Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 April	6 April >

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Chapsiadis

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

Absolutely no case for notability under WP:PROF ! Mathchecker (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a random scholar, not even a hint for notability in the article Wikitigresito (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely "unnotable" as scientist, or academic. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The grand total of a single publication, with no citations. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publication and citation record far short of WP:PROF#C1, with no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User:David Eppstein considered CSD in 2013, but decided to conservatively tag the article for problems in 2013.[1] I don't find any sources not currently in the article, and agree the article is not encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:34, 10 April 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 moved to Draft:Bekir Brunčević. MT Train^Talk 07:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bekir Brunčević

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

Unsourced, Serbian-language BLP of seemingly non-notable football player. Article has been deleted multiple times of the Serbian Wikipedia. PROD and Not English tags removed by article creator. Madg2011 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is in a foreign language, and should not, therefore, be in the English Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged it as needing translation from Serbian but the tag was removed by the article creator (along with a BLP PROD tag). Taking it to AfD seemed like the best way of dealing with it. Madg2011 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Cass

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

Not finding anything online that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Guy's film won the best picture Genie, which is like the Oscar but Canadian. We wouldn't be talking about deleting the producer of a best picture Oscar winner. Also, he's well respected in Canadian LBGT circles e.g. per this source. The guy's films are pretty widely reviewed in the Canadian press as well and he's written about himself, which I can see in a database but not link through to. Here are a couple:
- FILM; Brueggergosman stars in Brown Girl prequel Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) - November 19, 2015
- Strategic Partners strike deals at Atlantic Film Festival; Canadian producer Cass to work with South African company for upcoming feature film Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) - September 23, 2006
- STAR-CROSSED LOVE, CROSS-DRESSED CAST IN `LILIES' Plain Dealer, The (Cleveland, OH) - June 12, 1998

192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This definitely needs some referencing improvement, but producing a Genie Award for Best Motion Picture winner is a valid notability claim for a film producer, in exactly the same way that is true at the Oscars or the BAFTAs — and for a producer whose notability clincher took place in 1996, a simple Google search would not be expected to turn up the strongest coverage of him, because Google is only useful for locating recent media coverage and not for locating 20-year-old media coverage. Wikipedia does not have any requirement that our sources be web-published — we are allowed to cite books and magazines and pregooglable newspapers retrieved from archival databases or microfilms. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 15 April 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Bogdan

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

By all appearances, this is a person with an interesting career like millions of others, but hardly worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Let's go through the sources.

For starters, This, this, this, this, this and this don't mention the subject at all

- The reason why most of these references don't mention the subject is because they reference instead to Bogdan's company, through which she carried out her work. The Chartered Marketer reference is a database of people who hold that title, you need to search for the subject's name. And the reference about Vodafone's acquisition of Connex supports that exact statement. Please note that one reference is a video from the archive of the Romanian National Television, from the cultural TV show 'Garantat 100%', where Bogdan was invited in 2011. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what are her accomplishments? She:

Represented her company at a conference and presented a new logo -- i.e., she did her (fairly routine) job
- The accomplishment here is more about the creation of the first ever visual identity for the Romanian National Football Team (I deemed it notable as a historic landmark, relevant for the sports field but also the general public, and I noticed that the logo is a detailed topic on the wiki pages of other national football teams). Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Became the first Romanian Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (how's that for a notability claim?) Onethreefour134
- The notability is she was the first Romanian to receive this rare title Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gave a TED Talk (like over 100 thousand others)
- I chose TED Talks as a reliable and verifiable reference to illustrate and support the statement. Please let me know if a more suitable reference is necessary. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Launched a book (no word on reviews or impact of said book)
- Thank for pointing this out, I added more information on book and will look for reviews Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got the book mentioned by a PR agency
- Please note that AdHugger is not a PR agency (http://www.adhugger.net/about/). Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had her company included in a branding hall of fame, together with many others
- In brand & design industry this is a prestigious achievement, as this is a top 20 brand & design companies globally, many of which are well known and have Wiki pages (Pentagram, Brand Union, Interbrand etc.). Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So again, I suppose the subject is fairly successful at what she does, but nothing here really stands out, and besides, such coverage as exists is mainly in the form of passing mentions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete: I tried to find the 2018 English translation of her book, but it's not in WorldCat, Copac or Amazon. A publisher and an ISBN would help. If that had a couple of reviews in WP:RS we'd be starting to get some notability. As it stands ... nothing much here, sadly. PamD 08:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing this out, I have added the ISBN codes to both books (RO and EN) and will check for reviews. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is an example of in-depth discussion about Aneta (as a person) which I added to the article. [2] She has also been called the most powerful woman in Romania [3] and one of the 100 most powerful women in the world[4] by Business Magazine. Combined with the sources that were already there, I think that's enough to pass WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. I think being called the most powerful woman in Romania is evidence for notability, too. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a technical comment: "cele mai puternice femei din România" means "the most powerful women in Romania". That article was run by a business magazine profiling the country's 200 most powerful businesswomen, excluding other domains were women are powerful, such as politics or entertainment.
- Now, perhaps the subject is a "powerful woman". But nobody has called her "the most powerful woman in Romania", because that would be slightly absurd. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I made amends to your statement, Lonehexagon, the reference is about including the subject in top 100 most powerful business women in 2012, by local news source Business Magazin Onethreefour134 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like this fails WP:GNG. The supposed notability of the enterprise doesn't quite translate to her, so most of the sources not mentioning her are chaff -- supposing they are relevant, they could be used in reference to the corporate entity, if anyone's really suggesting it's notable. The rest of the sources appear to be one-time mentions, and some are just puff-pieces in publications with no particular standing; others, such as FRF links, are not independent of the subject (the entity she rebranded reported on being rebranded). Her most solid claim to personal fame is a one-time inclusion as one of the 200 (not top ten or anything like that) most powerful (whatever that means) women in business for a rather small country (ell no, not "the world", at least read the sources you're using!) with an even smaller market by the editors of a magazine that is itself of dubious journalistic credentials (what's to say Business Magazin is a WP:RS?). Revista Tango is a gossip and lifestyle magazine, not some journalistic powerhouse; its coverage and especially its interviews are not necessarily proof of notability. As for AdHugger: that's not even PR, it a creator of spam. Dahn (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, @Onethreefour134: Please stop cutting into other people's comments. If you have to reply to every comment, do so in one paragraph, and outside the body of text you're replying to. Dahn (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in here that adequately addresses WP:BIO criteria.

