfD?This and this Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st reference is OK.

As to the 2nd, I have strong doubts about the editorial independence of these magazines, which spans up every other day, esp. when coupled with their regular exploitation as promotional tools.So, that doesn't lend much to his notability. Winged Blades^Godric 04:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. Meanwhile, I will cite this OK reference to the article. Dial911 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but interviews are indicators of notability, according to WP:Interview :"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Now you say that "in Indian media circles" these are paid for. This is approaching systemic bias as we cannot simply discount and entire country based on this line. Reliable sources does not blanket ban certain sources from entire countries, which is what you seem to be implying here. If you believe that interviews in this article are paid for, then it is up for you to show that. otherwise, they remain indicators of notability.Egaoblai (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many good sources in the article.Among those that are present, Between the lines is not a RS.I would be amused if you thought it to be! Also, you cannot rely on the biographical profile of authors at the website of their own publishing houses.And, neither do I know, that having one's book published by a reputed publishing house lends automatic notability.

Doing a typical GSearch leads me to this, this and this.The first two is acutely non-reliable.The latter (third) is interesting--the source is generally highly reliable but the sub-genre of interviews aren't.See the ending:--Read more of his stories on paritoshuttam.com--linked to his own webiste.Or simply become a fan of Pariotsh Uttam and interact with the young author here!--which's linked to his Rediff profile}} Also, they even carried an excerpt of Uttam's story.

Overall, there is sparse media covg. located about here (the source provided just before which is good and present at the article), here (which's again the review of the film based on his book) and this fits a typical WP:BLP1E.

I, for one searched the TOI and The Telegraph archives but failed to retrieve anything significant.Winged Blades^Godric 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: Fails NAUTHOR as there is just not enough reliable sources to justify a stand-alone BLP article. Likely TOOSOON because Artist (film) appears notable. I would agree to a merge to that article or to Dreams in Prussian Blue if relavent sources were also incorporated into it which is currently pooly sourced. The success of one book turned movie does not give automatic notability as it is not inherited. Otr500 (talk) 11:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (cigarette)

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

Fails GNG.No notable covg. across reliable sources.Promo-stuff. Winged Blades^Godric 09:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the creator of the wiki here.

I think the Wiki should not be deleted, and here is why I believe that. - The Wikipedia article does not purely exist out of advertising sources. It is a mix of the recognition that the brand is, in fact, owned by Landewyck Tobacco, the places where the brand is sold, and the advertisement posters and other accesories. - The Wikipedia article is not written out in a biased way, like what I have witnessed in several other pages. The page is written in a neutral point of view, with the advertisement part only partaking a small part of the rest of the Wikipedia. - The Wikipedia article has mainly the advert sources, because that is all I could find on this particular brand. In most cases, information is limited and in this case I chose to use these sources because otherwise the article would be a near-complete stub with very little information. I do invite you to find more sources though, as I have not been able to find any more than the current ones.

I do hope these arguments will be taken into consideration before deletion, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk)

In that case, it simple means your brand isn't yet notable enough to pass our notability-guidelines.Winged Blades^Godric 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MatteoNL97 (talk · contribs) has created articles on dozens of cigarette brands. I don't know of any specific guidelines for notability here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to GNG?Winged Blades^Godric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MatteoNL97 (talk · contribs) here.

I do want to add another comment, to follow up on what Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) said. I think his comment is quite reflective, considering the amount of Wikipedia's who got and often still get accepted without meeting the guidelines of notability here. I've recently started to update already existing cigarette Wiki's which, very often, barely had any sourcing, if any at all until I added it, and they all got accepted and stayed up for years. Meanwhile, I upload a small Wikipedia article with a few sources, and suddently it doesn't quality? That sounds a bit hypocritical in my book.

I strive to deliver knowledge of what I see as a subject that has had a big impact on a lot of societies for years, but is now seen as one of the biggest taboos (at least here in the West), hence why I've decided to create a lot of articles regarding cigarette brands, and why I've decided to update the existing ones. My goal is to show the good and the bad, and all my Wiki's have always been accepted, even if there were like, 2 sources up until when you started reviewing them.

Do take that into consideration before the final judgement, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists.You're not here to right great wrongs and absence of reliable significant sourcing will mean mandatory deletion of the articles.Winged Blades^Godric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable per available sourcing and fails CORPDEPTH. The first article reference is a dead link and advertisement. The second is not a reliable source. The third (Liswood & Tache) is promotional, the fourth a dead link, and the fifth an advertising agency. A BEFORE only produced self-advertisement or promotional sources. The want or need to create articles must be in accordance to policies and guidelines and inclusion can be simply by silence that ceases when contested. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 21 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 though I would suggest a short cooling off period. I've read this through a couple of times and opinions are all over the place. I think the case for a no-consensus close is stronger now then at the original close. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homafaran allegiance

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

Not a notable enough picture to be included in wikipedia. WP:GNG states that subjects must have mention in media, this does not. Elektricity (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Every photograph of a group of people is not worthy of its own article. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not "Every photograph of a group". The photo had been very critical amid the revolution developments showing a historical incident. There are many Farsi sources passing the WP:GNG. The photo had been subject of a book entitled "the tumultuous photo". There are some other sources, too. For example, this source talks about the photographer and the incident. It says that the photo were claimed by Mohammad Reza shah regime to be fake, but Khomeini verified it and said that he had met the officers. The incident and the photo are also discussed in the official website of Iranian Army. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Event was important but not the photo which article claimed its effect/significant - not found [102] and [103]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that because it doesn't appear in 2 articles, one of which is not relevant ("absolute fury"), it can't be notable? I'm fairly sure that's not how Wikipedia defines notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This event had had many reflections in reliable sources (1 2 3 4 ).The result of one search in Google is here.Saff V. (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V. none of the sources you provided give any in depth coverage, they are more of passing mentions, the likes of which are quite common in the Iranian media. For example you said that this source is about the photograph, but it is not. It is the obituary or death notice of the photographer. An obituary of the photographer is not enough to make the photograph a noticeable subject. Your second source [104] is also a notice that the memorial service of the photographer will be held, it is not about the photograph. The other two sources are the same thing (i.e they have identical text) and they are talking about what happened on that day, not about the photograph. Your google search is also flawed, for example it lists The Mahabharata Secret By Christopher C Doyle, but searching inside the novel we find nothing mentioned about the picture. SO your argument is null and void. Elektricity (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom as there is no notability. An event is not what is actually being covered but a picture that was taken at an event. If the event is not notable then a picture taken at the event certainly is not. The references in the article advance severe POV views such as Revolutionary Iran] used in the first paragraph to supposedly support that the "...photo was published on the front page of the Kayhan daily." but is just a biased source about the revolution. This article can't even be merged to History of the Iranian Air Force because that is an article with one verifiable source so apparently filled with original research.
Keep per Mhhossein's comment. The photo is not notable because of the event itself. However, a book writing about the photo itself does lend notability to the photo. Ifnord (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as "no consensus" but this assessment has been contested on my talk page, so reopening.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the AfD closure was appropriate as no consensus, I don't think admins should be strong-armed into reopening because someone didn't like the result. The article can be nominated for another AfD after some time passes. At that point it would be more clear if it has sustained notability (and has additional sources) or it does not and it would be much easier to convince others (at least me) that it fails our guidelines and should be deleted. Ifnord (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifnord the book called "the tumultuous photo" is not a reliable sources, as it is a throwaway propaganda book/pamphlet. This is the primary reason that all inclusions in wikipedia are subject to thier mention in WP:RS, as the book does not pass, it cannot be included, and without this book, there is no other source. Elektricity (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Besides the book I presented above, there other other sources regarding the photo itself and not the event; 'The original version of the Homafaran allegiance photo to be unveiled' and 'The photo which disappointed an establishment', where it reads: "Apart from the news aspect, this picture created a lot of controversy and remained in photography history, as a document for one of the most important events of the revolution." --Mhhossein ^talk 19:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein both news items are a) from propaganda sources and b) they are actually talking about the photographer (he had passed away recently) and they mention this picture as one of his prominent works. Both news outlets are known for sensational news headings. If you can provide any WP:RS we can let this matter rest. A Reliable source should be "reliable, third-party, and published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Your sources are neither third party, nor are they reliable. I mean no disrespect to you, but the fact of the matter is that when the photographer died, there were a lot of obituaries, and the government and the propaganda news outlets were keen to report on his achievements. This happens in all regimes like the iranian one. But this does not mean that thier propaganda is a reliable source for wikipedia articles. If this were the case, then the national news services of the North Korea are replete with "great achievements" of the "nations ultimate photographers, scientists and inventors". We do not include those, and the reason is simple; they do not have any reliable sources, the same is true here. So in a nutshell, the propaganda sources, that talk about the obituary of the photographer, cannot be used to create an article on the wiki about one of the photographers works. Elektricity (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are covering the photo. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein actually they are puff pieces written to cover the death and 40 day anniversary of the photographer. If you can find any independent sources (not controlled by the iranian regime) that talk about this photograph, we can insert those. With this propped up by just trivial mentions and propaganda pieces of the iranian regime controlled media, it seems to me that the subject is non notable. There are many persian and Arabic sources that covered the revolution, there are countless books (English, Persian and Arabic) written about the revolution. If even after 30 years, not a single one of those academic books outside iranian regime controlled propaganda, and not a single one of the renowned historians gave this photograph any space, then we should heed the opinion of the historians and remove this from wikipedia as well. The revolution is not something that just happened and was forgotten, there are hundreds of books written about it in many languages. Elektricity (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating your words. You've apparently got a wrong understanding of independence of the subject. You can simply search for the photo history. For example see this one saying: "Hossein Partovi’s photo of the Shah’s air force army technicians (Homafaran) in attendance at Ayatollah Khomeini’s domicile had a significant impact on the body of Shah’s army." --Mhhossein ^talk 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein Your source actually strengthens the deletion argument. First of all it does not mention the photo by name, it does not call it Homsafran Allegiance or whatever, and secondly it is the very definition of trivial mentions, please read WP:TRIVIALMENTION. So You are actually strengthening the deletion argument here. Elektricity (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't really matter if the photo or the event is the one that's covered by sources, the material currently in the article is fine either as an article about a famous historical photograph or a historical event which had a significant photo taken during it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, WP:NOTGALLERY, and Wikipedia:Notability (events), that community consensus has determined does matter. There are multiple millions of "historic photographs" around the world but we don't push them to be more significant than the event a photograph was taken at or of, just to create a Wikipedia gallery of historic pictures. This source from the article states "...Imam Khomeini during his visit to Alawi School on February 19" and the photograph was contested as propaganda. Since it was so secretive we have to place in the article "Army public relations denied the photo but Ruhollah Khomeini confirmed its authenticity.". The world of Wikipedia does not revolve around that Ruhollah Khomeini alone can certify that the picture was not a group of "cadets" being photographed as propaganda. This is the reason for requiring multiple reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Redirect to Iranian Revolution. One or the other of those would be appropriate. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of the Iranian Air Force and redirect, on the basis of poor sourcing which fails WP:GNG. There's actually no indication that this is the most important Homafaran allegiance - you could argue that the more significant Homafaran allegiance was the act of the Iranian Air Force throwing in their support for Khomeini, not just a photo taken of the event. But the photo can accompany the retelling of the event. On this note, the History of the Iranian Air Force article needs a better explanation of what Homafaran are. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:45, 3 February 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, consensus is that substantial coverage of this matter makes the article suitable for inclusion, although a rename may be in order. There is no consensus on that point, so a separate move request should be initiated. bd2412 T 04:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malka Leifer

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

subject is facing charges but has not been convicted - only notable for crime. Edaham (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that’s a weak reason. Plenty of people, both guilty and innocent, have been accused of a crime but never convicted. Look at OJ Simpson and all the coverage he received during the trial for the murder of his ex wife and Ron Goldman. According to your rationale, all wiki coverage should be deleted because OJ was never convicted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a story that has broad ranging implications in the Jewish community in Australia, and with Israel-Australia relations, relating to the extradition. Numerous politicians have been involved, and it has been reported widely across the world. There is also the civil case where a record compensation package was demanded. So she is a very notable figure, and worthy of her own page. I fail to see how she is not smellytap 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page Edaham (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E, WP:N/CA and WP:PERPETRATOR represent wikipedia policy in this area. It is very common that articles about individuals associated with an event are brought to AfD, and equally common for a determination to be made that an article about the event is a better choice than an article about the person. Please read through the policy and come back to us with your thoughts. A rename of this otherwise very reasonable article may be the way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – looks like someone notable for one event, and it's too early to tell if the event itself will have a major impact. The article can be recreated in the future if it is discovered that this had a significant effect on Australia–Israel relations. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tentatively - I'm the nominee. I'm sorry for not filing the alerts properly but I got called off on business almost immediately after making the nomination through our page reviewer tools.
- I nominated this because 1) accusatory terminology is used regarding things with which the subject has not been charged. I quote as an example: "This was the environment that Leifer exploited in order to abuse the children" - While this sentence is sourced it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP 2) Certain facts are ambiguous pending the results of the ongoing court cases. In this case it was a particularly difficult article to scrutinize as it is abundantly sourced. However almost the entire article is written without taking our policy of innocent until convicted into account.
- I'm quite familiar with the policies pertaining to this article, I understand it's well sourced and not suitable for speedy. I am putting it through the AfD process to ensure it gets the scrutiny it deserves and see this as an opportunity for editors to challenge the way it is written as much as have it struck from our pages.
- Pending a rewrite which takes these into account, I think the best thing to do is have the article removed per BLP until such time as it is rewritten to address the above. Move to draft was not the appropriate move, nor is permanent deletion. I simply feel that there are too many BLPCRIME issues there to leave it there until it has been resolved.
- Apologies to the article creator once again for not notifying more quickly. btw the article also requires cats etc - had these been added, other editors might have come along and fixed the issues making this nomination unnecessary
- In summary this underlines the importance of making articles visible by adding cats and by adding articles to wiki projects to allow swifter collaboration.Edaham (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Language can be edited to suit your (or anyone else’s) standards. Feel free. It is one of the things I like best about Wikipedia. If you feel you can improve an article, you can. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-ish, but I'm sympathetic with the nomination. I think this is too significant to brush under the carpet but at least the article should be renamed to be about the event, not the person. It is the event really that matters, not any individual and ten years (almost) is a long time (even my standards) to wait for a verdict. The sources are good and the article is OK too though it needs to have a few slight suggestions of individual guilt removed. So, actually, I'll go with keep in the end. The article set me thinking rather a lot so I'm glad to have read it whatever happens in the real world, and here. Thincat (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded things a bit but in doing so I've discovered a judge has made some extremely damning remarks which I think could, quite legitimately, be made fuller use of. Thincat (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the direction of my vote, I'm mostly in agreement with your summary. There's 100 percent change that this case will have lasting impact and notable effects. I just hope that editors will keep a level head with regard to policy when writing it. The fact that in rare cases our policies might seem to be (temporarily) detracting from an accusation against a particularly unsavory character, isn't a reason not to keep them in mind. This article is practically a text book example of a debatable and unusual case in this respect - and was as thought provoking to evaluate from a policy point of view as it was to read about. Edaham (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I explained above the events are highly significant within the Jewish community, and has mobilised numerous politicians including 2 Prime Ministers. The events are being played out at the moment. However if the decision is to change the name, I would suggest something along the lines of Malka Leifer Sex Abuse Affair/Scandal, since the events are so closely tied to Leifer herself, and known that way in the community. smellytap (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage both in Australia and in Israel (Hebrew and English). Subject had indeed not been convicted - however this is because she chose to become an international fugitive - preventing her trial due to her residing in a country that is not willing to extradite her. Presumption of innocence, in Wikipedia, shouldn't extend to a situation in which the suspect as fled (which would be a situation where the suspect concedes he was very likely to be convicted in the country he fled from).Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per significant coverage in Australia & Israel. Fugitive status is choice of the suspect so a sentence or not ir irrelevant at this point.BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this falls under WP:BLP1E (she's only notable as a result of the criminal investigation), the event itself is probably still notable and the page could be renamed to be about the event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons outlined above, although I do think it would be an improvement if the article were refactored into an article about the incident and subsequent extradition attempts, rather than a coatracky biography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - significant coverage. No objection to a rename. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Opus