Keep I believe the subject meets the WP:NG criteria. She has written a best seller book in Romania. I found citations of it in academic publications as well as inclusion in the bibliography of some academic environments, and added them to the article's references. The book was recently launched in its international (English) edition. She is notable in her field of work and considered a pioneer of the branding discipline in Romania. This is supported by the fact that in the past 15 years she has been the advisor to either the creation or rebranding of a quarter of the 50 most valuable Romanian brands (Brand Finance report 2017). And through her company, she has advised on the development of more than 100 new brands (these were included in dedicated book in 2010). Since then, a more recent reference mentions over 200 brands). She is the founder of the biggest brand and design company in Romania, which can also be considered notable given the international design awards it has received and the inclusion in the top 25 most reputable design companies world wide (by industry authority Rebrand). Also, the article follows the WP:RS criteria. The subject is significantly covered in the media, from TV shows to interviews and opinion pieces, in reliable and verifiable sources (Romanian National Television, established news organisations in Romania: Wall Street, Forbes, Jurnalul, Adevarul, Digi24, Business Review etc.). I have looked for replacements of some of the previously challenged Romanian references. But I would advise some precaution and double-checking before dismissing some of the international references, some are established in the industry of the subject (i.e. Underconsideration is a long time running opinion platform by designer Armin Vit, you can find him and the website referenced in many other wiki pages about creative professionals, i.e. Wally Ollins). Onethreefour134 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a straight split between "keep" and "delete" - more input requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:05, 5 April 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. Again. A merge may be reasonable, but one of the talkpages is the place for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien language

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

Except for the single item in the Inherent difficulties section, this is redundant with the info in article Alien language in science fiction. Suggest merge. RobP (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merger is different from deletion. See WP:ATD-M. @Rp2006, would you like to withdraw this deletion discussion and suggest the merge on the article's talk page? Cnilep (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhile no "alien languages" exist that we know of, it is apperently a theoretical topic which has gotten enough academic attention... there are sufficient sources to warrant this as it's own article and a merger with alien languages in sci-fi wouldn't work, this has nothing to do with that topic. Ps there was a strong concensus to keep the last two AFD's what has changed about the article or wiki policies to look at this again?Sethie (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So it is acceptable to just keep an article that is nearly as old as Wikipedia itself and still has not been updated to include any of the supposedly notable sources available? Indefinitely? Again, this article mostly concerns just the sci-fi aspect of the topic - which already has its own article. Why is that acceptable? I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. RobP (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sethie. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sethie. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who nominated this article for deletion has removed some of the strongest sourced material, which emphasize the academic and scholarly angle of this topc, with what seems to me inaccurate and misleading edit summary.... strongly request the admin who closes the AFD, to look at it's state before these edits. Sethie (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) went ahead and fixed this issue.Sethie (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated directly above, "I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. "What I deleted was all the SciFi material which belongs in the other article, Alien language in science fiction. So, Sethie, you may have just made my point. Indead - that was "some of the strongest sourced material" here. Not much left other than the SciFi angle. RobP (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 12 April 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 Niche insurance. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien abduction insurance

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

Seems extremely week to have its own article. Suggest adding info to main Alien abduction article if appropriate. RobP (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other potential merge targets could be niche insurance or kidnap and ransom insurance. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to niche insurance per all the positive response below. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I like the idea above. There are also categories here that we may want to be careful of. IF I recall an insurance company can insure almost ANYTHING as long as the policy holder is willing to pay a premium. There are insurance policies against attacks from Zombies, the Loch Ness Monster, Chemo treatments for your pet which includes goldfish (cancer recovery for your goldfish, who knew?), Alien Abduction, which can go as high as 10 million for abduction and property damage etc etc. Perhaps a no limits section on what can be insured? Former super model Cheryl Tiegs had at one point insured her legs at Lloyds of London for a few million. I say hell yes, put it all in there. Certainly I MUST KNOW these things, dont you? I also found this link: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/world-s-biggest-insurer-takes-on-all-risks.aspx hmmm. Unicorn attacks, big foot attacks,hauntings etc etc Coal town guy (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I would say merging with Niche Insurance as suggested by The Mighty Glen is the most logical target, unless we have another "odd insurance" article somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Niche Insurance. Sourcing is perhaps a bit thin for its own article (most sources are passing mentions). Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge even though niche insurance is a stub also. OMG David Lee Roth has penis insurance? The things I learn on Wikipedia.Sgerbic (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per The Mighty Glen. John from Idegon (talk) 20:58, 11 April 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 Article content suppressed. ~ GB fan 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Lakić

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

No notability established. Non-English language. Dial911 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added a need translation tag to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The translation is at Talk:Vuk Lakić. Took 30 seconds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Link title[reply]

thanks Kudpung, Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPPROD: as it stands now, it is a wholly unscourced BLP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For heaven's sake, why is this not either WP:G3 or WP:A7? He's 11. The article claims he's a player for FK Slavija Sarajevo. Either this is a hoax, or he's a player on this children's league that's perhaps associated with the grown-up team, one whose best achievement is "player of the match", hardly a credible claim of significance. Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in accord with my comment immediately above. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 10 April 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 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Ma

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

Article has already been speedily deleted, so hopefully an AfD will stop it being recreated yet again. Can find nothing in English language sources about this person. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the same person as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xue MA. Timmyshin (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Timmyshin. Curiously, I started that AfD too. But its was back in October, so have no recollection of what was in the article. Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. But I vaguely remember the name (Xue = Snow in Chinese). Timmyshin (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox states, "Born: mǎ xuě". Edwardx (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i opened some of the refs and translated them, it is Xue Ma, she appears to be an ordinary person and notability isn't established. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 10 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Lakhan (2016 film)

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

Non-notable film, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources beyond passing mention and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established, there is mention in the timesofindia entertainment section but I don't think it is enough, google returning little, no imdb page, I considered a redirect to Ram Lakhan, it appears to be a comedy remake of the original drama, but I don't know if that would be a good redirect or not. Szzuk (talk) 08:21, 19 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laudamotion destinations