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

An article about a combined music producer, ordained minister, professor of economics and entrepreneur that has had no reliable sources since creation in 2008 and all I could find were the briefest of mentions. The 2 references recently added are just a listing, and a Gutenburg self published press entry that is referenced to a Wikipedia mirror (World Heritage Encyclopedia, see the first section here) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional vanity page created and maintained by multiple IP addresses (possibly same person?) Googling both stage and real name turns up nothing other than the usual self-download/user contributed sites; lacks independent third party recognition. Basically, whatever this subject has achieved is not encyclopedic worthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only mentions that I could find were entirely user-submitted, which is consistent with the edits made to this page. Agree that it's a vanity/promotional article. Rockypedia (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional page. Notability has not been demonstrated. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:54, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ble Patumrach R-Siam

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

The content in the article mostly depends upon the self published promotional websites. Abishe (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable singer. Coverage from Thai Rath (Thailand number one newspaper): [105]. Coverage from Daily News (Thailand number two newspaper): [106] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:51, 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 19:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Lerdsuwa. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comment from Two Users --Tvcccp (talk) 14:42, 22 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. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP

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

Promotional article on a non-notable accountancy firm, one of the top twenty such firms in New York, with 240 employees. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by a paid member of staff, who has at least declared the conflict of interest. A draft at AfC was abandoned in favour of moving the article into mainspace without approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your letting me know the page is marked for deletion. I'm a pretty new user, and any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. One question: can you please explain what you mean by "non-notable"? Our firm is very well-known in the real estate and high net worth industries, as evidenced by the various rankings in the audited benchmark surveys I cited in the footnotes. I'm also confused by the "promotional" aspect. In what ways is this information promotional? I want to correct it, if possible. The page was created using the Grassi & Co. page as a template (a much smaller competitor). Thank you for your help. Amyfrushour1971 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Amyfrushour1971: Wikipedia's concept of notability is a bit unique. Generally, a topic is only considered notable (worthy of inclusion) if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. For more information, see WP:GNG. A subject may also be notable if it meets certain topic-specific guidelines; in this case those would be WP:COMPANY. To demonstrate notability, you need to show examples of significant coverage, or explain how the subject meets the topic-specific guideline. For example, a profile of the company in the New York Times or Forbes would be persuasive, since it would be significant, and the sources are independent of the company, and reliable; a short entry on a list, or a press release wouldn't be, since they're either not significant or independent. Pburka (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify some of that - two references are required and those references must be "intellectually independent". That excludes articles that are based on company announcements, interviews with company staff, nothing from affiliated sources. Just be aware that more often than not, "profiles" in the NYT or Forbes fall foul of being "intellectually independent". HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability, no further references forthcoming since the AfD. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NCORP. There are many business that are "well-known" by individuals but without reliable sources they do not meet the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical corporation listing (really, spam...). Drmies (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tnea

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

Article does not explain what is TNEA or go into the detailed process. No references. No independent notability from the university. Article goes into detail about Anna University's main campus and satellite campus. If it's just the Admissions building and office, that doesn't really need a separate article for that. What is Single Window Counseling? Why would this admissions process be Wikipedia notable in comparison to other admissions processes for other universities? Compare to Indian Institutes of Technology which has a navbox of Admissions articles pertaining to specific entrance exams, or University of California which has an admissions subsection detailing the process. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why we would need a separate article about an admissions process. The article is unclear too, only referring to other institutions Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is incoherent, it's hard to understand if it's about the process or a part of a school.Jacona (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant reliable sources, and the article is incoherent as to whether it's a process or a school.Jacona (talk) 11:49, 15 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. "Delete" arguments involve the GNG; "keep" arguments mostly point to a now-adjusted consensus. Sources are pointed at by Davey2010 but adding "Vasundhara" to the search dramatically reduces the results; specific evidence of reliable sources that warrant "keep per GNG" are not provided by anyone. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Public School

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

This is a school with no information about it save that a bus carrying its students caught fire and a bus driver suffered burns; this coincidentally happened a year after the 2008 Mumbai Bombings, but that doesn't convey notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, school doesn't pass WP:GNG and news incident fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems the bus fire had widespread media attention at the time, as it was easy to find additional sources although it was more than eight years ago. I verified that the school is CBSE-affiliated and provides education through Class 12. I also found that the faculty might be outspoken about CBSE policies and standards, and added a couple of references. Does anyone have knowledge of Hindi and access to local media? Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The school also receives annual national media attention for achievements in the Centre for Science and Environment Green School Awards. Overall, this seems to be a "Keep" per WP:GNG as there is regular significant coverage from reliable sources since 2006. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a secondary school, and that is not disputed. Also there is coverage about it. --Doncram (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I've not checked the page for a few years, Well consensus has always been to keep these so I'm still going with that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into sources for this school to see if it meets WP:GNG yet, Davey2010, but I'm not sure that is the consensus any more. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Shaheen School System (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the majority of AFDs these have all been closed as per the longstanding consensus, If you want to !vote please do so but I'm sticking with !keep as per that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will if I get time to investigate sources, Davey2010. I just wanted to give you fair warning that in recent school AfDs, votes accompanied only by the rationale that we keep schools per consensus were discounted in the assessment of consensus (see some of the closing statements). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources on the school - Not all are amazing however notability does look to just about be there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources appear to be about different Evergreen Public Schools, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources appear to be about this specific school Cordless Larry, It might be more productive if you were to stop replying to my !votes and instead !vote yourself, Although the article looks like it's gonna be kept so it's probably pointless !voting at this point. –Davey2010^Talk 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to try to do a proper assessment of sources to judge notability, Davey2010, and because you had provided a link I thought I would start from that. The majority of the sources it gives are about a school in Vancouver, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article. As an article of high school, it is 100 times better than thousands of high school stubs. More sources also have been added after the nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a good number of sources, enough to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. While the bus incident got some coverage, there doesn't appear to be broader, significant coverage of the school in reliable, secondary sources. An initial search appears to uncover quite a lot of coverage, but there are several schools with the same name, and most of the news sources appear to be about a Canadian school. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable for single event WP:NOTNEWS. Other sources are passing trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've re-opened this per my edit-summary; the question to be addressed seems very much the extent to which WP:OUTCOMES applies. I recuse, of course, from any subsequent closure or action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is our policy to keep articles about secondary schools, as specified by Jimmy Wales. Such schools are notable, being significant public institutions and this seems to be no exception. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some links here, Andrew Davidson? At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 224#Schools (again), Jimbo states "My own views on this matter are of little importance, but I think that only in rare cases will high schools ("secondary schools") be suitable for an encyclopedia entry". I don't see how you can square that with your statement about him specifying that we keep secondary school articles per policy, but perhaps I have missed something? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, "as specified by Jimmy Wales"? Really? He's just another editor, who probably has a vague understanding of policy and guideline. We certainly shouldn't be using a WP:PERJIMBO argument anywhere on Wikipedia. He's not a "privileged user". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo established the policy in a mailing list discussion: Partial solution to rampant deletionism. At that time, his views were quite influential and so we now have thousands of articles about schools. It would be systemic bias to now exclude Indian ones. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's views are just one of millions of editors. That he established some kind of view is completely irrelevant, and being subservient to those views is certainly a failing by a terrible systemic bias to believe in WP:PERJIMBO. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable beyond one event. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent votes on secondary schools have shown that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is still highly relevant to the encyclopedia. Nominations for schools based on articles that were of verified schools but didn't pass GNG at the time, were after in depth searching able to be made notable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phor_Tay_High_School and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanglin_Trust_School. Of course the people who do this searching to improve school articles (rather than deleting) cannot always be around for deletion debates, nor can have the time, language skills, or access to local news (especially if it's offline) to add to the article within the time frame of a deletion debate.

This is why, the sensible option for schools that are proven to be verifiable (they actually exist) is not to delete them, as schools are focal points of communities and experience shows that there will almost always be sources to shoe notability, yet expecting wikipedia editors to do this within the frame of a AFD nom is not helpful to anyone. WP:BEFORE applies here, has the nominator done a thorough search? I would also like to know if the nominator contacted the editors of the school page, including the creator? How about adding the school to a relevant wikiproject? There is so, so much that can be done with school articles before deletion. Experience on wikipedia has shown that if they are verifiable they are more than likely to be relevant and notable. So, as long as the school is verifiable, It should be kept while sources are found. Egaoblai (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You better start reading WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES again and especially the RfC mentioned there... The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. As the much ignored RfC] about the notability of schools clearly states: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, but I also believe that in almost all cases public secondary schools are going to be notable. Deleting them just wastes time in acknowledging the ineligible. That's why we came to a consensus at one time that they were notable, and while it should not be considered an immutable truth, in the long run there will be an article, and it will take far more time and effort because we repeatedly destroy the article, and waste countless hours arguing about whether it should exist. Here's one vote for stopping the insanity sooner rather than later.Jacona (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:07, 22 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. Editors disagree about whether this crash is notable according to either general or special notability criteria. Sandstein 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash