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

List of planned airline destinations. Redirected to main article but was reverted. This is a directory of miscellaneous business information that belongs on the company website, and not in an encyclopedia. GMG ^talk 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly every airline has a destination page so whats the difference here, the page is not a list of 'planned' destinations some of them are already in operation. There is no reason for it to be deleted it is no different to any other destinations page. CBG17 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if those are similarly just a reformatting of content from the company's website, most of which is speculative at this point, then what content can be well sourced and is essential to an understanding of the company should be incorporated into the main articles for those companies. What passes for secondary sources here are things like this which are essentially just window dressing, and are overtly promotional uncritical reprinting of corporate PR, with gems like great news for Austrian consumers and visitors, who can now book low fare flights and benefit from genuine competition and more choice. If we removed everything that doesn't even pretend to be independently sourced, we're left with almost nothing. If we remove everything that isn't speculative (even if it was supported by secondary sources), we'd be left with about a half dozen, and all as a spin-off from an article that has less than 400 words to its name. GMG ^talk 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per community consensus: [5]. Basically there is no compelling reasons for keep in this instance that outweighs the views of the Wikipedia community. Ajf773 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. I thought we had had that discussion, but when I looked all I found was a more generic discussion about transportation articles. GMG ^talk 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That supposed consensus was overturned when it was attempted to be acted upon; see here. I personally have issues with these articles, but it seems to me that the only argument here is that the airline does not yet actually fly. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like "the community doesn't much care for it, but also isn't much for mass deletions". At any rate, even if we were talking about an uncontroversially accepted type of stand alone list (and we certainly aren't given past discussion), it's still general practice that when a list acts as a companion for only one main article, the default is more-or-less that you should need some reason to spin them off. If the only thing we can spin off is a mostly speculative directory based on the official website and thinly veiled advertisements, the correct course of action to my mind is 1) find better sources, 2) incorporate it in the main article as prose if possible, and 3) incorporate it as an embedded list if you can't. GMG ^talk 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the second discussion regarding the bundling of all 444 airline destination articles. In any case the right place is to bring them up to AfD, and in this case this one warrants deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeletevIf this is created by b o r i n g guy CBG17, then delete. In fact in Italian and Portuguese versions of wiki, destination of airports and airlines are not necessary because differ in a daily basis. --92.76.27.83 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general I support articles on airline destinations, but this particular one is too speculative and promotional. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 18 April 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 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Animal Biotechnology

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

I redirected this to the parent article in November.[6] This was reverted by Think O Lantern almost immediately.[7] We had a discussion over this at our talk pages (User talk:Think O Lantern#Institute of Animal Biotechnology and User talk:Aircorn/Archive 8#Institute of Animal Biotechnology). Lfstevens (talk · contribs) has done a good job copy editing it, but the only source is still a link to the universities webpage. There is nothing remarkable about this institute that I can find[8] and being a Institute of a Faculty of a University in a very small country I doubt it reaches our definition of notability. I did consider a merge, but I don't like to merge uncited material into another article as I feel responsible for the content. It would also be WP:Undue to have so much information about this institute. I feel a redirect to Faculty of Agricultural Science and Food in Skopje is sufficient as it is a potential search term and is already listed at the target article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator There is the National Institute of Animal Biotechnology an Indian institution, which is a much more likely. target[9] This may complicate things (particularly any merges). AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no refs in this article and 2 external links that don't establish notability. The proposed alternate redirect target shouldn't be pursued because there are many of these institutes around the world. A merge shouldn't be pursued because the information in the article isn't encyclopedic, it is mundane. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, suggest a third relist, the discussion has been on going for months so another week shouldn't be a problem. Szzuk (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even after a month of discussing it, there are zero references in the article, and none suggested here. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect per WP:AFD, but the title is so generic, it's almost pointless. I suppose we could start with the redirect as as other similarly named institutes become known, turn it into a WP:DAB page if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1 – The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Engineering Management Bialystok University of Technology

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

Merge with Bialystok University of Technology, not seeing any independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 5 April 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 List of media set within one day. Clearly duplicative. It's up to editors to decide which should be merged to which. Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of works set in a single day

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

Duplicate of List of media set within one day. Only nominating at AfD because a previous PROD was declined here by Fayenatic london. wumbolo ^^^ 15:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is related Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_29#Day_in_the_life_of, proposing to delete or change the redirect Day in the life of (previous name of this article, a redirect since 2014 move). --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge + redirect This list dates from 2006 while the other one was created in 2012 after a CfD. Unfortunately, neither list has sources, but the latter has a "further reading" section. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [was "Merge"], per LaundryPizza03, to reward the better sourced one of the two, keeping the edit contributions within the redirect left behind. Besides the duplication, this seems like a very valid topic for a list. There ought to be a corresponding category or two, e.g. Category:Novels set within one day and Category:Films set within one day, or all in Category:Media set within one day.