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

Tragic but not notable aviation accident. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (note: article creator): Seems too soon to nominate for deletion, but I acknowledge there are editors who are more familiar with aviation-related article standards than me. I created this article because I saw several other articles at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2017 about accidents with fewer fatalities, and assumed this event was also notable. Seems there should be more other articles nominated for deletion, if this one get deleted... or I am not understanding eligibility criteria for articles about aviation incidents. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning towards keep per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Don't all fatal aviation accidents have articles? Why would someone want this one removed?? Donaldd23 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they do not. Fatal aviation accidents have standalone articles, as a rule, when: 1. procedures or regulations were altered as a result of the crash; 2. a Wikinotable (bluelinked) person was killed; or 3. it gains unusual WP:PERSISTENCE in media; these are especially important when a small aircraft (<12,500 pounds (5,700 kg) gros weight) is involved. None of those apply here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:, what is the source of this "rule", or is it just an opinion? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it's very long-standing consensus as partially codified in WP:AIRCRASH, which is based on the Federal Aviation Administration's certification requirements for aircraft (12,500lb is the cutoff point between "small" i.e. GA and "large" i.e. airliner aircraft). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No if we listed every fatal aviation accident we would have loads listed every day, which is why we only include those that are noteworthy for some reason (as measured by years of consensus) for example they involve somebody notable. In my opinion the tipping point is if this was a scheduled service or just a charter. If it was a chartered flight then it is not noteworthy which looks like the case here but just waiting for more info before I vote one way or another. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Any fatal aircraft crash typically is newsworthy, especially when most or all on board are killed. I see no reason to delete this article. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - wikipedia is NOT:NEWS so newsworthy does not indicate noteworthy for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how air-crash notability works, per long consensus (see above), and WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above editors are correct, the fact that it is newsworthy does not give it encyclopedic notability. Light aircraft crashes are common enough to be considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, absent specific details that make the incident notable. No evidence of that exists here, and we don't keep Wikipedia articles just on the possibility they could become notable someday. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nature Air. Wikipedia is not the news and not a memorial. A tragic crash, but small aircraft crash rather more regularly than certified airliners do; there is not enough to indicate that this crash is any different than your "standard" small-aircraft crash. Now, that said, it almost certainly should be mentioned in an "Accidents and incidents" section of the article of the airline in question, Nature Air, but it doesn't clear the bar, as things are, for a standalone article, regardless of other stuff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to Keep per the accident's having had lasting repercussions on the company, as found by Mjroots below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): Light aircraft accidents are far too numerous to have a separate article for each. Most of these are not notable; media coverage is generally limited to a local news article and possibly some wire service coverage. This can be covered in the aircraft article (Cessna 208 Caravan#Accidents) with an entry instead. --Finlayson (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes Notability requirements. Felicia (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But it fails to meet the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): Just another light aircraft accident, no more notable than a car or bus crash. These happen every day worldwide and are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In this case there is no indication this will result in any lasting effects beyond the deaths of the people involved; no changes to procedures, no Airworthiness Directives, no lasting effects of any other kind and no deaths of any people notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. The policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies.- Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this accident can be adequately covered in the article on the airline. Unless a wikinotable person is involved, an accident such as this is almost always going to be below the threshold of notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - If the article has not been fleshed out in the near future, it may be appropriate to merge it, but it seems to be notable and should be kept for now while there is clearly a significant interest in it. The Jade Knight (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airline crashes with 12 deaths most certainly do not "happen every day worldwide". This was the fourth-deadliest air crash of 2017. Too soon to determine lasting effects on the industry. WP:RAPID. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID does not say that all newly-created articles should be kept. It suggests alternatives such as moving the page to draftspace, which may be more appropriate here until evidence of lasting notability is established. Alternatively the content could be merged into Nature Air for the time being. Either are acceptable outcomes under WP:RAPID for a light aircraft accident, which is typically regarded as WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A crash resulting in loss of 12 lives is tragic, but like many car or bus accidents with similar loss of life, tragedy doesn't bestow encyclopedic notability on its own. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as WWGB mentions above this incident was one of the top five deadliest incidents of 2017. Also one of the victims who perished in the crash was related to former Costa Riccan president Laura Chinchilla. The WP:NOTNEWS argument is not appropriate now as with the incident only being hours old it is natural that most of the coverage will be news related. There is plenty of coverage that has not yet been included in the article. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be nominated for deletion again if it failed WP:LASTING after few months or years. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep at this moment~~ given the coverage, it will take few months to decide whether it failed WP:LASTING. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After re-examining this subject, I am supporting merge to Nature Air and also the below comment of Shelbystripes. If it turns out that the subject passed WP:LASTING, we can have a separate article again. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Light aircraft accidents are not inherently notable. Wikipedia does not exist to create articles now and wait to see if notability exists later, that flips the notability standard on its head. The page barely exists anyway, so there's little harm from deletion; if it turns out notability is WP:LASTING, page could easily be re-created later once notability is established. Deletion is important to avoid setting a bad precedent for future non-notable incidents. Shelbystripes (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps snowball, at the least, merge.Antonio Super Uber Sexy Martin (wassap?) 16:54, 2 January, 2018 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Non-notable small plane accident. Acebulf (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a fatal crash of a commercial aircraft. I fully understand not wanting to write articles for every single private/military aircraft crash, but commercial crashes happen infrequently enough to warrant their own articles. Dannythewikiman (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is not correct. There have been 206 accidents on this one aircraft type involving 427 fatalities and almost all have been commercial flights. It is a common occurrence, just like car accidents are. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Commercial aircraft" in this context means one with 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg) MTOW or higher, which the Caravan does not have. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see now anything matching the criteria listed by The Bushranger above. Wykx (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't have a guideline qualifying the fourth deadliest crash in a given year; the fact a relatively small number died makes this stat a bit misleading. What we have here is a failed attempt to make a news story an encyclopedic entry without any knowledge of in-depth analysis, persistence, or lasting significance. Editors will, inevitably, fall back to their master key: WP:RAPID; however, RAPID works both ways and drawing it in a discussion does not put an automatic postponement on notability. Supposedly this may become notable in the future; that is when you create the article, not before.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the "We must have an article for every bump and scratch" crowd will finally get the picture! WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL--Petebutt (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, no evidence of significant coverage as required by GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A charter plane carrying tourists with more than 10 people, all of them were killed. One of them was the cousin of Costa Rica's former president Laura Chinchilla. It is the deadliest plane crash in Costa Rica in decades and it currently stands as the second deadliest in a country where aviation accident is pretty rare. That is not common, in contrast with year 2017 as the safest year in aviation history. Media widely reported this, especially the Spanish. Take some time okay? And we'll see more improvements. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony: you should not make page moves in middle of AFD. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, notability is not inherited. The cousin of a former president is not a notable person. Fatal accidents involving light aircraft are very common globally. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: Yes light aircraft crashes are common "globally". I do realize that this is also a chartered private flight, but as per my arguments above (safest year yet this stands as the second deadliest in a country where aviation accident is rare, based on ASN, flighglobal and news websites), I think it deserves a stand alone article. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 2017 was a safe year for jet airline aircraft flying, not light aircraft flying. You are convoluting the two. In my country (Canada) we have fatal light aircraft accidents on average almost every week. In the US, where they have more population and more aircraft, they have fatal light plane accidents on average every day. In a country like Costa Rica, where they have few light aircraft, it happens less often. Antarctica has few light aircraft and few accidents as a result too, but that doesn't mean that every light aircraft crash in Costa Rica is notable. It is quite possible that car accidents are not that common in Costa Rica, but we still don't have a Wikipedia article each one of on them. Why? Because they aren't notable. Most light aircraft accidents result in no changes, no lasting effects beyond the deaths involved, just as most car accidents don't. This accident, while tragic for the deaths involved, seems to be that same case, human error and no lasting effects. Our policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER exactly addresses why we don't have articles like this and it is a policy, not a guideline. It says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But for a country where aircraft accidents rarely occur, even light aircraft crashes, especially with the high number of fatalities, this is notable. Costa Rica rarely sees an event that causes significant number of fatalities. As this route is popular among tourists, this could have affected their tourism industry (U.S media have warned their readers about the dangers of private chartered flights). This accident highlights the danger of privately chartered passenger flights. In addition, most light aircraft crashes are "training flights". This isn't. It's a flight where the passengers pay for the flight. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"for a country"? Notability is equal for all countries. Though you have indicated that subject may pass WP:GNG, that's why I have voted for merge. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That approach actually would lead us into a situation where we would not have articles on light aircraft crashes in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc because they are commonplace there and not notable, but would have articles on light aircraft accidents in places like Costa Rica, Cuba, Andorra, Lichtenstein, the Vatican, etc, because they have few light aircraft and thus are less common there. User:Raymond3023 is right, notability has to be equal for all countries or it makes for some odd paradoxes across the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been moved by PaPa PaPaRoony from 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash to Nature Air Flight 9916. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved it back until the discussion is completed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- Notable, for the reason it was the ONLY fatal crash in 2017 with paying customers among fatalities, tragically happened on the very last day of the year.83.249.48.72 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No it wasn't. You are confusing news reports. There were no fatalities among passenger jet aircraft airlines globally in 2017. There were many non-jet commercial passenger air carrier fatalities, though. The Cessna 208 is not a jet, it is a turboprop. This was just one of the non-jet commercial aircraft fatal crashes. See this article, which explains the stats. Also you can note that writing KEEP in all caps doesn't give it more weight in the final determination at the end of this AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:AIRCRASH should not be cited here Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles. What I see is this article meets WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Given its high death toll, my best guess is there must be some long lasting effects: negative perception of local tourism, operation suspension of the company, mourns in the communities, new regulations, etc. Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 14:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY. Also many "only an essay"s reflect well-established WP:CONSENSUS, which this does, and if an accident is not suitable for inclusion in a type or airline article it fails WP:COMMONSENSE to believe it is suitable for a standalone. As for "there must be some long lasting effects": WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of the aircraft is at least as important as the size. Here, we have a commercial air accident with what i these days a large loss of life. We also have evidence it is a very major disaster by local standards and a government inquiry. For an article created this soon after the event, well, we aren't going to get a better claim to notability. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If there has been continued coverage it will meet WP:LASTING but right now there is no guarantee that it will meet it. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read my comment and/or WP:MEMORIAL. At least one of them does not say what you think it says. I can only guess you're trying to divorce my loss of life comment from its context, in order to pretend I'm saying death in particular numbers is of automatic notability? If so, you're fielding a strawman. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Continuing the discussion above. I know WP:ONLYESSAY, but the essay WP:AIRCRASH says "Don't cite me" itself. If you accept its argument, don't cite it. If you do't accept its argument, don't cite it. It's not helpful to cite WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE here either. If I were voting, I would vote for Keep and just say my common sense is this article is notable. Though I do feel so. Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just read on WP:AIRCRASH "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting". But we late now and it has been cited often. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been significantly expanded since it as proposed for deletion (does WP:HEY apply?) and there is far more coverage of the event now that is both more numerous and more indebth. Also Costa Rican officials raided the offices of the airline company. This is an exceedingly rare turn of events that does not happen often after an aviation accident or incident. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reports are still dating to 31 December - 1 January. It might be doing good and there might be chances that it will meet the policies we have mentioned. Right now Nature Air is still too small, maybe a section can be provided if the outcome is to merge. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHas reliable sources and significant coverage. Bingobro (Chat) 05:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes it has the reliable sources, but the coverage is not significant; a whole bunch of news websites carrying the same story and then moving on to the next thing does not add up to significant coverage - that's just the news media version of "keeping up with the Joneses". We can give the crash a good treatment at the Nature Air article and have one previously badly-written article in need of a cleanup that has become half-decent, instead of two smaller badly-written articles in need of a cleanup. The information is not lost and there will be a redirect for the few people who will be looking for information about this light aircraft crash in the future to find it. Otherwise, this is just one more example of this supposed encyclopaedia's gradual transformation into a news aggregator. YSSYguy (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but list in related articles - as the article says a "privately chartered tourist passenger flight" makes it not noteworthy, if it had been a scheduled passenger flight I would have gone for a keep. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, shouldn't we be focused on secondary press coverage and not the type of flight? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is only one factor we have a shed full of precedent about what accidents are noteworthy for a stand-alone article, you have to remember that aircraft crashes are fairly regularly so they have pass a threshold, did they kill somebody important, did they hit something important, did it change the rules regarding aviation operation or maintenance, you also get civil and military (military accidents are far more common and less likely to be noteworthy) and the size of the aircraft, when you get down to what in the air transport world is a small aircraft then being scheduled or a private flight makes a difference. Cant see the relevance of press coverage, they all report the same news feeds to fill up space, coverage is probably the same as a bus crash which are rarely of note. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP THE PRESSES - KEEP Nature Air's AOC has BEEN SUSPENDED. This means that the accident is now notable enough to sustain an article per established consensus. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best an entry in Nature Air's accidents and incidents section despite the AOC suspension--Petebutt (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peruvian Airlines Flight 112 Boeing 737 Landing gear collapse & aircraft caught fire injured 39 passengers the article is kept. A light transport aircraft with 12 people killed is up for deletion? I am sorry but this seems unfear in my eyes but it all on points of view. I vote keep for some of the same reasons at stated above. One fatel crash that could lead to probable cause & to any safety recommendations involving the airline or aircraft type. Two its the second deadlist accident in the country. Three 2017 was safest for Commercial aviation history making accidents like this even more rare. Four with that note it seems that light aircraft crashes with lots of people killed are going to be more common place as a wiki article jutst look at this year with 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash, 2017 Sydney Seaplanes crash, Swan Aviation Sikorsky S-76 crash. Unless we get accident like that of Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 or West Wind Aviation Flight 280 fatal crashes like Nature Air are still going to happen unless changes are made to safety with aircraft of this size then Commercial aircraft. Making this accident with 12 killed on a aircraft which can seat 13 passengers & 2 pilots more notable to me. So I vote Keep. Cloverfield2Y (talk) 00.12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfD is not based on "fairness" or on other articles existing (or not). While this does now appear notable, please argue such based on policy, not "fairness". (Also see above re: how accidents with 737-size aircraft are by consensus held to a different standard than lightplane accidents such as Caravans.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Article states "The crash highlighted the danger of privately chartered tourist passenger flights...". Where is it established that privately chartered tourist passenger flights are dangerous? Statistically it still holds true that the most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport. Nature Air appears to have a good safety record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.131.122 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.132.131.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Mjroot's link which I guess shows lasting significance. I also find myself agreeing with PaPa PaPaRoony's arguments in spite of the various rebuttals. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is still much to happen for showing lasting significance. Merging to Nature Air is still appropriate since it is still mostly about Nature Air. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:28, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari

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

I think that the subject of the article does not have any notibility by its own. If we look at the article's soureces we can see it quite clearly that either the sources are primary or related to her undirectly and also the article violate wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. Thats why I think the article should be deleted Ominictionary (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a ce that included improving neutral tone and reducing puffery. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the media think it worthy of publication that a member of a famous family is giving out cheques, it is our standard that we don't need to ask why they thought their readers wanted to read that. It is sufficient to observe the media's interest in the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article reads more like a WP:PROPAGANDA violation, as it stands right now, and there is scant reference that attests to this person's notability. Also, notability is not inherited. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is strange that the creator of the page Aseefa Bhutto Zardari found it proper to nominate this instant article for deletion. You seek to delete the page of the elder sister whilst creating the page for the younger sibling having similar claim to fame. DebashisM^Talk 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DebashisM, there is a announcement from Asif Zardari that Aseefa Bhutto Zardari will stand 2018 election. She has been a Rotary Ambassador and former UN Ambassador for Polio Eradication and both are international organization. But Bakhtawar has only work for that which completely belong to her family. Also there is no news of her holding any public office. Also important to mention my created article is completely based on secondary sources unlike this one. So, I think both are not similar claim of fame. Ominictionary (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The article is a violation of wikipedia's WP:Copy-paste, WP:PROPAGANDA and WP:POV policy. The article have majorly copy pasted from the official biography of Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari. Check this link: [107] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCDE22 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep I see enough reliable references for a full article. --RAN (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment:- The article violate WP:PRIMARY SOURCE so its WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:COPYPASTE policy extencively. The article has been copy pasted from her own biography. If one look properly, they can see it clearly that the article's most of the reference are primary.

ref 1: article written by her mother about her (Benazir) own story. (primary source)
ref 2: News of the birth of Prime Minster's elder daughter not for her own. (indirect mention)
ref 3: Birth of her sister which hardly mentioned her. (indirect mention)
ref 4: For her own work
ref 5: Website of PPP, which is going to glorify anything done by Bhutto. (primary source)
ref 6: News analysis (primary source)
ref 7: Website of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology founded by her mother. (primary source)
ref 8: Her own twitter account (primary source)
ref 9: Because of her own
ref 10: A website had ran during PPP goverment, when her father was president. (primary source)

After seeing all this we can say that the article violate wikipedia's many policy and this is nothing except a propaganda, so I think there is no reason to keep it at all. Ominictionary (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is often in the news but there is no in-depth coverage on her. She is not a elected politician so she also fails WP:POLITICIAN. She doesn't have a notable career either. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable philanthropist; notability is not inherited from notable parents. Sourcing is in passing, routine, and / or WP:SPIP as discussed above. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Nothing suggests individual notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. And per User:Rpclod, a little joke from my side as a Pakistani, "we have had enough of Morosi siasat(Inherited politics)" :). Lets keep it away from Wiki. M A A Z T A L K 12:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, but under the principles of WP:PRESERVE given this person could become notable, or at least a plausible search term, make sure to merge any content that's worth merging to Bhutto's article, and possibly keep a redirect to a "Personal life" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Störm (talk) 16:18, 21 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing (TV series)

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES. Not yet released. The article was undeleted as a contested prod. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 1 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} 15:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep [108], [109], [110], [111]. Appears to have sufficient coverage in mainstream media press to meet GNG, I don't see anything that says this has been cancelled. I'd suggest revisiting this if it doesn't show up on air in another six months, but if it does, what exactly is the point of deleting and recreating this? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a cast, synopsis and a proposed airdate, that's all we need. It would be a waste of resources to remove this article and then have to re-create it when the show comes to air. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your concern, it could (and should) be moved to draftspace. It could be improved and restored from there if the TV show actually materializes. That's my !vote, anyway, but Wikipedia does not keep articles merely because they might become notable later. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable now, and meets WP:TVSHOW. I wish people wouldn't waste AfD on cases like this – if a TV series has been greenlit to series by a TV network, and has a semi-definite premiere date, but has not yet premiered, it should not be AfD'ed. Please save that for articles about TV pilots that were NOT greenlit to series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Also consider that ABC is likely to announce their midseason schedule on January 8 during winter press tour; almost forgot about that. Nate • (chatter) 02:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And just like what I thought, ABC did announce a premiere date; April 2. So I'd say all of the nom's concerns are now addressed. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the recent announcement and media coverage (re: Entertainment Weekly, Jan. 8) clearly passes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The show is a known commodity, people will want to find information about it. Makes no sense to remove this or send it to draftspace. Other unreleased TV shows have 'upcoming show' pages, the original post that started should not be taken seriously (seems more likely to be based on some bias against the show or network). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.127.164 (talk) 18:25, 15 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 Maharana Pratap. Sandstein 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajabde

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

WP:INVALIDBIO, specifies that a relative of a popular person is not notable, unless it has sufficient content(which is sourced, when talking about historical articles). The same applies to this article, as Ajabde was a wife of Pratap Singh I, and not notable herself. The article also relies on only one source, whose reliability itself is disputed. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect - I agree, I, too, don't find enough sources that suggest the individual could be the subject of a NPOV, NOR, V article. A redirect from Ajadbe to Maharana Pratap is possible, but it isn't clear to me that Ajadbe is a Mononymous person. I would suggest such a redirect should be from Maharani Ajabde (which currently redirects to this page) and Ajadbe simply be deleted. Note that Maharani Ajabde Punwar already does redirect to Maharana Pratap. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to redirect per Peterkingiron and since while Ajadbe may not be mononymous, there aren't any other notable Ajadbe's that I find. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't been able to find much else about her beyond the pocket book (which does not seem RSey) and her portrayal in a TV serial.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband. The form [[Maharani Ajabde] would only be desirable if Maharani was need to disambiguate, since it is a title. Like many wives she does not appear to be separately notable. In such cases where any notability is inherited, we norn ally redirect to the associatred person who is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maharana Pratap. That would be fine, considering the article itself is non notable. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 12:42, 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. Michig (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Po-Shen Loh

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

Fails WP:PROF. A two line stub. No clear notability established. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to keep per WP:PROF#C7 for his role in the IMO. News appearances: CBS [112], Washington Post [113][114], NPR [115], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [116], TribLive [117]. Interviews: FiveThirtyEight [118], Huffington Post [119], a New York Times online department [120]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Could you add those references to the article, perhaps along with a few comments about what they say? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Of the sources currently in the article [121] only [1] and [5] (TribLive and WashPost) have any nontrivial coverage about Loh himself rather than about how the team performed or what it takes to do well in the IMO. But two may be (barely) enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disclosure: I am the creator of this article. I believe, as XOR'easter says, the non-trivial coverage of Loh in major news sources (WP, NPR) and not just the IMO team or CMU warrant him an article by WP:PROF#C7. Wqwt (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist. Consensus needed to determine if sources included are enough to satisfy Notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by XOR'easter. —Gpc62 (talk) 02:42, 15 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. Seems like this discussion hinges on whether the proffered sources are indeed sufficient to establish GNG based notability, and opinions appear to vary (especially on the "in-depth" coverage question) without a killer argument being presented in either direction. So no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Buell

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

Subject does not meet notability requirements and article has had outstanding issues since at least 2010. MisterTimelord (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fring individuals, like paranormal investigators, require very good sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic meets WP:GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GNG, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject^[2]^[3]^[4], therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page has never had its issues addressed, and Ryan Buell is not notable except for having a short-lived show on A&E in which he pretended to investigate ghosts. 8.41.72.250 (talk)— 8.41.72.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment:Instead of being deleted, given that the topic is notable, has potential, and workable reliable sources, but has quality issues, maybe, per WP:ATD-I it should be moved to draft namespace, to be improved, and eventually moved back to mainspace when it meets quality standards. Thinker78 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just because someone did something on TV once or for busted for a couple crimes does not automatically make them notable. By that logic, everyone who has ever been either arrested or on TV for any purpose is qualified for a Wikipedia entry. 67.247.151.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC) — 67.247.151.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Subject meets GNG. He was a main character in a popular TV show that was presented in the whole country, and probably internationally through cable, and he was in it for a few years. That's why many reliable sources address the subject directly and in detail, because he is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in People^[5], ABC (above), the Chicago Tribune^[6] and Enews^[7], along with general coverage in the context of the show (I know notability is not inherited which is why I'm showing the other coverage) suggests he passes WP:GNG. Another way of looking at it - his legal skirmishes are all getting media coverage only because he's notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:CELEBRITY. Those are two excellent guidelines that let us evaluate whether a person (note this is a living, breathing person we're talking about having an article focused solely on) should be subject to biographical scrutiny. In this case, neither of these criteria are fulfilled. Arguments that the person fulfills WP:GNG hinge mostly on the television show in which he was featured meeting the requirements for inclusion. A redirect to the television show may be appropriate, but keeping a separate biography with the notability lacking as it is in this case is something that we should not be doing and I would hate for precedent to be kept in keeping a biography solely on the basis of entanglements with the law and incidents indicating a failure to launch. jps (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what criteria you are referring to regarding WP:FRINGEBLP. Could you please quote the relevant text in said guideline? What I found in WP:FRINGEBLP actually supports keeping the article. Namely the guideline states, "Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner". As shown previously, there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. For me "enough" would be at least three different reliable and independent sources. Consequently, the topic meets WP:FRINGEBLP criteria. Regarding WP:CELEBRITY, its second criteria says, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"; according to ABC, "Buell has a pretty big fan base across the country". And, as mentioned previously, the topic meets GNG, therefore it is notable. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", and such sources has already been shown in a previous comment. If you don't like what the sources talk about the subject, please quote a specific policy or guideline that backs up what you say. Thinker78 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." We don't have such sources. We have sensationalized news stories of the "dog bites man" sort. There is no source that has been identified which offers a serious, extensive biographical look at this subject. Rather we have sources which salaciously tell the story of a cancer diagnosis that may have been fake, a promotional tour that never was, and arrest and convictions that may be related to a drug addiction. That's not good enough. jps (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with you. The sources I posted discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. And they also have significant coverage about the subject, therefore meeting GNG also. Notice how GNG establishes the criteria only as "significant coverage", which is defined as "directly and in detail". All that coverage by different, independent, reliable sources makes the topic notable. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that are listed here investigate the subject in an extensive manner. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. jps (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but needs a bit of work. He seems notable (vaguely) but not really for the right reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TimTempleton.- Mr X 🖋 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any independent and non-WP:SENSATIONal coverage to Paranormal State, the TV show Buell derives his extremely limited celebrity from. Then clean up the truly awful Paranormal State article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. As proven with example sources above, topic meets GNG, which 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"". And WP:SENSATION is a guideline for events not people. Besides, the article is not about a scandal or some gossip, but about a notable former TV show presenter. Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a clarifying sentence since it seems that noob Wikipedians can't help but be pedantic. SMH. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources about the person (not his show: the person) along time build a solid WP:GNG case. "Sensationalism" is far from being an objective criteria, and it seems akin to a proxy for WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. - cyclopia^speak! 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now. You're supposed to assume good faith. The problem with using sensationalized news stories as a basis for notability is that you can do very real harm to living people. I could equally argue that I take the editorial responsibility of content curation at a top ten website more seriously than you and maybe you're just out for this poor man's blood. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now, now. I haven't the slightest idea of what do you mean about being 'out of this poor man's blood' -why should I want this? Why should I have anything against the subject of this article? Now, I could say that, if anything, I am taking seriously our responsibility, by ensuring that we cover sourced information regardless of how much we like it or not, or any handwaving about 'harm' (which there isn't, as long as we stick to the sources and strive for NPOV). You can insinuate and poison the well as much as you want. Fact is, this guy is well sourced, and as such there is no reason to delete the article.- cyclopia^speak! 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Well sourced" in this case is to tabloid journalism-style pieces. jps (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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) 00:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar Fedorchuk

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

I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO, and can find no reliable sources covering him. The article bears all the hallmarks of a contribution by an undisclosed CoI (paid) editor, including inline external links. An article with this title was turned down at AfC on May 4 2017 and this version was moved to mainspace later the same day. The creator has not edited since. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any sources to support an article here. Ajpolino (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn businessperson. Likely a COI-driven contribution, going by the contents in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 21 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. So Why 12:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Muslim Lawyers

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

Nothing significant found. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Pakistani Entrepreneurs of North America

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in plenty of sources, as a simple Google search shows eg. [122] [123] [124] etc. Mar4d (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all passing mentions of the organization, such as quoting an individual. Coverage, for WP purposes, means that the organization is the subject of of an article from a third-party source. There's nothing wrong with these sources for use to support supplementary information in the text, but they are inufficient to justify inclusion of this article in WP. Mind matrix 15:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 4 new references to the article (10 January 2018) including US and Pakistani newspapers - The Muslim Observer (weekly US newspaper), Dawn (newspaper), GoogleBooks reference and Boston GreenFest website reference. These 4 references are exclusive articles on the organization. This article was previously an 'orphan' and unreferenced since 2009. This organization has its chapters in many major cities of the US and Pakistan and has been based in California since 1998. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If given a chance, I can also add the above listed 3 references to the article - listed here by Mar4d, now that I am familiar with the subject. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject is significantly covered in reliable sources as listed by editor above, [125], [126], [127]. Passes WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:59, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent of North America

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Hugely notable organisation of Pakistani-American doctors. It has a membership of over 15,000, one of the largest in America.^[1] A simple Google search shows plenty of coverage. Another bad nomination. Mar4d (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: Sorry for that. I can't remember why this happened but maybe I missed something in the title when I made search. Störm (talk) 06:57, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Is Mind

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

NN indie film, fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. While the article appears to have sources, anything beyond a superficial examination reveals a raft of press releases, namedrops, screening announcements, statements unsupported by the sources and other trivial mentions that fail to meet the GNG. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to be to promote the producer and his three indie films (the other two which are at AfD), who furthermore admits his involvement with the film in edit summaries, is repeatedly reverting copyvios and removing the AfD template from the article, and has received a block for doing so; WP:COI's plainly in play. Ravenswing 12:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 1 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} 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are primary or just WP:PROMO. No evidence of notability from reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has been reviewed and quoted in numerous media outlets and was theatrically released. It also meets the general notability guidelines "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." ._{Omicron4 (TALK)} —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As Omicron4 (the SPA creating the article) knows, the notability standards for films are quite a bit more stringent than "was theatrically released" or "been reviewed" (although he's yet to cite the reviews from the "numerous media outlets" alleged to exist). In fact, the criterion dealing with both holds that in order to be considered notable: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The latter doesn't exist, and no evidence of the former has hit reliable sources save for a smattering of one-off screenings at SF conventions and college lectures. Ravenswing 22:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ravenswing's obsession and bias in getting this page deleted is obvious. If this editor bothered to look at the sources cited in the article or even bothered to do a simple Google search Ravenswing would see the numerous articles and reviews about this film. And for Ravenswing's edification the film was theatrically released. Again Ravenswing's use of the word "smattering" shows clear bias against this film. This is an editor who couldn't even interpret how Box Office Mojo reports box office receipts. Ravenswing insisted there was only one screening when in fact there was fourteen. But as Ravenswing was proven wrong now thinks the word smattering is appropriate. What is Ravenswing's obsession with this film? Just because an editor doesn't like a film doesn't mean the article should be deleted. _{Omicron4 (TALK)} —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ZXCVBNM. Just because a film has been released doesn't make it notable. Especially with only $14K in ticket sales. Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 24 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 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First World (film)

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

NN indie film, fails WP:NFILM and the GNG; devoid of any mention in reliable sources whatsoever. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to be to promote the producer and his three indie films (the other two which are at AfD), who furthermore admits his involvement with the film in edit summaries. Ravenswing 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:17, 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. Sock votes disregarded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Van Wattum

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Adam9007 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unreliable sources removed, reliable sources added. Meets all guidelines now. Indeskys (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — Indeskys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Indeskys (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Indeskys (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Marcuscw (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 09:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as it stands. I must disagree with User:Indeskys: this article doesn't meet any of the guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO and the sources added art all catalogue listings of songs, not reliable sources. A Train^talk 15:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, see my rationale below. A Train^talk 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These sources are the exact same sources as used in the articles of the performing artists and come directly from the publishers (BMI, BumaStemra). What other sources are there for song credits cause I believe these are the standard for Wikipedia articles. Also, the musician notability requirements of having worked on a charted single or album are met (David Guetta album), as are the certified gold requirements. Indeskys (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — Indeskys (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Marcuscw (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 09:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote struck: everybody gets one, Indeskys. ;) A Train^talk 16:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeskys: you're right that the article subject produced a charted single. When I first assessed the AfD, I clicked the BMI link and it threw up an error. After your comment, I searched the BMI database myself and found van Wattum listed as a producer on "Bang My Head". So you're right, van Wattum produced a single that charted on the Billboard Hot 100 and meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 2. I've changed my position above accordingly.

As to the sourcing: this is a bio of a living person, which is subject to stricter sourcing standards than other kinds of WP articles. This article would need to have some reliable prose sources like a prominent music magazine or a newspaper article discussing van Wattum -- at the moment it's just catalog mentions. Some sources to back up the first half of the biography section would be ideal, at the moment we're making unbased assertions about the life of a living person, which does not fly per WP:BLP. A Train^talk 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guidelines for musicians met. All sources for discography and awards are legitimately soured from AllMusic ^[2]. Bio needs some more sources but hardly a reason to delete the whole article. Here is an added source for the BUMA award he won for the Gold single, Bang My Head, which he worked on with David Guetta. ^[3] Here is also a photo of Marcus Van Wattum holding his BUMA Award. ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbpdigital (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Nbpdigital (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Marcuscw (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 09:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Edward E. Curtis (2010). Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History. Infobase Publishing. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-1-4381-3040-8.
^ https://www.allmusic.com/artist/marcus-van-wattum-mn0002591447
^ https://www.bmg.com/bx/news/Buma-Awards-2017.html
^ http://nlpop.blog.nl/algemeen/2017/03/07/dit-zijn-de-winnaars-van-de-buma-awards-2016

— Nbpdigital (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. A Train^talk 12:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)A Train^talk 12:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Nbpdigital, WP:MUSICBIO issues have been solved and guidelines are met. Extra sources have been added. Article still needs work but not a reason for deletion. Nachomerengue 11:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcuscw (talk • contribs) [reply]

— Marcuscw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A Train^talk 12:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Replaced the broken BMI links with allmusic links so there is no question whether subject produced a charted and gold single thus meeting the notability guidelines for musicians. Same references used as on the wiki pages of the performing artists. Bio now has 2 sources; the subject's bio on the Dutch Sound Education school for music where he teaches an annual master class and his personal website.Indeskys (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Indeskys (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Marcuscw (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 09:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject co-wrote the charting and certified David Guetta song "Bang My Head" that won a Buma Award [nl]; one could argue that's a pass of WP:MUSICBIO #2 and #3, but we lack secondary sources that talk about Van Wattum having been part of the winning writers team, and MUSICBIO is a possibility of being notable, not a sure pass. We lack any reliable, secondary sources that talks about Van Wattum in detail, so we are not yet passed the threshold of the basic notability guideline for people. On a side note I have filed an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcuscw where subject admits to meatpuppetry. Sam Sailor 11:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only did Bang My Head chart and win an award, his other productions for Britney Spears and Sekai No Owari also charted, as can be seen in their respectable Wikipedia articles which this article links to. MUSICBIO explicitly asks for 1 of the guidelines to be met so I don't know how you can say "Not a sure pass"...Indeskys (talk) — Indeskys (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Marcuscw (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 09:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeskys and Nbpdigital have both been indef blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcuscw. Ben Mac Dui 15:14, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Series

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

No cause to merge 25 existing articles into one super-long article that would only scream to be split again. (Three or four novels might be one thing, but 25!) Also, this merger was carried out barely a day after this article's creator had proposed it at Talk:Sue Grafton#Merge the novels together?, after only one response (an Oppose response) had been received. There are now three Oppose responses, there, including mine. Largoplazo (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comments from merge proponent. Well, this is using AFD as a forced-merger discussion, but sure. I'd like to turn this AFD around a bit and have it be on all the current book titles. ("L" Is for Lawless is a good example.) Note that these have been nominated before - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"R"_Is_for_Ricochet and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"A" Is for Alibi. Every single one of these articles right now is in violation of Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. They're all just plot summaries, with- for a few of them - the mention of winning a minor award or two at the end. The novel articles should be merged into Alphabet Series and the series article should be kept. (Currently, this article has 5 novels, but presumably most of them would be merged in eventually - barring any novels that develop articles that can stand on their own.)

Now, does this mean I think they aren't notable and should be deleted? Absolutely not. The series as a whole is certainly notable, with plenty of discussion of awards, themes, reception, etc. As for the individual books, well, WP:PROVEIT by adding something that isn't a plot summary. If someone wants to make such a book article stand on its own, I have absolutely no objection, and the merged article can simply use a {{main}} to point readers at it. If you look at the old AFDs, the consensus was strongly that these were notable topics, but nowhere did it say that these notable topics couldn't be covered in a series article.

As for the opposes on the talk page, most of the opposes seem to be under the apprehension that I was proposing deleting the content. Which isn't the case. I realize that some people back in 2007-2010 poisoned the well by performing "merges" that were really just deletions, but I am eliminating zero content; readers will see exactly the same article they would have before, just via redirect to a section of a longer article, rather than to a tiny plot-only stub.

As for the accusation of undue haste, as I already explained to the nominator on the talk page, I did not actually redirect the existing articles yet, awaiting more discussion on the Sue Grafton talk page. We are all volunteers here, I was doing something I thought would help the case for a merger by showing what the final article would look like. When I created this article, it was a 1:1 discussion with only one person opposing, and silly me thought that maybe an example might convince them. So please don't accuse me of bad faith here. If you truly want to stand on procedure here, we can move this article back to the Draft namespace, but I don't think that would help much, since we clearly disagree on whether the actual redirects should be carried out.