Actually, Keeping the older (2006) list-article and merging/redirecting the 2012 list-article is technically better, giving more prominent/accessible/proper credit to the oldest contributors. Still needs to be renamed after the AFD, but Keep is the proper AFD decision. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The naming could be better. Frankly the label "media set within one day" is opaque to me. (What is a "media set"? Do you mean agar and other laboratory culture media, and by setting you mean it is supposed to firm up like jello?) How about "Literary works and films set within one day", does that cover everything? I think it does. Renaming can be suggested to be implemented following close of this AFD, by any editor or by a formal wp:RM process. --Doncram (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::@Doncram: Actually, per this, the other article was created because the categories were ruled inappropriate. This may have edit history, but it is unsourced... wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, it's obvious to me that corresponding categories make sense, and these would be consistent with wp:CLT guideline about corresponding list-articles, categories, navigation templates. You can have all three. --Doncram (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I set up Category:Novels set in one day with redirect from a wording variation, am not encountering any notices about a category having been deleted. Really seems obviously sensible, no reason not to have this AFAICT. Whatever other categories were deleted should perhaps be recreated. ~~Please link to any wp:CFD about the categories.~~ [ I see that you did.] --Doncram (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more, what is worth covering is big works like whole novels and whole TV series set within just one day. Where it is remarkable that all that happens within 24 hours. There are zillions of short stories and short films and so on about single events, where there is nothing special at all about it not covering more than a day. Would every separate episode of a TV talk show count as a work? What about the Seinfeld episode about waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant. There is nothing special about that not requiring a full day. How about every film covering a track meet or a soccer match... I would hope we want just fictional works, not non-fiction. And for the list and corresponding categories to be sensible for Wikipedia coverage, the 24 hour duration needs to be specifically a notable characteristic about the work, IMHO, so "Novels set within one day" is valid while "Short stories set within one day" is not. --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per the previous CFD, what was at issue for films set within one day, was that it seemed to some to be a "Non-defining and trivial characteristic". Well, the answer to the problem is that the categories and list-article need to be about films and novels where the 24 hour limitation is in fact defining and non-trivial. So the TV series 24. And One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. The intro to this list-article and an intro in each category need to clearly state that. This will then easily stand up to any potential criticism. --Doncram (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous CFD was good in identifying that a list-article would be appropriate, but was bizarre and mistaken in deciding to delete the category. There exists better wide understanding of complementary roles of these now; that CFD wouldn't conclude that way nowadays, IMHO. Per wp:CLT, a list-article is great for discussing the overall topic, for including sources and photos and red-links for notable examples not yet having articles. The corresponding categories are complementary, and, among other functions, provide for navigation by readers to the list-article and its learned discussion, and to other examples which quite likely will be of interest. Like for one participant in the previous CFD who commented they were going to seek out more film examples like Breakfast Club to go and see, once they saw that there were such other examples to the one or two they knew about. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect; if the page had been proposed for merger rather than deletion, I would have supported that in the first place. ~~"Work"~~ "Works" is a better choice of word than "media", see e.g. Category:Works by setting. The phrase "within one day" may be preferable to "in a single day", so the target could be renamed accordingly to List of works set within one day. IMHO the briefer "in one day" is not an improvement (pace Doncram). For info, "24 hours" was proposed but not accepted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Category:Films_which_are_set_within_one_day. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Fayenatic london: Is there anything specific about this article that you would want preserved? All articles listed here are listed there. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: the edit history of the page should be preserved. Deletion would mean that only admins can see it. If there is no current content or parent category that has not already been added to the other page, then it is simply a matter of redirecting. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: there is no imperative to merge, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a guideline, not a policy. wumbolo ^^^ 21:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Template:R with history says that it should only be used if the page history is substantial and meaningful. Since we don't have anything to merge, why should we live a redirect behind? wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of works set in a single day" article was created in 2007 as Day in the life of and long started out "Day in the life of is a device often used in fiction, such as books films, plays and television series, showing the events that happen to the character over a day." That was long ago. The GPL license under which the original contributions were made gives us obligation (and we simply want) to credit the contributors by their edit history being preserved. The topic is re-affirmed to be valid. There is no reason to wipe out their identifying and developing the topic. The newer other list also has contribution history. There is no need to entirely delete its history either.

I prefer to "Keep" the works lists and merge the "media" list, more prominently recognizing its original contributors up to and including Fayenatic london who developed and moved it from the "Day in the life of" name. The AFD participants and contributors to the newer "media" list screwed up in effect by their creating a duplicative list-article, if not a content fork; they were wrong and the original "works" contributors were right.

The newer "media" list has existed as a mere list of links with no explanation and no sources for any items, although it did receive some good contributions of some review articles best 10, best 30 etc. in its "further reading" section which should be moved over.

The original "works" list has been developed some, continuing now with edits by User:Clarityfiend (and by me clarifying up front that it is only to cover defining and non-trivial cases) today, with some description/context provided for some or all its items. It has the better title and development and sources and the longer edit history.

It doesn't really really matter which gets merged to the other, I will grant, but the principle of the older one being kept is a pretty strong one, IMHO. We shouldn't let new creations usurp the older ones willy-nilly. All the participants in the CFD were wrong, in effect, to allow that to happen. --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeable to having the naming use "in a single day" rather than "within one day" or, hmm, you are preferring the other way around. Either is probably better than "in a day", sure. And I agree "work" is better than "media". These are aspects of best naming, not about the AFD which is to be closed as Keep or Merge depending upon which one of two lists should be the merger target from the other. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The criterion "the one-day duration is a defining and non-trivial characteristic of the work" is the only thing that keeps this list from being indiscriminate, but it's maddeningly vague and hard to apply. Films like Groundhog Day and Run Lola Run certainly qualify, and I guess High Noon does, but do One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and Rashomon? Just because the action takes place over the course of a day doesn't really have any great significance, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Run Lola Run and Groundhog Day should be covered in List of time loop films [was a redlink, now is a redirect to pre-existing list-article] or the like. They are in Category:Time loop films which is way more defining about them. RLR is about 20 minutes replayed 3 times, not about a whole day. GD is one day replayed many many times, sort of, but it also goes into the next day. It is sort of the opposite of a "limited to 24 hours" film! --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Run Lola Run isn't a time loop film, it's simply three separate scenarios, so I've removed that category. Groundhog Day is sort of a weird case. It does, now that you mention it, make it to the next day, but it's so ummm intensely "one-dayish"; the Salon writer thinks so too. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a tangent. It's fine by me if you keep RLR in "single day" category, but don't remove it from "time loop" category....please continue about that at Talk:Run Lola Run#Time loop film category. --Doncram (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: for your information, this is the list article for time loop films. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! And that is a good example for this page...includes table arrangement, short blurb with source for each one listed. There, I don't think it is as much an issue about whether the items belong. For this, sourcing and perhaps explicit quotes could perhaps more focused to supporting one-day-ness being important. At least if anyone is challenging the inclusion of any given item in the list. Again, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD has been listed at the Article Rescue Squad list, where I saw it. I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I don't see a serious problem with keeping it. My first reaction was to make it a category, so I was surprised to see that previous categories were rejected at CfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not the place for a merge discussion. Nominated should've just started a merge discussion since two list articles are basically the same, not wasted time with a deletion discussion. Can argue over which list to keep and which to merge and what to rename later on. Dream Focus 00:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and be more careful The Kramer article apparently contains errors, and we take it at face value; Groundhog Day is primarily set during one recurring day, but opens and closes on clearly different days, and arguably doesn't fit the criteria anyway as it is set over the course of several years that just happen to be repeating. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. I have created Day in the life (genre), as there is clearly a genre able to be reliably sourced here worth discussing distinct from any list of representative works. bd2412 T 23:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of media set within one day. I like the idea of this list, but clearly the two duplicate each other. Work out the details of the merge and the best title on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 13 April 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Koontz

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

Notability not proven. Makro (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a number of articles about the subject, [10], [11], [12]. Note to the nominator, please review the article using WP:BEFORE prior to going to AfD. reddogsix (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went by sources used in article. If the writer couldn't be bothered to used references to prove notability then I had to nominate.Makro (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by WP:BEFORE, that attitude is contrary to Wikipedia community standards. The reason to nominate an article for deletion is to remove articles that do not meet Wikipedia criteria, not remove valid incomplete articles or to punish editors for their brevity. I suggest you reevaluate your reasoning for nominating articles for AfD before your next nomination. reddogsix (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, multitude of sources over many years. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 If you have more than the three included sources please add them to improve the article. Just the three on the page are not enough to prove notability.