If the complaint is that the resulting article will be too long, I disagree; the actual problem is that the current articles are too short, and are really better off as sections in a longer article. That said, if length is truly the concern, then I would have no objection to something like Alphabet Series, 1982–1996 and Alphabet Series, 1998–2017 which would render the merged articles shorter. (And, as a reminder, if you're imagining A Big Huge Section that isn't just a plot summary gumming up the series page, well, those books can stay as separate articles. This doesn't apply to any of the book articles we have so far, however.) It shouldn't be an issue. SnowFire (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books with a request for more input. SnowFire (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merging the articles on each novel into long boring article, but support an article about the series, an overview, as is done with other series of novels on Wikipedia. Putting the plot summaries of all 25 novels in one article is not a good article. Each novel has been reviewed separately, so those reviews can be hunted up and added to the article on each novel. Looking at the articles on the novels, many cite review or interview articles but never use those articles as the base for a Reviews section. An article on the series is also useful, but it would talk about the main character's age changing little over the 25 novels meaning the whole series is set in the 1980s without cell phones, changes in the nature of the cases, her character as a detective, and include reviews of the whole series. Two series come to mind, The Cadfael Chronicles and The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, which have one article about the series and then an article for each novel in it (save the last two in the newer series). Bernard Cornwell has written several historical novel series, and the articles follow the same approach, for example The Saxon Stories which includes Death of Kings, a novel with its own article and its own reviews. In the opening paragraph for the article on each novel in the series, the series name is given and wiki-linked, and the series article is linked in the infobox -- see the opening of The Holy Thief as an example. There was a good review of The Alphabet Series by Sue Grafton on NPR this week, indicating its impact on detective novels as a genre, as a starter for the series article: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/02/575068781/a-is-for-appreciation-how-sue-grafton-helped-transform-the-mystery-genre . So that monstrosity of an article in the building can be cleared out, but a real article about the series could be inserted in its place. Some of the material in the article about the author could also appear in a good article on the series, or be moved from one article to the other. I hope there are editors who can add a Review or Review and Awards section to the article on each novel. This was a big seller of a series, so I assume, but I have not looked, that Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews had reviews of most if not all of the novels, in addition to reviews in newspapers and magazines. I have read only a few in this series, and cannot describe the plots the way Maureen Corrigan did in her NPR piece. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsey Millhone itself already includes an overview of the series. Not that that overview couldn't be broken out and expanded, if there's anything to add to an expansion that isn't already covered there and under Sue Grafton, but there may or may not be compelling reasons to bother. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also oppose: complete agree with Prairieplant and Largoplazo – no need to remove the book articles, which could be expanded. An overview article for the series would be good, but kept with minimal plot summary/overview for each book rather than a gigantic article. ‑‑Yodin^T 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yodin: The frustrating thing for me is that these book article could still be expanded even if they are merged to a series article for now. I'm repeating myself, but my argument is a manner of how to present the content Wikipedia currently has, not to permanently salt the articles as forever unworthy. If someone wants to expand such an article, great, they can do so. Until they do - and they've had 10+ years already - the content can be kept in the series article. Just to make it very explicit what I'm saying, book 16 gets merged to the series article next week. In three months, someone starts expanding the content in the book 16 section of the series article. Someone realizes that they have more content than just one section, they take the content, and put it in the Book 16 redirect. They change the series article to have a {{main|Book 16}} template instead of the section, and everyone is happy. I don't see why the ability to expand such individual book articles would somehow be stopped by the creation of a series article. I believe you that they might have potential! But that's not a problem... SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: thanks for the reply, and I see where you're coming from: the current articles aren't great, so rather than making readers go between all these different articles it could be better to put them all in one article (or two). I also appreciate that you're not trying to remove content. In my opinion though, the Alphabet Series article (which again I think should be kept) should not go into anywhere near this much detail for the plots of each book (I doubt anyone will read the whole article in one go), but should have a 3 to 4 line synopsis, giving an overview of the book but not the full story and shouldn't have full infoboxes for each one. For me that's the usefulness of having a series overview article, and sub-articles that allow people to read more if they want, making it easy for people to browse and get the gist of each book, but also have the option to read a bit more. ‑‑Yodin^T 13:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each entry should be judged on its own merits. If a single volume lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), then merge it to a series article, which can/should exist if the series itself is similarly the subject of multiple reliable pieces of sourcing. But this AfD has no deletion rationale and should be speedily kept (Speedy keep). If you want wider participation in a merge discussion, there are plenty of forums to request additional input including WP:3O, WP:BOOKS, and the nuclear WP:RFC. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reason for deletion is WP:DEL5, content fork (of the independent articles). There's a clear consensus on the relevant talk page (Talk:Sue Grafton) against the merge; as far as I can tell nobody except the original proposer SnowFire supports this. If this is a common name, it can redirect to Kinsey Millhone#Kinsey_Millhone_novels. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this was never going to be a content fork - either A) the other book articles would be merged and redirected to the series article; or B) it will become a series overview article that doesn't replicate the content per Yodin; or C) it'll just redirect to Kinsey Milhone. I was going to do C anyway if the merge proposal failed per the talk page, which seems likely, but Largo filed the AFD anyway. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading all the comments here and at the Talk: Sue Grafton page, I stand with improving the articles on each novel, having an article on the series as a whole without summaries of any of the novels, and keeping the article on Sue Grafton in good form. She is a mystery writer of note, publishing her first mystery when Sara Paretsky introduced the fictional female detective V I Warshawsky in Chicago, marking a change in the gender of the detectives and and the style of murder mysteries from 1982 onward. The series article can discuss the setting of most of the novels, how the series is kept in the 1980s and does not move along with chronological time and how that affects the storytelling, and the strong or weak points of Grafton's style per reviewers. It is a good article to include the sales of her novels, and which novel was the first to enter the best sellers list at No. 1 (New York Times wrote a current article on that, which link I noted on the Talk pages of F Is for Fugitve and L Is for Lawless). I have added text or section titles to some of the articles on individual novels, notable A is for Alibi. The reference system in the articles now, it is not useful, as it excludes inline citations by and large. Those belong in the missing Reviews section for each novel. So I oppose that conglomeration article. I have not read all the Sue Grafton novels, so am not the person to write every article. Articles on the Aubrey-Maturin series (historical fiction) and The Cadfael Chronicles (historical mystery), suggest a structure for an article titled the Alphabet Mystery series (with a disambiguation note to see The A.B.C. Murders for the Agatha Christie novel). It would be wise to remove the messages in the Talk page of each novel that the merger means to stop improving the article on each novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which talk page messages you are talking about? SnowFire (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Even if the extended content about individual books is moved out, wouldn't there still be cause to keep this article about the series and/or links to the various books? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, the nominator, and other editors here, appears to be opposed to the merger of the individual novel articles into this one (as do i), they do not state that the series is not notable, btw it does appear to meet WP:LISTN with the large number of news articles discussing the author and her series, and wikireader interest. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to those remarking that there should be at least a list article, in case you missed my mention above: The list already exists, at Kinsey Millhone#Kinsey_Millhone_novels. It would make sense to redirect this title there or to remove the list from there and have it in this article or under a more conventional "List of" title. Largoplazo (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons (not necessarily in order of importance): 1., the term Alphabet series does not appear to be the common name (the New York Times in their obituary referred to it as "alphabet series" - adjective not common noun, but other NYT articles use different describers; on the author's own website it's "The Kinsey Millhone Alphabet Series"; there are other series of books referred to as "alphabet series" so I think if this survives it would need to be disambiguated). 2. there are 25 books, all are notable and received attention from the LA Times, the Washington Post, The New York Times as well as a number or scholarly books and works by literary critics; after the 5th book, each book in the series appeared on the New York Times Bestseller List - a great number of them at #1; we have articles for each book, and those shouldn't be merged into a single page, (currently editors are researching, reading, and beginning to expand the articles, but there is no deadline for this work). 3., I've split out and started to expand the Sue Grafton#Alphabet series section in the biography, and that's where we should be starting. As it stands, the biography lacks a well written "Style" and "Themes" section, and which needs to be researched and added. Given these books are the author's sole body of work (with a few exceptions), those sections will focus on the style & themes in the series. Suggest redirecting to the biography or to Kinsey Millhone (which needs work). Victoriaearle (tk) 23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a list of the series, which I wouldn't oppose. A list would be an easy navigation through the series but this appears to be the start of a tedious journey where every book is listed in detail - the details already available in the respective articles for the book. Which already exists. Why duplicate that? Ifnord (talk) 16:25, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashodhara Lal

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR.Typical promotional-interviews. Winged Blades^Godric 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All her books are published by the best publishers in the world. Besides, there must be some more reliable independent sources available. I will find them as soon as possible and I think you should try to find some more sources too. Moreover, let the community decide on this one as of now. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find any significant non-trivial coverage and hence we are here.Also see why many interviews are unreliable.Your efforts as the orig. article creator is appreciated:)Winged Blades^Godric 19:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable author.. Hagennos (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is upcoming but fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:58, 23 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. (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a redirect per DreamLinker. Störm (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cowasjee Group

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

When I tried to improve I found nothing in sources. Actually we have an article which discusses in detail about shipping industry East & West Steamship Company. No coverage so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Cowasjee family is a well known Parsi family in Karachi. Their main business was previously shipping (which was later nationalised), but from what I managed to find, they did continue some form of their business. It is a bit hard to find detailed information. They seem to have a Cowasjee foundation as well. Would it be better to redirect this to Cowasjee family?--DreamLinker (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:32, 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 19:45, 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 redirect to Yalwa. Sandstein 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Askalo

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Alexa rank of 385,189 in April 2014. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yalwa. Agree with the nominator. I've noticed many sources, but none reliable enough to support GNG. This is a platform launched by the Yalwa company,[128] and it would be sensible to add a line or two about Askalo in Yalwa. No need for a full merge, as that would be undue considering the current content in Yalwa. Thanks, Lourdes 13:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:17, 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 delete. Without a single source provided, arguments for inclusion are completely invalid. Therefore, this article is found to not meet any requisite criteria to be retained in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budget range

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

I can see an article called Pricing and video games, but this very specific term doesn't seem to have much coverage in the literature. It comes across like a random list of company's discount lines. Coin945 (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I don't see the article that the nominator mentioned in nomination statement. I do agree as per nominated. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Not sure I saw where the article mentioned above is, I don't really have an issue with the article, per se, it does need referencing, and a style change. Budget video games (and video game series) seems to me to be a notable topic. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Budget video game ranges are part of a wider concept of low price, discount or budget product ranges: value brand in groceries (that's a redirect to a section of generic brand), diffusion line in fashion, etc; there's also the article Value brands in the United Kingdom. At least one budget video game range has its own article: Essentials (PlayStation). I'm a little surprised that there doesn't seem to be a more general article this could be merged/redirected to - and Google isn't helpful looking for sources, although I'm sure business/trade press will cover it to some extent. I'd certainly suggest a better search for sources and considering how to save, merge, or redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second and final relist. Consensus needed to determine if article should be considered a poorly-sourced list article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of budget video game labels. While the article in this state is a glorified dicdef, it makes sense as a list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my delete !vote, below, I would have no objection to turning this into a list. Eliminate all the unsourced WP:OR at the beginning and just leave the list of game titles. I'm not sure that would satisfy WP:NLIST, but at least it would eliminate the WP:OR problems of the introductory material. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced = fails WP:V = mandatory deletion. Sandstein 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I'm unsure about the validity of the comment directly above, since WP:NOREFS states that an article lacking references is not sufficient ground for deletion - it must be proven that there exists no such reference (a noticeably harder task than simply pointing at a policy). That means that lack of source does not imply mandatory deletion. It does make it harder to judge so. However, the parent subject (video games) certainly is notable and I think it would be more logical to merge this with it than to keep it separate, especially as notability seems to be hard to establish individually, and keeping with precedent for other similar sub-topics, as pointed out by Colapeninsula. The other delete comment is clearly WP:PERNOM and the nominator's statement can also be interpreted as being open to a merge with a larger article ("I can see an article called Pricing and video games") but since that article does not exist yet, most logical would be to merge with the next most appropriate article, which could one of the suggestions of the below comment. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a new section Video game#Value pricing, in the classifications section. Activision had a group called Value Publishing that merged with Head Games and is now defunct, but they never called the category budget range. This is a dictionary term, but the idea of cheaper games does exist. Not enough for a stand alone article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as per timtempleton. It's interesting that these products are often released under a label that's a subset of a larger, more well-known company, with a markedly different intended audience. The section should have a hatnote to List of budget video game labels, new article that Zxcvbnm suggests. = paul2520 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:OR. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this if there was sourcing (and given a better name, such as Pricing and video games suggested in the nom), but as it stands, there's so many statements that fail WP:V, I don't see how keeping it makes any sense. I've marked up the article where citations are needed. The result is an ugly citation-needed-bomb-run, but that's because we really do need sources for all these statements. Merging this into some other article doesn't eliminate the need for sources; merging solves WP:N, the problem we have here is WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, possibly listify (see my comments above in response to ZXCVBNM). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 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 no consensus. So Why 12:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Miller

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

Commendable, but the sources are just too weak to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - I've about convinced that service in three wars is notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that uncommon: e.g. Adrian Carton de Wiart, Ed Freeman, Basil L. Plumley, Tom (Spry) and Jerry (Hanson). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think notability clashes with commonness.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this would qualify pretty much every British regular soldier of the 19th and early 20th centuries for an article. I'd better get writing... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could see how he could be notable (3 wars, early service in helicopter squadrons, some awards - Cheney Award seems significant) - but what is lacking is sources. I found an obit (which doesn't match everything in the article (e.g. has him transition to jets after Korea)) - but I would like to see more solid sourcing here than what's currently in here.Icewhiz (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per improvements by Smmurphy - coverage is there. SOLDIER is not an end all and be all (though the classification of rarely awarded Cheney Award - " act of valor, extreme fortitude or self-sacrifice in a humanitarian interest, performed in connection with aircraft, but not necessarily of a military nature" (so self-sacrifice - but not in the face of the enemy which combat awards related to) - could be pigeonholed in that direction).Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found a readable ref for the Cheney Award and one of our standards for the Silver Star.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks to me like he had a rather illustrious career. I'm putting together sources from newspapers.com and will update the page shortly. In the meantime, I want to note that there is another Daniel J. Miller from New York (I think) who was an officer in the Navy on the USS Nimitz. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my updates, there really is a lot of information about him. Regarding his suitability for the encyclopedia, I'd say that the Cheney Award is a very significant award, and while not a part of SOLDIER, could be a part of ANYBIO #1 (except it very much is not well-known). He flew a number of rescue missions in Korea which got national media coverage, although in the article I mostly used local coverage because those articles are the most complete. Also, he commanded an air support squadron in Vietnam (there is a typo in his obituary, it says the 13th, but it was actually the 19th Tactical Air Support Squadron [129]). I know that isn't a flag officer role. Anyway, there it is - please feel free to look things over; and while I have your attention, his obituary says while in Vietnam he was "at Nka Liang", does anyone know what that is? As for the 3 wars -> presumed suitability, I do not think that argument is necessary in this case. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on the point about national coverage of Miller; I find such coverage for three events in particular: his March 1951 rescue of Frank Presley (here is a sample), his role in the July 1951 armistice talks at Kaesong (here is a sample), and his receiving the Cheney Award in September 1952 (here is a sample). Note that the search terms for each are different, slight variations give different results. National papers giving in depth coverage of these events include the LA Times, Orlando Sentinel, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Chicago Tribune. Many smaller papers covered the events as well as papers in NYC and Arizona, which may be considered local as he/his family lived in those places at those times. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Miller in this clipping may be a different guy. He's an Army first lieutenant and by this time our Miller was higher in rank. On top of that, the unit cited is an Army aviation unit, not Air Force. That still doesn't ID Nka Liang, but it may not be necessary.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. That is certainly his son, though - same name, but with a Jr, same hometown newspaper, grandmother's last name is Brophy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, just passes muster as to notability for stand alone article based on service in "3 wars". Kierzek (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while he did good stuff in service for his country nothing stands out as being different or more noteworthy than hundreds of others who served. MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and sourcing does not establish notability otherwise. Very few incoming links, indicating that the subject's career has not been significant. This results in a tribute page. Even with three wars, this does not rise to the level of encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 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 and redirect to Wiking. Sandstein 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikings

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable organisation. Survived VfD in 2005, but standards then where very, very lax (judging from the state o the article after that VfD). Their sole claim to fame is "stealing" Manneken Pis, something which has been done numerous times and didn't warrant more than a short flurry of interest at the time.One of countless student organizations in Belgium. Fram (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find too much about this organisation, or rephrase: anything. Fails WP:GNG. !dave 10:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is deleted, the pagename should be recreated as a redirect to Wiking as a {{R from plural}} -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 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 delete. Notability not established during the course of this or the last discussion, via evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton Lengel

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

An IP tried to nominate it for deletion with a reasonable rationale of submitted for deletion. this reads like a diary; sources are either tangential, non-independent, or don't mention subject at all. Was no consensus a year and half ago with a lot of meat/sockpuppetry. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was alerted to this afd by a Facebook post, surprisingly. I don't find any evidence of notability and the subject, whose accomplishments may surely be lauded on a local level, don't exceed even mine or my 76 year old father's (whose short stories now get published annually in his local Senior Citizen's journal), and neither of us merit Wikipedia articles, which are a world of trouble to the subject even at the best of times. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 16:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that bastique (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. "Was alerted to this afd by a Facebook post" user admits to being canvassed on FB. Joseph dejacque (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Language game (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Language game (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per bastique. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know my father. 😀 Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has referenciness, but the references are, in the end, one or more of trivial, unreliable or not independent. The involvement of multiple SPAs including a permablocked sockpuppet gives some clue as to the article's problems. Also, I don't know Cary's dad either. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article, North to Maine has the same issues. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons pretty well outlined in the first AfD proposal. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page is well-sourced, original delete nomination was a verified troll nomination. Subject covered in depth by The Fifth Column, published in multiple "best of" anthologies and reported on by Outside Magazine. Joseph dejacque (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Joseph dejacque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Extended content

Note I think this is my fault. Yesterday I voted "Keep" on Caleab Maupin's page because a friend told me it had been targeted by rightwing trolls. Clearly those same trolls followed me here and nominated this page as retaliation because some of my most recent edits were here. Note one of them accidentally pasted the previous page's deletion discussion onto subject's page and since the nomination the page has been targeted by multiple vandal accounts posting extremely petty edits: Joseph dejacque (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC) ^[1] ^[2][reply]