A I didn't get your ping because you forgot to sign, B, the essay WP:ATD says under WP:ASSERTN what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article.. The sources don't have to be on the article, the whole sources for notability vs sources for info thing. I will try and add them in when I get the chance. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am tired of this hand waving for more sources. People need to put sources in. While deletion should be based on what exists, people can't just claim sources exist and leave it at that, they need to prove it, which means inserting them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: this argument should be discounted as a clear violation of arguments to avoid; notability applies to a topic and not an article as it currently stands. Sources have been given explicitly by reddogsix and whether they are listed here or in the article is irrelevant to AfD. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If his most notable rôle is not even mentioned in our article on Community then it is minor indeed, and surely not a "significant role" as required for WP:NACTOR; his other parts appear to be even more trivial. If someone adds a good number solid reliable sources with in-depth coverage of numerous significant parts as required by our notability guideline, then please ping me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources Makro gives. For what it's worth, Fat Neil is a recurring but not major character on Community (regardless of what our article does/doesn't say). The CSI: Cyber role could push Koontz over the edge of the notability threshold, but I am not familiar with that show. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:41, 14 April 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 prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Wich

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

Not a notable DJ. Does not pass WP:GNG as he has not received significant coverage and there are no reliable sources that discuss him. The awards won are unverifiable. KingAndGod 13:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and verifiable by reliable Czech sources, see [13], [14], [15] (iDNES), [16] (iReport), [17] (musicserver.cz) etc. His success in the Anděl competition, a really notable Czech music award, is verifiable by this article published by the Czech Radio. I would say also that his collaboration with Indy was notable but that's a matter of another discussion. I can present more sources and translation if needed. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources need examining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 20 April 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 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Serenade (radio program)

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

Not a notable radio program. Doesn't pass the general notability guideline. It is lacking of significant coverage in reliable sources.

Also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Gising Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) KingAndGod 13:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No difference from the many other overnight music shows that have the same format, and reads as both an WP:ADVERT and extreme fancruft about a late-night music show. Nate • (chatter) 04:02, 6 April 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) 01:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Richard Enriquez

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

Not a notable person. There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass the GNG. KingAndGod 13:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-market radio personalities are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in media other than their own employer's self-published content about itself and its own staff, to clear WP:GNG. But this is completely unreferenced, and claims nothing whatsoever about him that's "inherently" notable enough to give him the "keep and flag for reference improvement" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - radio DJs in the Philippines are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 30 April 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) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Robertson (ice hockey)

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

Not yet notable athlete who doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and my search didn't find anything to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 12 April 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. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of Dubai

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

No evidence that this is an official title, single source in article doesn't use, it no reliable sources for it's existence, never used in official communications. Being married to a ruler or head of state does not automatically create this position. Heliotom (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm came up with atleast two RS [18] [19] which demostrate that title indeed exists and is under usage. The Ruler of Dubai is the Prime Minister the UAE so I assume First Lady of Dubai is equivalent to First Lady of the UAE. --Saqib (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your second source albawaba.com is a synidcated Daily mail article, which is a prohibited source as it's notoriously inaccurate.

Assuming never got anyone anywhere on wikipedia. The ruler of Dubai is the prime minister of the UAE, but the President is the ruler of Abu Dhabi. The title is not used domestically, or on any reliable sources that I can find, everything on google is circular feedback from wikipedia or pinterest. Being the wife of a ruler does not automatically create the title First lady.

In addition, Sheikh Mohammed has two wives, both of whom are given this title in the exceedingly poor sources that do exist for its existence.Heliotom (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title is for sure is being used domestically. For example, Al Bayan is a Dubai-government run newspaper and is major one and they in one of their news story mentioned Sheikha Hind Al Maktoum as the "First Lady of Dubai", but unfortunately it is in Arabic language and you may need to G Translate it. --Saqib (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the terminology used for the award, not a reflection of an official title. And again, one source from 12 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:24, 13 April 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Hooe

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

Lacks evidence of notability, fails WP:V. Almost all WP:OR from WP:PRIMARY sources. The only secondary source cited is self-published and only makes passing mention. Agricolae (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Weak Keep - Fails no original research and verifiability (also, without reliable sources, represents a non-neutral POV)). The subject may be encyclopedic, I find some results on google books, but I don't find this article to make for a foundation of an encyclopedia article. I'd be willing to change my !vote if someone cleaned out the OR and found some reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck/changed my !vote. I've stubbified the article along the lines of the suggestion of the IP (24.151.116.12). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do not know enough to vote, but there is enough biographical detail to suggest this is not invention, which is what OR often implies. "Naval Officer" was a colonial customs official. I suspect that this does have adequate sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that this is 'just some guy' and the creator has dug through the primary record to write an essay on the man, taking every passing reference and blowing it all out of proportion - it is the kind of personal compilation that a genealogist or local historian puts together on their favorite ancestor, who has not received any actual coverage in secondary sources beyond the occasional mention of their name. Let's take a look at three of the footnotes:

Ref.4 is to "Capt John Rice Hooe - Navel Officer and Trader Patent to Ocaneechi signed his name as Rice Hooe. Citing "Index: H." Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies". This is almost verbatim from a blog [20], and is 'through-citing' - not citing the blog itself, but pretending to have consulted the blog's source. I say 'pretending' because the named source is actually the part of a book's index that covers the letter H! Further, if you look in the book, it says nothing in either the index nor the pages it indexes[21][22] about Capt. John Rice Hooe - that 'Capt. John' bit is only found on the blog and appears to be totally without foundation (though Rice had a son[?] of this name). Ref 4 is used to document the subject's association with Edward Bland and Dinwiddie county but the actual text of the named book names neither Bland nor Dinwiddie County.
Ref. 3 is used to support the same text, the association with Bland and Dinwiddie. This source seems an improvement because the cited page is about Dinwiddie County, and it mentions both Bland and Rice Hooe. However, all it says of Hooe is that he and several other men, including Walter Chiles who later settled in Dinwiddie County "contemplated in 1642 the discovery of 'a new river or unknowne land, bearing southerly from the Appomattox River'" - it was Chiles, not Hooe, who was associated with Dinwiddie County, and Bland was likewise associated with Dinwiddie County but I don't even find it saying that Bland and Chiles interacted, let alone that Bland and Hooe did.
Ref. 1 cites the same source, to say that Hooe was a licensed trade patent holder, but I don't know how you get that from them having contemplated an undiscovered river or country, which is all the cited source says. Here I suspect there is some other document that provides additional details, but you wouldn't know it from the citation.
Ref. 2 has the same citation as Ref. 4 with three additional references copied verbatim from the same blog page, "HENING, 4:93; Va. Gaz., R, 24 Mar. 1768; NICKLIN [1], 368". This paragraph in the blog is in turn taken verbatim, refs and all, from a National Archives web site [23] and is text the NA is reproducing with permission from the printed volumes of the Diaries of George Washington produced by the U of Va, and still under copyright - it's use by the blog is a blatant COPYVIO. Ref. 2 is used to document the following: "Rice Hooe/Hughes of New Kent, the Burgess and Licensed Trader also had nobility status, officially. According to His Majesty's Stationery Office, Captain, Trader, and Burgess Rice Hughes, of New Kent also the same as Capt John Rice Hooe/Hughes and he was added the roles of the licensed "Brotherhood of Traders" to the Eastern Siouan of the Ocaneechi starting in 1656 and before dying the following year, delegated his role out to others in this Early British American Colonial period in the 17th century." However, the only thing His Majesty's Stationary Office says on the cited pages (the Index again) relevant to the subject is "Hooe, Rice, 739 X. I . . . . . ., . . . . . ., document signed by, 681 n. (10),"[24] and if you look at the actual corresponding text (links above), none of it has anything to do with the material it is cited to document. As to the other supposed sources, their identify can be determined with a little digging. Hening contains a one-sentence report from the subject's grandson giving the local cost of slaves and horses[25]. Va Gaz is a historical newspaper, which contains on the relevant date an advertisement for the Potomac River ferry of a Gerard Hooe, presumably a descendant (paywalled). The Nicklin source is an article in the Virginia Historical Magazine with the tombstone transcripts of a cemetery that on the page cited includes that of Col Rice Hooe,[26] the grandson of our subject, and stating that the Col. came to the area a century after our subject lived, so none of these three additional sources say squat about our subject. The NA site itself only mentions him in passing when referring to Col. Rice as "grandson of Rice (Rhuys) Hooe, a seventeenth-century immigrant from Wales." It is clear that our editor's true source was the blog, and that they never looked at the sources they cite.
Ref. 5 again copies the same three sources from the Washington diaries (without citing the Diaries, only referring to them in the text), and spins a whole tale about Washington's association with the descendants of the immigrant that is entirely unsupported by the cited material, none saying anything about either Washington or our subject.

This took me long enough to dig out that I am not going to go through the rest, but these references are not being used to document the text, just to decorate it. Who knows, maybe I just picked the worst of the footnotes to track down, but if this isn't invention it is so sloppy as to be indistinguishable from invention. This is more than just a page in need of cleaning up, it needs to be blown up. I don't doubt that the person existed, but I am not finding anywhere near the coverage that would constitute notability. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that this Rice Hooe was a member of the House of Burgesses from Shirley Hundred Island and Charles City county for 1642, 1644, 1645 and 1646, which would satisfy WP:POLITICIAN #1. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Volume 4 and Virginia Genealogies. My view of the current state of the article is in agreement with that expressed above. If it is deemed worthwhile stubbing this down and keeping it, I could support that. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will just comment that POLITICIAN #1 doesn't override the need for substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It all hinges on how 'substantial' substantial coverage needs to be to meet GNG. My general benchmark is that if all we are ever going to be able to write is a stub, that is apparently not a notable person, independent of more specialized criteria such as POLITICIAN #1 that do not take coverage into account. To me, with these new sources, Hooe is borderline at best but there may be more out there, its existence obscured by all the nonsense that now, thanks to Smmurphy, has been removed. Agricolae (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I appreciate all the research that other editors have performed on this subject. I would agree with stubbing the article (it gave me a headache reading it) - however, am reluctant to delete it. Rogermx (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per recent article improvements. An acceptable stub at this point and sourcing seems reasonable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had meant to update my comment above after Smmurphy's WP:HEY work. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Belzberg

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

Person of only local or at best regional notability. The Order of Canada does not confer sufficient notability as more than 150 of them are given out each year. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours - she has received both a first-level and second-level service award. (By the way, 150 out of a population of 35 million is quite an accomplishment) Keep. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, only around 7,000 recipients in 50 years of this high ranking award, a recipient is definitely notable, with appropriate sources of course. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their is a claim of notability that is supported by the refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does need improvement, but the nominator is incorrect about the Order of Canada as a notability claim: as long as an article can be sourced to some evidence of preexisting media coverage about what the person did to earn the distinction, rather than relying solely on their presence in a list of OC inductees as its only sourcing, the OC is a valid notability claim. As I noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Cohen, "member" class in the OC does not automatically connote exclusively local notability — it's the level at which almost everybody in the OC starts at regardless of how local, national or international their notability status may be, because the higher ranks are populated almost entirely by internal bump-ups rather than by people being inducted directly at those levels. And 150 is not a problematic number of inductees, either — we certainly deprecate awards like the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal, which had 42 thousand inductees in one year, as not inherently notable distinctions, but having just 150 inductees is not enough to problematize an award's notability-making status in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 9 April 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 The Smiley Company. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Loufrani

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

This is a promotional article created by a blocked sockpuppet, promoting the business of The Smiley Company (which was also created by a blocked user). Another closely related article is also currently nominated (by me) for deletion for the third time – please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Loufrani (3rd nomination). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 12:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the company. no independent notability, and no encyclopedic interest otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 18 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago School of Mold Making

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

Cannot see that this company is notable. Formerly eligible for a speedy as promotional, I've given it a bit of a haircut. TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I looked at the refs, it is a small company failing corpdepth. Szzuk (talk) 08:27, 12 April 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. ansh 666 04:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pankajakasthuri

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

Failed AfC submission. Article creator copied all text (including AfC templates) and pasted into mainspace. Lack of reliable sources. I question it's notability. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are a couple of refs from The Hindu which look ok, it was declined at afc because these weren't enough. Szzuk (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. The founder appears to be notable but notability is not inherited. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:19, 18 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battery Recyclers of America

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. PROD contested by article author. shoy (reactions) 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I opened the refs, they are all company listings or unrelated, nothing that demonstrates notability. Szzuk (talk) 08:25, 12 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik Gajjar

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs in the article don't support notability, news showing a one line mention. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 12 April 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) 02:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Safran

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

Puffy article with uncited claims, on a person of only regional notability. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on the notability yet, but I cleaned up a lot of the non-neutral language. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Article was created and written by a sock farm; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sock farm. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a plausible notability claim here that might get him an article if he could be properly sourced as clearing WP:GNG for it, but nothing that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear GNG just because he exists — but the referencing here is parked on primary sources like pieces of his own writing, photographs and the self-published websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media that would count as valid support for notability. Also this was created by a banned sockpuppet, so even if his notability could be properly demonstrated by the correct kind of sources, it would still need to be deleted and then recreated from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 9 April 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) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Waters

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

Non-notable person. Waters has had a career as an actor, director, equestrian rider and BMX rider, none of which have risen to the level of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not notable). This might even be an autobiography ("TWfaircroft"?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable.Vincelord (talk) 16:35, 9 April 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 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North East Students' Society Delhi University

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

Student councils in a university catering to particular ethnic groups are very common. Sourcing isn't strong enough to establish notability here. A couple of them are notices by institutions, a Daily Mail source and two sources that don't seem reliable. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources from 'reputable' sites. If a source from a government press site, national/state paper is not notable enough, I don't know what is. See Category:Student organizations for reference. KakhoSimpson (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sections Background and Structure sound like WP:OR with just one source, while Former presidents and general secretaries is both unsourced and unnecessary. Excluding these issues, only activism is referenced. I'm not saying the government source is unreliable, it just a press release, not to mention the puffery in it. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the section Former presidents and general secretaries. More source on Background can and will be added soon. Also removed several lines in Structure to minimize looking like WP:OR. Let me know what more can be improved. KakhoSimpson (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. samee converse 20:52, 10 April 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. ansh 666 04:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShipRocked

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

The article has almost no sources besides press release from Ashton-Magnuson Media. All other sources are announcements. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Creator is an undisclosed paid editor. Vexations (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I almost requested this be speedily deleted under CSD A7. Decided I wasn't quite comfortable doing that, that recurring annually for a decade might be a valid claim to significance. Either way, definitely agree this doesn't demonstrate notability. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for speedy deletion under G11. That was declined as "speedy declined. not blatant advertising, at least not enough for speedy deletion". Fair enough, if you think that announcing your company's next upcoming event is not blatant advertising, or not all of the article is advertising because it also contains a list of previous events. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion. Assuming for purposes of argument that this is a notable event, wouldn't you expect an article about it to list the previous occurrences and the next scheduled occurrence? The statements are factual in form. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No, I wouldn't. I would expect only those events to be listed that can be sourced to independent, reliable media, and I would not expect future events to be listed at all, unless there is clear evidence that the preparations themselves have been covered in such sources, akin to how we only write about upcoming movies if principal photography has been completed (and written about). Vexations (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources now in the article do not establish its notability (ehich is why I tagged it for possible lack of notability). However, was a WP:BEFORE search done? It isn't mentioned in the nomination statement. What sort of search did you do, Vexations? Alos, saying that the creator is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious accusation. Is there any evidence for it? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel What sort of search did you do My process for new page review is supported by a set of tools I developed specifically for my own use at NPP. I read every (online) source, check it against the claims, and then check all of the sources to see if, where, and how often they have been used in other articles and look for indications of independence and reliability. I enter every source that I assess in a database, with notes and rankings for reliability and independence. When I encounter a source again, I can assure myself that I treat those sources consistently and maintain a level of integrity that I find fitting for a reviewer. To comply with WP:BEFORE (which isn't policy BTW) I use {{Find sources}} and sometimes, when warranted, my subscriptions of to Gale, JSTOR and OneFile. I'm happy to explain how I review further if you like, but I don't think it is germane to this discussion. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence for it?Yes, there is, here.

Thank you, Vexations. That sounds rather more meticulous than many AfD nominators are. WP:BEFOrE may not be strictly policy, but I think it is petty clearly implied by the deletion policy and particularly the section WP:ATD, which says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I am glad that you do make such a search. I tend to regard AfD noms on notability grounds which do not mention a BEFORE search as flawed if not invalid. You cause me to incline more to deletion here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Boat

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

Article has no sources besides rockboat.com. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 3 refs have been added to the article. Szzuk (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep- sorry, I went to the page from here, so I should have tagged that I added a couple of refs. I've just now used the NY Times link (probably the most reliable I've found) to support certain parts of the history section that it also covers, but there are some other parts of it that could use better refs if they're found. ~~Personally I would say it is Keep now, but want to see if my sourcing stands up sufficiently.~~ Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have opted for Keep, since I think there is a minimal level of acceptable refs Nosebagbear (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article could do with a cleanup but there's a new york times ref and other bits and pieces. Szzuk (talk) 10:33, 20 April 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 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mabl

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

Startup which fails the new WP:NCORP policy. No secondary sources. Previous was removed by SPA editor, who created account 50 minutes before the end of the Prod. scope_creep (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. Coverage is routine in relation to funding. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not yet notable -- references are notices about funding. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 21 April 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! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never the Bride

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

Promotional and unsourced. I looked on the web and couldn't find any indepth independent sources on the band, only events they perform at. Please prove me wrong. GRuban (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have actually heard of this band many times over the years and was surprised to find that they have very little significant coverage in reliable sources. Everything about them online says that they have been praised by the likes of Roger Daltrey and Carlos Santana but I cannot find original sources that can truly be verified, though the claims have been repeated by supposedly professional writers. On the other hand, there are a few things that can qualify for WP:NBAND #1. They have been covered by Billboard in relation to another notable fan, Shirley Bassey: [27]. Here are some reasonably noteworthy reviews that help with basic notability: [28], [29], [30]. I submit that these sources are beyond just evidence of gigs, as the nominator said, but I will admit that it's still a stretch. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, those last seem to be articles from the venues the band was playing at at the time, so, even if reliable, not really independent. And their tone confirms that: "...an intense singer with radiant charisma is magnificently accompanied..." --GRuban (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is starting to take shape of what is currently happening with the AfD discussion for Joshua Fried (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Fried) in that it's a subject/person accomplished enough that would probably merit an article but, surprisingly, lacks the requisite evidence to pass the wikipedia article threshold. Based on that it will probably get deleted but this may be one of those case studies of why WP guidelines could benefit from a serious re-evaluation of why some quite accomplished bands/people don't qualify for articles, but other of less accomplishment do. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is - how do we know? Without high quality independent sources, we're basically stuck with "this is what they say about themselves", which, I hope you can see, is less than ideal. --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff on the charting of "The Living Tree" should easily be sourceable should anyone wish to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Tree (song) -- This might help a bit, but the original by Never the Bride did not chart. The cover version by Shirley Bassey charted. Adding this to the Never the Bride article, as notable songwriting, can reinforce my own "Weak Keep" vote above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's substantial disagreement on whether this should be turned into a WP:DAB page or kept as is. But, that discussion can continue on the article talk page. The only thing that would require admin (and thus, WP:AfD) involvement would be an outright deletion, and that's clearly not being argued by anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal_energy