References

Note, comeon people, this is just immature: ^[1] Joseph dejacque (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://imgur.com/a/XhBfV

Note, Account that has voted 'delete' just vandalized subject's page, so blatantly a bot undid it ^[1] and the vandalism implies Language game knows the subject personally, (at least online). Joseph dejacque (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC) ^[2][reply]

Keep per reasons outlined above, and during the first time this was up for deletion. It should be noted that the page is also currently under vandalism attack, and while ostensibly this is irrelevant to the question of whether the page meets notability guidelines, it calls into question the motivation behind its nomination now (again, see comments above.) Regardless, the page is well sourced and well-written, and in my opinion the subject (as a published author, play-write, and activist) is notable enough to meet the requirements. Dexeron (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Dexeron — Dexeron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete A wolf-in-sheeps-clothing as it were, with regards to the sourcing. It gives all the appearance of a notable topic, but there's no there there. A careful analysis of sources indicates that almost NONE of these are reliable. There's just not anything resembling a sufficiently reliable source or where one may exist, sufficiently in-depth coverage in that source. I'm afraid I just don't see enough here to hang an article on. There's been a LOT of work that has gone into digging these up, I'm sure, but it's just not enough IMHO. --Jayron 32 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No new issues that weren't resolved in the last AfD proposal. Plankhead (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Plankhead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Keep" No substantial and legitimate issues with the page. The d*letes are being organized against the page's author/subject as a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoLifeKing17 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — NoLifeKing17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No evidence of this. Also, does not dispute the actual lack of notability. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence: "the subject, whose accomplishments may surely be lauded on a local level, don't exceed even mine or my 76 year old father" How is that in any way not an admission of a personal vendetta? It's completely unprofessional. Subject is a published, produced NYC playwright.Joseph dejacque (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable EricthePinko (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious vanity page Killing Vector (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject hasn't stopped being notable since the last AfD discussion, and the number of independent sources cited has increased. If someone has concerns other than notability, they should improve the article themselves or propose improvements on its talk page. Zwilson (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Zwilson (talk • contribs) — Zwilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hmm, so the canvassing/sockpuppetry begins. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) weak delete the sourcing used doesnt grab me and say this is a notable subject, though they do have me looking optimistically for more. The two google news hits; Snow White Zombie Apocalypse was right on the cusp with its publishing by Scout comics being even more optimistic yet its nowhere enough alone and 12 months on from the announcement theres been nothing else. The only other google news source is in its own words "...celebrating Off-Off-Broadway." and is behind a paywall if I could have read that source it may have tipped me the other way but alas given the other issues highlighted in this discussion and the sources self description I couldnt AGF {WP:GNG]] without details. Overall its probably a case of too soon and not now maybe in the future. My comment on the other issues not associated with the article, yes I saw this mentioned on another web site but I made my own assessment closing admin can give this comment what ever weight they feel. Looking through the discussion so far I think its going to be no-consensus and really should follow the recent US east coast lead and close due to Snow. That said it should also be revisited reasonably soon when it can assessed against the communities standards without the background noise. Gnan garra 05:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it shouldn't close no consensus because a lot of canvassed people came in to vote Keep. The background noise was there year and half ago, and it looks like waiting a year hasn't reduced it (with one person saying something similar about renominating it soon) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this other website. Another sysop was alerted on other site too apparently - Was alerted to this afd by a Facebook post, surprisingly. It has produced both keep and delete !votes - and a lot of 'em quickly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I see; some of the plays that have won awards or been shortlisted for those awards, several of them are obtained due to open socilitation. The 2010 Eugene O'Neill National Playwrights Conference honor, that takes plays by open submission, along with the Humana Festival of New American Plays, Estrogenius (2012 rules in place though a search through the website shows submissions are required) and the James Rodgers Contest at the University of Kentucky. From what I could tell about the 2014 best monologue, the publisher does ask for submissions but the criteria seems vague. To me, for a lot of the plays that won awards seemed to be for happenstance. If you do not submit, you will not be considered and some of these events will attract (the James Rodgers Contest at the University of Kentucky is already over, after reading the CV of HERMAN DANIEL FARRELL III Associate Professor of Theatre University of Kentucky] , who was a judge of the contest. I feel like a lot of the attention with playwriting was self driven and, outside those very small festivals, does not have the national outreach. Tha arrests by NYPD during Ouccpy do not stand out, unless it was a specific arrest he was in that either created or challenged current statutes (e.g. the mask rule in public). Yet, what I feel is that his activism during the Ouccpy movement, including spending time with those who have been jailed for online activism, does show some, but not much, merit. I see it a lot as a self promoted piece where notability is tied to self-submission contests for playwriting or things caught on youtube by random people or connections with those who are notable in their own right. So, what I would recommend would be delete. If there was a small list or articles about minor players in the Ouccpy movement, a merge would be fine but I just do not have anything to suggest to move anything to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with User:Zscout370. I was, I confess, puzzled at first by the oversourcing; it gives a first impression that there must be notability somewhere - all those sources. but when you begin to look at them one by one, they collapse. non-notable "awards." websites. blogposts. micro-minor venues. I just can't find the notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already nominated delete. I've had another look at the article and I'm even more convinced this is a clear vanity page using non-notable sources.EricthePinko (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note I have already voted 'keep' How in the world are Backpacker Magazine Outside Magazine and Appalachian Trail Conservancy not notable sources? Also AFD criteria does not specify that sources must be "notable" just that they be "Reliable" ie: "published materials with a reliable publication process" which many if not all of these sources have.^[3] Joseph dejacque (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My search on: Brenton Lengel site:outsideonline.com, came up empty. As did my search of Brenton Lengel site:Backpacker.com [130]. You would help you case it you would post a link to each of these here, so that editors can evaluate them. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I ran a search for "Brenton Lengel" on proquest news archive. there were 2 hits, one was a press release (which counts for nothing). the other was to this : CASTS AND BLASTS, Schneck, Marcus. The Patriot - News; Harrisburg, Pa. [Harrisburg, Pa]02 June 2013: T.26. Unfortunately only the title, no link to article itself. It is virtually inconceivable that a notable contemporary author or playwright or activist would fail to get valid, full text hits on a proquest search. Nothing on HighBeam either. Where are the WP:RS? E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could contact the publications themselves. Issue and page is listed in the sources as: "Way Off Broadway" Outside Magazine. July 2013. pg 38" Source guidelines specify that print source archives don't have to be listed online:

"It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."^[4]

As for RS, sources don't have to appear in particular searches, but just by clicking "News" above we get two^[5] and "Books"^[6] we get even more.

When I googled the plays mentioned I got like, five separate in-depth reviews^[7]^[8]^[9]. I don't think there's any question if this guy is a playwright or not, or if his work was produced in NYC. Theatres that produced him like The Flea Theater^[10] are notable on their own. Plus there's this, which I think you could hang an article on just by itself^[11]. Joseph dejacque (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your link to an alumni magazine [131], while it can be cited on fact, does not support notability.^{[citation needed]} Alumni magazines never do. Article STILL LACKS secondary SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently attend performances at The Flea Theater, a small house where I sometimes do see interesting work by promising but non- or not-yet-notable playwrights. Advocates of keeping this article do not help their case by oversourcing. Moreover, where sourcing is so paltry, it is, in fact, important to have some means of verifying that the sources cited to relatively significant publications such as Outside (magazine) and Backpacker (magazine) are WP:INDEPTH and meet WP:SIGCOV. I want to WP:AGF, but with an overstuffed article that has been subject ot CANVASSING, I feel a need to operate in Trust-But-Verify mode.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point The only verifiable canvassing has been canvassing of "Delete" votes (check out the first three who all seem to know each other), NOT keep votes. If the article is oversourced maybe we should clean it up, but I don't see oversourcing as a problem in and of itself. It just means people put in alot of effort.

Also question is there any criteria for publication significance? As far as I'm aware Secondary sources don't need to be "significant" they just need to be reliable. I think 'Trust-but-verify" is fine. I'd just be very surprised to see this much smoke and no fire. Joseph dejacque (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph dejacque, I do wish you'd point to the "smoke" you are seeing. Spamming this discussion with reviews by non-notable bloggers posting on non-notable group blogs such as http://www.theasy.com and www.womanaroundtown.com is not the same as establishing notability. In addition to these, your list of 9 footnotes includes a newsarama "article" that is a mere announcement by a publisher of a list of comic books, including one by Lengel - not a source for notability. It includes an alumni mag article - not a source that can support notability. The SOLE book that you link to is a book is an inclusion of an essay by Lengel in a collected "Best of" by a very minor publisher, not much in the way of support for notability. The only semi-solid, verifiable source is your footnote #5 this NYThearter.com article [132], and it's not sufficient. To keep this or any article, we need multiple, reliable, verifiable secondary sources of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm struggling to find even a handful of sources that would ever be accepted for a company article, an area where I have more experience. The few actual articles about him that are here are niche publications - there's very little mainstream coverage to support notability. I googled him with the NY Times and Daily News and nothing comes up about his work. Fails WP:GNG. With the number of votes and past deletion history, hopefully the closing admin will not just do a vote count and drop a no consensus but instead will also look at the policies used to defend or dismiss the article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm not spamming anything. I'm simply asking where it says that for a source to be reliable it must be something like the NYTimes? While a publication like that certainly would be reliable There's no guidelines about how ONLY those publications are reliable. Criteria for reliable is:

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. **Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language**. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."^[12]

Similarly, criteria for notability is:

"For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."^[13] The Theatre is Easy source, for instance, employs an editorial staff of at least three^[14]. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." It easily hits all three of those, as do several others.

Subject has hiked the entire Appalachian Trail, written the first play about it and participated with distinction in OWS among other things. Subject may not be famous enough to have a NYT article, but as you see above fame and notability are not the same thing Joseph dejacque (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Wikipedia policy requiring reliable coverage in independent sources, there's also a bit of instinct and experience in play here. I used the Times and Daily News as examples of what would be considered good sources, where you'd expect a truly notable local to appear, but those aren't only ones we could use. (Daily News has a lower notability bar of what they cover, so perhaps that's a better example for this AfD discussion.) As an avid consumer of media, and having written several articles myself, I have a good sense of what publications are suitable for sourcing. It's not always the case, but good sources usually have their own articles. Despite the sheer volume of references here, as mentioned before, a closer look shows they aren't very strong. The last point you make deserves some discussion - being the first to hike the Appalachian Trail and to write a play about it. Let's look at those items. According to this, 18,366 people have walked the whole trail [[133]]. At the American Theater of Actors, where the play was produced (and incidentally doesn't have a Wikipedia article), this says there have been 800 plays produced there. [[134]] And that's just one Off-Broadway theater. So where I'm going with this is that there can be a variety of firsts when you mix categories together, but that in itself doesn't make them notable. The deciding factor for me is the coverage the accomplishment gets. It's just not here for this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Just to be clear, this was not an Off-Broadway production, it was some sort of indie production. Many events and artistic productions are significant to the participants. But at Wikipedia we require WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent, secondary sources to validate notability. I concur with User:timtempleton's comments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 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. Sandstein 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of licensed players and tournaments in AO Tennis

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

WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:FANCRUFT and fails WP:LISTN. This content was removed from the video game article AO Tennis for being inappropriate. The author has now created a separate list for players, tournaments and arenas in a game that is not even notable yet. This list is not a notable grouping. The1337gamer (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominations suggests, this isn't the sort of information that belongs in the game article itself, let along as a split-off stand-alone article. The fact that official tournaments exist is really the only encyclopedic thing to mention at the parent article. Those looking for specific (non-notable) tournaments should be using Google ~~or an esports website~~ or something. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment revised. I thought the list of people and tournaments alluded to esports. It doesn't. Its just an in-game list of tennis players. Which is equally inappropriate for Wikipedia as a stand-alone article or subsection in an article, per WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right to move - I believe, the data may be moved back to the article AO Tennis, and then the site can be deleted. User:thomediter msg me 14:26 (UTC), 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note this is the article creator. thomediter, please note that this content will likely be removed from a stand-alone list or the AO Tennis article. Wikipedia doesn't do player or team lists like this. See other sports articles like NBA 2K18 or FIFA 18. This isn't the sort of thing an encyclopedia like Wikipedia documents. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what you want, I disagree a lot, but I don't wanna spend more time on that strange rule. User:thomediter User talk:thomediter 15:10 (UTC), 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Content straight out a of past revision of AO Tennis (video game). Does not meet notability guidelines on its own and there is no content that could conceivably be merged to the primary page; it is simply content that was already removed for not being useful. Kb.au (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:48, 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 delete. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone with a reasonable request to merge anything into one of the bands he has been in. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Doran

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

Minor former member of band – fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable indepdent of band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Alkaline Trio as most notable connection to a Wikipedia-notable music group. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pit er Pat, which he made a much more significant contribution to than Alkaline Trio (and which already includes most of the content of this article, but would be improved by also having one of the sources from it). --Michig (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This person has been in two notable bands. Per WP:XY, we should either keep or delete this. Due to lack of notability cited above, I’d prefer to delete. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaourt

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

References non-notable publications, and passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yeah, I guess, if you want to say It's FOSS and Digital Ocean are non-notable and delete every article in Wikiproject Linux that can't be cited to OMG! Ubuntu! - the Arch Linux article is long enough, but I would probably support merging and redirecting to Arch Linux package managers if we had such an article.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources are trivial. Digital Ocean is not a reliable source: it describes itself on its own website as a cloud infrastructure provider company (ie not a tech/software journalism site with any kind of fact checking). The linked "article" fails WP:RS because it is a user-submitted tutorial with no editorial oversight (see their tutorials page with the big green button soliciting contributions from users). It's FOSS is a self-identified blog, which are rarely if ever considered reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Digital Ocean is only cited for "Yaourt is the French word for Yoghurt" that is quite a claim. If you were to try to submit a tutorial you would find out that it is not "a user submitted tutorial with no editorial oversight" - contributors are paid, work with editors and they have to apply to become contributors.
Additionally, as a Wiki, we want others to think we are reliable but we can't accept any other Wikis as reliable - sure, few come close, and most are pale imitations, but ArchWiki is extremely reliable and up to date. It's disappointing that we can't find reliable sources for articles about a community-driven project, being ourselves a community-driven project, especially when the issue is reliable sources for Linux-related content. The entire FOSS community trusts these people with their system upgrades, but we can't use them as reliable expert or specialist sources? Just who do we think we are anyway? If we can't establish notability for one of the most widely used package managers of a major Linux distribution we must be doing something wrong - but c'est la vie.SeraphWiki (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SeraphWiki, user-generated content is basically never acceptable as an RS, per WP:UGC. As an experienced editor you should be aware of that. If you want to start an RFC to change our policy on that, by all means go ahead, but this is not the place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and maybe an RfC would be a good idea at some point. I also don't especially think every AUR helper needs a standalone article, especially when we don't have the general article yet. They should probably all be in one article with pacman, and that is easier to find sources for anyway.SeraphWiki (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of references can be improved and as a matter of fact, I inserted a few more references from more reliable resources (i.e. the website of Arch Linux). I also support merging and redirecting this page into a more general article but deletion is, in my opinion, an overkill as Yaourt is considered a useful tool in communities of Arch-based distributions. مظهر (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

مظهر, these new sources fail to demonstrate notability. Your citations to Wiktionary and cnrtl.fr merely demonstrate the fact that "yaourt" is the French word for yogurt, which is not in dispute, and they do nothing to show that the Yaourt software is notable. The ArchWiki ref is a wiki and per WP:UGC can't be accepted as a reliable source that demonstrates notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The criteria is not if the software is useful but notable. Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform to drum up support or users. Ifnord (talk) 16:30, 24 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) 05:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinnek

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

An advertorially toned page on an non-notable private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, interviews, routine funding news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources; for example, this piece calls the company an "Alibaba wannabe" [135]. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. The references offered are routine start-up coverage of proposition and funding, and my searches are not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are routine reports of funding of the kind that any start-up generates. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are mostly routine start-up like press release material. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:05, 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. – Joe (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SA Recycling LLC

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

References non-notable sources, and only a passing mention in a notable source. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Withdrawing !vote ~~Speedy Keep~~Keep In addition to a company profile story in the Orange County Register [136] and a dedicated article on it in a trade pub - Recycling Today - which is RS for its specific industry [137], BEFORE shows it has also been the subject of dedicated articles in other RS like The Decatur Daily [138], Phoenix New Times [139], and Santa Maria Times [140], etc., etc. There's also this dedicated article about it (under its former name of Adams Metals) in the Los Angeles Times [141] from 1991. A check on newspapers.com also finds articles back to the 1980s in mainstream newspapers. When combined with the Bloomberg listing (which doesn't help GNG but contributes to CORPDEPTH) and the more incidental mentions in RS, this should be fine (albeit needing improvement, including introduction of some of the "rougher" history like the toxic waste enforcement action in '91). ~~EDIT: Updating to Speedy Keep post-improvements.~~ Chetsford (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Drewmutt. The sources are all non-notable sources and most probably unreliable for the most part. The article also looks to be an advert and quite promotional. Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While maintaining Keep, I agree with Lacypaperclip the article appears WP:PROMOTIONAL in its current state and needs to be rewritten. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've de-promotionalized it, adding in additional refs, and filled-out the bare refs. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drewmutt - just pinging you to let you know I've de-promotionalized the article (I'm guessing this was written by someone inside the company itself) and added additional refs, etc., in case you want to take another look. Chetsford (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chetsford's work and sources listed. --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written, reliable sourced. --RAN (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't provided an analysis of sourcing, also, of course Chetsford is going to defend this work: he was the AfC reviewer who made a horrible accept of spam into mainspace, and he's now trying to defend that poor acceptance. He isn't an independent editor anymore, and his views should be weighted roughly the same as we would an article creator defending their own non-notable puff piece. There hasn't been a single policy-based or sourcing based argument presented for why we should keep this article. I also think that Drewmutt should be thanked for his thankless work patrolling recently accepted AfC drafts. He's been catching a lot of low-quality acceptances of late, and of course the people who made those poor judgement calls are going to defend them: it's natural and understandable, but it does not equate to a neutral editor giving their view on the topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I totally endorse everything you have said here TonyBallioni. I would have stated the exact thing either here, or at the afc talk, but the last time I expressed some concerns about this same editor you are referring to here, I, as the messenger got killed. The discussion still sits in a closed blue archive box on the afc talk page. Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't intended as an attack on their general reviewing: I'm not familiar with it, and we all make mistakes (I've made bigger mistakes in good faith). My point is that we typically look at authors of spam articles in AfD and count weight their opinions less: they can't provide an objective look at their own work, but we take into account their views on why the article meets policy, and others can be informed by it. My point is that AfC reviewers have a bias to protect articles they accept that is probably about equal to an article author: no one likes admitting they were wrong. Something I've noticed at most AfDs of AfC articles is that the reviewer of course is going to defend the article they accepted, and this somewhat defeats the point of an AfD, which is to provide neutral community review of articles. I think taking into account these biases is an important part in determining consensus, and not pointing out that they exist makes it so that AfC articles have an artificially high AfD survival rate compared to the equivalent article created directly in mainspace. If this had been just a regular new pages feed article, I suspect everyone here would be !voting to delete it even if it had been improved. We need to keep in mind the biases that our processes cause, and do our best to treat articles the same regardless of their method of creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni I assure you it was not my intention to simply defend this for the sake of defending it. Second, I would like to respectfully dispute your characterization of this as a "horrible" acceptance by me. After accepting it I, first, immediately (in less than 60 seconds of acceptance) placed several templates on the page and, second (as soon as I was able to thereafter), rewrote the entire article from scratch. I did not just "fire and forget" its approval, nor would I ever approve a borderline article I was not willing to personally commit the energy to immediately fixing. I did, and do, genuinely believe it meets NCORP for both CORPDEPTH and breadth of sources based on the fact it has received non-incidental coverage spanning a period of several decades. Having said all that, since you've raised a concern that I am not neutral in this discussion I have withdrawn my !vote completely out of a preponderance of caution. We're often not good judges of our own neutrality so if I said or did something that indicated my judgment was impaired then I sincerely apologize. Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, of course you weren't doing anything wrong here and were acting in good faith. This has been something I had been thinking about for a while in regards to the intersection of AfC and AfD, and you just happened to be unfortunate enough to be the first reviewer I raised the issue with. People are free to comment on things they are involved in, but closers typically take the involvement into account. My note here was just to point out some thoughts I had been having re: neutrality and AfC, so the closer could consider it. I disagree with you substantively as well: this falls below our normal NCORP standards as the audience is pretty limited and the sourcing is pretty local or trivial, and some of it is recycled press. That's a good faith disagreement, though. As I said above, not a comment on your reviewing in general as much as a comment on how it is difficult to get a review of the AfC process because of these unconscious biases. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced that there is notability here. The article still looks promotional to me. The only claim of significance is that the biz is the biggest in socal? So what? Even that claim looks to be in dispute. Fails GNG plus notability hasn't been established. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the sourcing is either minor mentions or local in nature (yes, the LA Times local coverage is local coverage just like any other paper's. The same would go for the NYT or WaPo, and LAT isn't on their level in terms of prestige.) The reduced promotionalism also doesn't matter: the article was created with the intent of promoting the company. Having a page on Wikipedia, even if neutral, is a form of advertising as we are the fifth largest website in the world and the first Google search result for everything. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts.[...] those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Our policy has no tolerance for advertising, and our definition of it is not solely limited to tone (it is for G11, but an XfD can delete for promo beyond just tone, see WP:DEL14, WP:NOTSPAM, and WP:WHATISTOBEDONE.)
For a borderline notable company, where inclusion on Wikipedia would be the biggest coverage they have ever received, and where the article was created in a clear attempt to promote, the answer under policy is obvious: we delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect to Taiwanese animation. MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese animations

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

Appears to be an indiscriminate list, there are a few listings that have articles (and may be notable) however it appears there is no clear inclusion policy and much of it appears to be original research. The large swafts of text in Chinese also don't do the article any favours Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is apparently an incomplete translation job from the Chinese WP; I had removed the "translation pending" notice because I thought it was done, but there are still sections that are entirely in Chinese. My mistake; restored tags. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the Chinese article [142] a fair number of these are bluelinked, although it is questionable we'll get to that state in the English version. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese animation studios. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taiwanese animation (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. Preserving the history is useful so that editors can do a selective merge to Taiwanese animation of any material that can be sourced.
A concern about this list is that it is unclear which of the animations are notable and which are not. And most of the entries are unsourced. If each entry could be sourced with reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the animation, that would establish the animation is notable, and in my view would be sufficient to undo the redirect and restore the list.
Cunard (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirecting. The task of going through each one, translating the Chinese as well, and culling the non-notable films is enormous. And unlikely to happen. Ifnord (talk) 16:36, 24 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) 05:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Wardlaw

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't clear from the article, but he's probably best known as a Melbourne theatre actor. I've personally seen him in lots of (professional) things over the last 20 years, in supporting roles mainly. At best a weak keep, but I'm reserving my vote for now to see if I can drum up other references. Boneymau (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on his very minimal screen roles. Google News turns up a half dozen mentions of his stage roles, but they don't push me over the top. If more substantial coverage is found of his stage career, let me know and I may change my opinion. SunChaser (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only mentioned incidentally in relation to his stage roles. No independent significant coverage. Kb.au (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the film roles are clearly not enough to justify an article, and the mentioned stage roles seem even less likely to add up, since we would first need to identify him as having a role in a production that was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 15 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) 05:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Injurwii

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

Non-notable neologism; no evidence of significant use. It's discussed in a more encyclopedic manner in Wii Sports#Impact, but a redirect seems unlikely to be useful. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Never saw this take any hold in the media. --Masem (t) 04:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Wii Remote. If it can be proven it's been used as an expression, it should still not have it's own article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon feminism

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

Not notable; no reliable, independent, secondary sources on the subject; previous discussions on page support deletion due to said issues. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Price

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

Fails GNG and JOURNALIST, in terms of notability. He's just an on-air journalist (as was I) for TV stations that do not have national reach or significance. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding a lot of substantial independent coverage about this television personality referred to as a "fixture" of Boston television news, a "long-time" anchor, and influential leader in the Gay community. Boston is not a small market. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Boston is also one of 200+ television markets in the country, which means being a "fixture" of Boston TV news means nothing elsewhere. That speaks nothing to notability. Also, being a "leader of the Gay Community" is rather vague. Which gay community? Is he Chad Griffin? Is he Cleve Jones? Is he Adam Bouska? How much of that was station hype and PR? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources discuss his role in Gay community. And he's not covered in some local community paper but covered extensively over many years in major papers in a major U.S. City. The leaders of Latvia means nothing to people in Omaha but we still include articles on them because they are notable. This guy is notable for Orlando and surrounsing areas where he's made an impact that's been reported on extensively as a reporter, Jack Kerouac preservstionist, and role model in the Gay community. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Price is the first openly gay television news anchor from United States [143], sufficient to keep notability. Genome$100 (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That claim originated from a station Price once worked in, and appears to be repeated by Towleroad. In any case, Towleroad is not a reliable source, IMO, because it does not report objectively. I don't think a PR stunt claim by a station is a ticket to notability. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article built on PR hype, not coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable TV newscaster with no indications of notability or significance. A promotional CV, basically. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 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 merge to Liberty County, Texas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty County Toll Road Authority

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

Liberty County doesn't have any toll roads, so this is a governing body with nothing to govern. I can't find any coverage to indicate that it's notable despite that; aside from the source in the article, all I could find was this article that said the county hasn't reappointed the original members or appointed new ones because the Authority doesn't actually do anything. If Liberty County ever gets any toll roads for the Authority to govern, we can consider recreating this, but so far it's not actually notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Liberty County, Texas until this authority actually has some toll roads to govern. Dough4872 04:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dough, because this toll authority literally tolls roads to nowhere at the present time. Nate • (chatter) 05:40, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gallaher

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR Cannot find any sources that back up claims of notability for subject. All the references are dead links. Rogermx (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An author's notability cannot be supported by his books' own catalogue profiles on the website of the company that published them, which is the only kind of sourcing present here at all — his notability has to be supported by reliable source coverage about him and the books in media, such as book reviews in the Vancouver Sun or The Globe and Mail or Quill & Quire. But I can't find any reliable source coverage, nor can I find any evidence that he has the kind of notability claim (e.g. getting a Giller or Governor-General's Award nomination) that would be significant enough to entitle him to a presumption of notability pending better sources. And the article itself has some advertorial undertones, reading very much like the kind of thing one might expect to see at the top of his GoodReads profile. Neither the content nor the sourcing present here passes our notability standards for authors or musicians or air traffic controllers or social studies teachers. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearcat.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Gallaher is also the author of High Rider that just about meets WP:NBOOK (from what can be found online), being held by around 240 libraries, received an IPPY award (a 2016 bronze award for best regional fiction), and has been reviewed by Historical Novel Society (High Rider), and Booklist (starred review), but i would be comfortable with a bit more. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of coverage of him in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bearcat. Notability has not been demonstrated. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:08, 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. Sandstein 20:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Dem Folks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; significant RS coverage not found. Article consists of instances of the song being performed, not the discussion of the song, amounting to a non-encyclopedic collection of trivia. First AfD closed as "no consensus" due to low participation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article isn't about a song. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some coverage of this *dance* ([144], [145], [146]), but I don't believe an encyclopedia article is merited. --Michig (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a popular, well-known, dance move integral to modern hip-hop culture. Zchris0783 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2022 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands Mall

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

Whole article includes only one source. House1090 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why would you delete a page for having one source? --Annexxation (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just having only a single source is not a good thing, but it's also not necessarily a reason for deletion. What's going to determine whether this article is kept is going to be probably whether the mall is considered Wikipedia notable enough per WP:CORP. Right now, a source citing the sale of a local mall is probably not enough to establish notability. A Google search does find things such as this, this and this as well as other articles, etc. but I'm not sure if that's enough per WP:CORPDEPTH or it it's still too WP:AUD. It probably would be a good idea to post a Template:Please see at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers to see if editors used to working on this genre of article can provide any feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not an appropriate rationale for deletion (see WP:BEFORE). Re: sources -- aside from the usual flood of local coverage, a few minutes of searching finds this academic study, this article in the LA Times, and discussion in ISBN 9780738528830 and ISBN 9780738559018. Certainly enough to at least merge. Either way, this shouldn't have been at AfD in the first place. James (^talk/_contribs) 13:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? No its not. It has a lot of sources and made sense! --2601:205:C100:424D:8DCC:77F9:49DD:8027 (talk) 03:13, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus Plaza

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

This article is severely lacking sufficient content. House1090 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that it lacks sufficient content. Also 2 references are dead links and one is link from the developer of this property. Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:32 12 January 2018 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ nominator. House1090 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I've struck the above !vote as a duplicate from the nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid rationale and failure to attempt to improve prior to nominating. I've added more than enough sources to meet GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "failure to attempt to improve" is not a rational argument for keeping or deleting an article, but it's very good practice to look for sources before rushing to nominate something for deletion. Mirror check. Jacona (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My language was not clear and I appreciate you pointing that out. I meant to refer to WP:BEFORE, particularly in that an article which is “severely lacking sufficient content” “can be fixed through normal editing [and] is not a candidate for AfD”. I will endeavor to ensure clarity in my comments in the future. What is a “mirror check”? James (^talk/_contribs) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 24 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 IP editor has a WP:COI and everybody else is in favor of deletion. Sandstein 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SafeLogic

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

Obvious commissioned work excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. In addition to failing that policy which is equal to the general notability guideline, it also fails the sourcing criteria: it has been reference bombed, but the sources are either non-RS (Forbes contributors are bloggers), are not about the specific company, are passing coverage, or are non-independent sourcing excluded by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND. WP:BEFORE search just shows more of the same. This should be deleted for failing both points of WP:N: it is outside of our scope as it is an advertisement, and it lacks the sourcing needed to demonstrate importance. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I actually work at SafeLogic. This was not a commissioned page, but we were certainly flattered by its creation. We support the Wikipedia guidelines fully, but we're puzzled at why this page would be flagged and not others (including smaller, less notable companies/products in the same industry). The fact that the page is about a company shouldn't inherently make it an advertisement... We'd be happy to submit additional information/references/etc for sourcing, but we have respectfully stayed on the sidelines. No, we don't have as long and as illustrious history as Apple or Samsung, but in the encryption and certification world, we're kind of a big deal, so while we encourage edits, deletion would be foolhardy. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but there is simply no way this article was created by a brand new editor with no connection to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know the editor or their history, so we're in the same boat - we can only speculate. I also don't know you or your history. As far as the actual content of the entry, I spent some time reviewing pages of other companies in our niche and other related technologies, and it seems (to a non-editor) like ours is comparable in content and references. That said, we certainly welcome edits to the page. I would also invite you to do some research on SafeLogic, our technology, and our standing in the industry. As I mentioned above, we've been around a while and are notable within our community. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have. Your company fails our inclusion standards based on sourcing, as noted above, and very likely paid for this article as spam to promote yourselves. That other competitors that are not as important as you are on Wikipedia suggests that we should be deleting them as well, not that we should keep you. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the article was paid, don't you think there would be more sources cited, instead of not enough? You're suggesting that pages of notable companies and products be deleted instead of revised and expanded. I don't think that's in the spirit of Wikipedia, and frankly, it doesn't seem like you have enough knowledge in this industry sector to be making those judgment calls and contradicting what other editors have already contributed. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and I can't locate any sources that are anywhere close to meeting the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoWorld, GCN Magazine, and FedScoop are listed in references. Why do those not meet the standard? 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't cover the company in any depth. Rentier (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly objectively exceeds WP:CORPDEPTH definition of trivial coverage, hence multiple references establish notability even without subjectively deep coverage. Again, as stated above, I welcome edits rather than rash deletion. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To me its more of a notability issue than a spam issue. I would gladly do a quick cleanup of the page, but the problem is there is nothing in-depth that I can use to cite on the page. Basically, needs deleted for failing to meet WP:NCORP. I would also advise the creator to either wait for a volunteer editor to create the page once the company is notable, or list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 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) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity 9

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

No evidence of notability, all plot, WP:INUNIVERSE. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and not noteworthy enough to keep as a redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 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. This is a Keep rather than no-consensus because there is no real dispute that the allegations are well documented, the only substantive question hinges on whether this can be covered adequately in the main article. The arguments appear to me to credibly support the idea that a separate article is the best way of covering these allegations with adequate nuance and context to satisfy WP:BLP, but without overwhelming an already lengthy main article. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen sexual assault allegations

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

Delete - Virtually the entirety of this simply repeats what's found at Woody Allen — a verbatim copy-paste. The material is certainly important in the context of his life, yet since anyone can allege anything, and no proof of any sexual assault or harassment, let alone criminal charges, has ever been documented despite multiple proceedings and trial-by-public, this entire article outside of its context is hugely WP:UNDUE and seems to exist only to "shame" the subject. Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created 2 days ago. I think this is eligible for WP:A10. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:ARTICLESIZE. The section about this in the parent article at Woody Allen is too long and it became necessary to split it into this subarticle. Dylan Farrow's allegations against Allen are obviously of lasting significance and have garnered a huge amount of news coverage especially since she has written about the alleged incident and multiple actors and actresses have expressed regret for participating in his films because of it.--The lorax (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The allegations have gained enduring coverage, and several actors have said recently that they regret having worked with him. After Weinstein, #MeToo and Time's Up, the coverage is likely to continue. A well-written article based only on high-quality sources would be beneficial, and it would allow us to cover the allegations summary-style in the BLP so that they overwhelm it less. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNDUE, as the only reason this controversy continues to be in the news is its continued use as publicity. Additionally, there is still zero valid controversy regarding his 20 year marriage to Soon Yi beyond the affect she had on Mia and Woody's relationship. If this article is kept, will we be seeing articles of this type for all notable humans who have been merely accused of a crime? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 04:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A section on Woody Allen's article has always been sufficient. This 25 year old story never had the political ramification that the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations or Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal did. See the similar AfD regarding Matt Lauer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations, which closed as merge.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need a new article about one allegation by one person? Not to mention it's decades-old and thrown out of court. Is there new evidence that should be made aware of? Or is it merely gossip mongering? Gene2010 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weinstein, #MeToo and Time's Up: these are all notable subjects but we aren't discussing them. Just because we can arguably throw this into the pot doesn't mean it is notable. Having a seperate article on allegations and gossip that never had the same ramifications as, say Weinstein, is WP:UNDUE, especially when the main article can easily detail the allegations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Billhpike (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's been a significant topic for decades. If it's a copy-paste split, then fix it by removing the copied text from the main article and giving attribution on the split. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's good policy to reward someone for refusing to follow split-discussion protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unneeded content fork; The content should be / is covered in the main article already. Copy/paste is not an appropriate WP:SPLIT process. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the fact of extensive references which are in-depth. Per coverage which has been consistent for decades..Article meets WP:GNG. Many of the Delete !votes above are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per Weinstein comments and WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying that editors should follow split-discussion protocol is not IDONTLIKEIT. Also, no one is questioning the validity of the content, only that it completely duplicates part of an already existing article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the content is already in Woody Allen as it is, and I've seen no convincing reason here why it would need its own separate article as a standalone topic. Keep arguments based on notability and sourcing are missing the point, because nobody's suggested that notability or sourcing are absent — the point is that Wikipedia policy also requires us to pay some mind to what's the best context to present content in, such as the question of whether the topic needs its own standalone article or is better handled as a subsection of another related article that already exists, and I have yet to see anybody in this discussion present a compelling reason why this needs its own independent spinoff article rather than being addressed in Allen's existing BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, the issue is extremely complex, and only part of it has been explained in the Allen BLP. I don't want to list the things not mentioned because they would have to be written carefully and in context. The section can't be lengthened because it is arguably already too long for a biography. Another issue is that there are three principal figures: Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow, all living people. In the Allen BLP, there is an effort (rightly) to make sure the text is BLP-compliant as it relates to him, but there is no corresponding effort (in that bio) to do the same for the women. Moving the issue to a stand-alone article solves both problems. We will be able to explain what happened clearly without having to worry about overwhelming other sections, and it will become more obvious that there are multiple, competing BLP interests.
Another two points are worth noting. First, Vox recently called this "one of the most visible and acrimonious scandals of the early 1990s". [147] (That article is a good summary of the key issues.) Had Wikipedia existed then, we would have had a stand-alone article rather than splitting it between BLPs. Second, the sub-section in Allen is likely to keep getting longer because people are discussing it again; since December 2017 five actors have apologized for having worked with him. None of that can be explained properly within the BLP. For example, for length reasons, we can't discuss actors who have spoken positively or actors who have been discussed but won't comment. We can't discuss the rewards ceremonies that were marked by online protests from two of the principals and another family member. None of it can be mentioned because it would overwhelm the biography. When you find that happening in an article, and where the sources are high quality, it indicates that a split is needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fine, but it's the discussion that the editor who created this page was supposed to have initited before he unilaterally took it upon himself to decide for the rest of the community.

The honorable thing for that editor to do would be to agree to the deleting of the article and then do a WP:SPLIT discussion the way every other responsible editor would have done it. If we're going to circumvent the established protocol — which was designed to prevent contentious duplications just like this — then why have a SPLIT process at all? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, I was thinking we could move it to Allen–Farrow family dispute or Allen–Farrow custody dispute. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to !vote here (though I think, in general, that there is little need to spinout such an article) - however if this goes, then Delete !voters here should nominate Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations - as opposed to Weinstein & Moore, allegations around Allen have been covered in-depth for over 20 years - it didn't go away. I'm not sure we'll be talking about Weinstein in 10 years and I'm pretty sure that (assuming he won't be running again for office (fairly safe just on his age)) that we won't be talking about Moore much.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I can see the Moore issue being a big one in the 2020 election. Orrin Hatch's decision to not run for reelection may have in part been brought about because his unwillingness to totally distance himself from Moore outraged the Utah electorate's total non-acceptance of Moore. I can see both potential primary opponents and general election opponents of Trump playing the Moore card in 2020. I can see Trump himself trying to emphasize that he did not support Moore before the primary election. The allegations against Allen have just never become so broadly covered in the media as those against Weinstein and Moore. On the other hand, I see lots of good arguments to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue here is that this is a specific accusation that turned into a long, drawn out case. There is just too much relevant detail here to adequately cover in a biological article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a proper WP:SPINOUT from the biographical article. The RS coverage of these issues has been voluminous and WP:SUSTAINED. Including this much information at Woody Allen would be WP:UNDUE. Note that if this is kept, the summary at Woody_Allen#Sexual-assault_allegations should be trimmed per WP:SUMMARY. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't a POVFORK, since the info is already there. I agree with 24.151.116.12 that the original info should be culled, and with SlimVirgin that the section of the Woody Allen article would get too long without this WP:SPINOUT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether it is a reasonable split or not, I have to agree that it had to be discussed on the main article's talk page first. Excelse (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is one question here and one question alone: Is this fork an UNDUE fork, or is it not. Closing administrators are not interested in the notability as that is practically an obvious: yes this is notable. That would happen to almost any allegation like this, but especially one involving 3 notable persons who we have BLPs on here at this site. I will likely be closing this, as I see that there are some gender-related arguments already being presented in this discussion and I want to be sure that such arguments are thouroughly taken into account as well, as I'm strictly against us pushing a pro-male or pro-female bias (the former seeming to be the most common due to the editor ratio here). I will consult (or close the discussion concurrently, if they'd prefer) with someone who I think everyone will agree has the same viewpoint but from a female perspective, to ensure my gender isn't also an issue here. Some may take this concept as me saying I will supervote, that is not the case, I will only apply the consensus that we are able to determine from the discussion while ensuring no personal biases get in the way, and am doing as such to ensure that all systemic biases are also taken into account. This has the potential to be a highly contentious discussion, due to the nature of the topic, so I ask that everyone remember that we all want this to be the most accurate encyclopedia it can be (even if there are bad apples around sometimes... but I don't see anyone in this discussion who doesn't seem to have the right intentions). Let's try and work together to see if there is any firm consensus that can come out of this, as of now, the consensus remains unclear.

Please pose any questions about this atypical type of comment in a relist (and one that isn't necessarily "orthodox", although our lack of female editor retention tends to be) to my talk page if you can, as I do not intend to distract from the goal of finding the best way forward with this article via further discussion (while ensuring this discussion is not toxic for our female contributors... after already hearing several complaints about this over the past few years).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic to the deletion discussion, but a thread is open now at ANI for anyone who would like to discuss this further. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We can continue to discuss this to the end of the world. The reality is that this is notable. Notability is notability. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly recommend you read Coffee's relist statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, if the result is no consensus, that's how it should be closed, and there was no need to relist it. It does sound as though you're planning to cast a supervote, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let someone else close it. Timely action would be appreciated because an interview with the alleged victim is about to be broadcast by CBS, which will mean the need to add even more to the BLP if this article doesn't exist. We need a decision. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would advocate the decision is that we follow proper protocol, delete this improperly started article, and do a WP:SPLIT discussion the way we're supposed to, and which will also provide the opportunity to detail what to leave on the old page should a split occur. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Common practice is that if consensus cannot be determined within the first 7 days, a relist is conducted for up to two more 7 day periods. I will not be casting a supervote of any form (nor will my colleague), I am purely stating I plan to close it with another administrator. It is because of the unorthodox nature of a two-admin close that I am making the point to state this will be happening before it does, that is all. I hope you at least give the close a chance before making a decision about its merits. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is for discussions where "insufficient discussion took place to determine a consensus or lack thereof". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. There has been sufficient discussion here to determine that. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewing administrator I specifically determined that discussion sufficient enough to determine any consensus had not happened before the relist. This type of relist is standard procedure, as these discussions are not votes. Even if every single person who commented here after this made the exact same arguments for deletion as above, the arguments for retention would hold no less weight. And I surely doubt that having two administrators (of two genders) close this can possibly be this contentious. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well sourced, notable and more in depth than what is at the Woody Allen article, this article is notable in itself, as allegations on Woody Allen and should be kept. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The reality of Allen's "proclivities" isn't a new thing, it's been around since the early 1990s and has never lost steam. The article is well written and sourced properly. I see no reason whatsoever to remove it from this encyclopedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find SarahSV's arguments to be compelling. This article ought to be improved and expanded rather than being deleted. Significantly expanded content is not appropriate for the three BLPs, so a spinout article is appropriate in this case, especially because of recent developments. While I understand Tenebrae's concerns about the technicalities of the process by which this article was created, please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you care about those problems, then clean them up and talk constructively to the editor that made the mess. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - entirely appropriate to spin this topic off into its own article given the volume and history of notable and reliable sources on the topic. Woody Allen is obviously a notable person irrespective of the allegations, and the parent article (Woody Allen) was becoming overloaded. If the parent article still contains too much duplicate content to what's in the child article, then the parent article should be pared down. fish&karate 08:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also a supplementary comment - we don't need any attention-seeking non-standard closes, on this or any other xFD discussion. We have a policy and guidelines on how to close deletion discussions which have been arrived at through the consensus and collaborative work of thousands of contributors over 17 years, let's stick to that. fish&karate 08:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know what else we've had for over 17 years? A very toxic environment for female editors/admins, and a very low retention rate of them because of it. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, in fact one of the pillars of this site is for us to be WP:BOLD. Incredible to see someone who is supposed to be an administrator casting aspersions just because I faultily tried something and then decided against it. Why you found it necessary to say something like that is beyond me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Would you be so kind as to hat this at some point, or at least make sure we don't take this entire discussion off-track somehow? I really would have preferred if User:Fish and karate had taken this concern to my talk page... but alas, we're here now and I felt it necessary to at least not allow myself or my actions intent to be misrepresented as "attention-seeking". I think you of all people know I'm not like that, nor do I enjoy being yelled at profusely. I took a lot of time pondering this whole thing before I ever made the relist, but even that didn't help me this time at all apparently. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:20, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boys & Girls Clubs of America people

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

No clear inclusion criteria (the first entry is a country music singer with no clear connection to the club), no sources. Most of the links are red or link to the wrong person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too many issues, lack of reliable sources is a big one. Borders WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, and restore once it has been reduced to a list with clearly defined criteria for inclusion and WP:BLP-worthy sourcing for all claims. bd2412 T 20:43, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Lee-Browne

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the needed 3rd-party indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 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) 05:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gill

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

Fails WP:NBOX No major amateur or professional championship, no top ten ranking in his weight class by WBA, etc Rogermx (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He fought for area titles twice and won a British Masters title, but his wins were all over journeymen or boxers who had lost most of their fights. Not enough coverage around to satisfy WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Does not meet WP:NBOX.PRehse (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 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) 05:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caxton FX

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Bases on routine and / or WP:SPIP sourcing and exists for promotional purposes. No value to the project; very close to A7 / G11 combo. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 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) 05:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bandgi Kalra

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

Reality show contestant, everything I could find related to that. Fails WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 15 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.

[Home_1940-1] "International Academy of Trial Lawyers". Home. January 10, 1940. Retrieved January 10, 2018.

[2] Weidenbaum, Murray; Hughes, Samuel (1996). The Bamboo Network. New York: Free Press. p. 137. ISBN 9780684822891.

[3] Torr, James D. (2005). The Patriot Act. San Diego, Calif.: Lucent Books. p. 47. ISBN 9781590187746.

[LindRankin2015-4] Nancy S. Lind; Erik T. Rankin (2015). Privacy in the Digital Age: 21st-Century Challenges to the Fourth Amendment. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-2971-0.

[5] Friedman, Lauri S. (2006). The Patriot Act. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. p. 30. ISBN 9780737735253.

[6] ttps://www.conservatives.com/Members/Link-Groups

[7] ttp://wbtw.com/2016/09/21/ae-ghost-hunter-ryan-buell-arrested-in-florence-county/

[8] ttp://abc11.com/entertainment/celebrity-ghost-hunter-jailed/1520780/

[9] ttp://www.tvguide.com/news/ryan-buell-cancer-1051833/

[10] ttp://people.com/tv/paranormal-states-ryan-buell-on-cancer-battle-i-had-to-go-to-deaths-door/

[11] ttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-18/entertainment/chi-books-ryan-buell-booksigning_1_paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-interview

[12] ttp://www.eonline.com/news/336791/paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-diagnosed-with-pancreatic-cancer

[Curtis2010-13] Edward E. Curtis (2010). Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History. Infobase Publishing. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-1-4381-3040-8.

[14] ttps://www.allmusic.com/artist/marcus-van-wattum-mn0002591447

[15] ttps://www.bmg.com/bx/news/Buma-Awards-2017.html

[16] ttp://nlpop.blog.nl/algemeen/2017/03/07/dit-zijn-de-winnaars-van-de-buma-awards-2016

[17] ttps://imgur.com/a/2KZlK

[18] ttps://imgur.com/a/LTQI6

[19] ttps://imgur.com/a/XhBfV

[20] ttps://imgur.com/a/awA9H

[21] ttps://imgur.com/a/8vaPa

[22] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

[23] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

[24] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brenton+Lengel%22&tbm=nws

[25] ttps://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Brenton+Lengel%22

[26] ttp://www.nytheatre.com/Content/martin-denton-2013-6-5-north-to-maine-a-journey-on-the-appalachian-trail

[27] ttp://www.theasy.com/Reviews/2014/N/northtomaine.php

[28] ttps://www.womanaroundtown.com/sections/playing-around/snow-white-zombie-apocalypse-a-brainy-feast-for-the-horror-fandom/

[29] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flea_Theater

[30] ttps://issuu.com/nols.edu/docs/leader_fall2013/8

[31] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

[32] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

[33] ttp://www.theasy.com/whoweare.php

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]