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

There is no well-defined or accepted concept of "thermal energy" in physics or thermodynamics. The article lacks reliable sources, and been tagged as needing them since at least 2014. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. MIT,[31] Leipzig University [32] and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology,[33] among others, think there is something to it. (Also that disreputable rag the Encyclopaedia Britannica.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those three sources supports Thermal energy as a rigorous concept in thermodynamics. The first is a press release using the term in a general sense. The second is about Internal energy. The third uses the term in a general sense. For Britannica, see below. A reliable source would be (say) a textbook on thermal or statistical physics. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The notion that this is not a defined term is kind of strange, and the idea to delete the article is absurd. Many physics texts define it quite distinctly, and Encyclopedia Britannica thinks so too. Calculating the total thermal energy of a system is a frequent exercise in problems. The concept of thermal energy comes directly from the equipartition theorem and is usually defined defined in terms of kT. It is essentially provided by (dS/dU)_V,N = T^–1 (PS: d = delta) Kbrose (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "many physics texts define it", please list a few. Encyclopedias are not reliable sources per wiki policy as I understand it - they are tertiary, not secondary. In fact there are no reliable sources for this concept that I know of, nor have any been added to the article after four years, because the concept of "thermal energy" (as opposed to internal energy U that you refer to, or heat or temperature or work) turns out not to make sense. I say this as a professional physicist with expertise in this area. I could explain the physics here, but my understanding is that it would not really be appropriate. Material without reliable sources is supposed to be deleted, is it not? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have no problem if "thermal energy" is simply synonymous with internal energy, in which case we can just redirect to there rather than delete. That seems to be Kbrose's view, and is the subject of this source Leipzig University [34] as cited by Clarityfiend. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate As I understand it; change in thermal energy is used as a synonym for change in internal energy, where thermal energy describes the internal kinetic energy of particles in a system which, when averaged, becomes temperature. It's a useful concept for students trying to relate stat mech to classial thermo.

However, this is not a rigorous concept used in fundamental equations (I'm curious why not - is it redundant with an understanding of temperature?). I think an ideal article would explain this, then disambiguate. SpaceInnovader (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete/Disambiguate: Use it as a disambiguation article. It can point to heat, internal energy, Helmholtz free energy, etc. --MaoGo (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even when this notion covers no well-defined or accepted concept in physics, it is in my perception a broadly (ab)used term (e.g. in connection with sustainability, stability, resilience, ...). Retreating to sound terms of thermodynamics, or a pure DAB possibly would not properly handle the expectations of interested readers. I am roughly aware of the tedious task to watch over a page like this. Purgy (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not what the article is (currently) about - it says nothing about "sustainability, stability, resilience". Instead, it (falsely and without reliable sources) states it's about a concept in thermodynamics and gives a specific and (naively) reasonable sounding definition. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kardar's textbook uses "thermal energy" as a synonym for the Boltzmann constant times the absolute temperature (p. 243). So do Huang and Reichl and Kittel and Myers and Reif. Landau and Lifshitz do the same, but work in units where $k_{B}=1$ (volume 5, Eq. 80.16). Ashcroft and Mermin also use the term (e.g., p. 20 of the 1976 edition). It is definitely, definitely a thing that physicists say, and that is enough reason to have a page about it. However, the current article is not very good, and the easiest fix might be to turn it into a redirect or a disambiguation page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, it's very useful to have real references to discuss. It's true that kT is sometimes referred to as "thermal energy" and that makes perfect sense in context (kT is indeed an energy, and it sets the characteristic scale for the energies in thermal systems), but that is not at all what the current article is describing, nor does it correspond to the internal energy that Kbrose defined, nor does it correspond to the concept "defined" in the Britannica article. So this simply illustrates the problem. Perhaps another solution besides a DAB is to describe the various ways this term can be used... but would that meet wiki's notability guidelines? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, We already have an article kT (energy) which can and should be included on a DAB page if that's what we wind up with. --Steve (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably include Geothermal energy too. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a DAB per Mao suggestion, pointing in particular to heat ("thermal energy" when it's flowing), internal energy ("thermal energy" when it's not flowing), and kT (energy) (cf XOReaster comment). I would concede Kbrose's point that people sometimes discuss "thermal energy of a mode" in the sense of "thermal-equilibrium average energy in a mode", but I think the internal energy link would cover that case well enough. --Steve (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thermal energy could be defined as temperature times entropy. This is no more or less meaningful than Helmholtz free energy which is the internal energy minus the thermal energy. It is important to note that thermal energy is not a conserved quantity, but that does not mean that it is meaningless. Kinetic energy is not conserved; neither is potential energy. But people still talk about them and we have articles on them. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can define whatever you want. Wikipedia, however, is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not original research or ad hoc definitions. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason to delete the article. If you think that thermal energy is ill-defined, are you going to delete the article for heat as well, which is typically even more confused than thermal energy? For more rigorous, and more recent and modern usage of the term, you might like Hans Fuchs (The Dynamics of Heat). Daniel Schroeder also defines it quite definitively, which I believe used to be a reference to the article, but which probably fell victim to previous bouts of deletions (by you?). Frankly, the article used to be quite reasonably sourced, before people started swamping it with all kinds of crap. Kbrose (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heat is a standard thermodynamic concept that appears in every textbook. As far as I cam see Fuchs never uses the term "thermal energy" without "flux" or "current" attached, in which case he is simply discussing heat without using the standard term. Again, heat is well-defined, but it is a transfer of energy, not a property of a system. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kbrose, I think Waleswatcher's complaint was specifically that JRSpriggs wrote "thermal energy could be defined as T×S", but didn't say that it actually is defined as T×S by reliable sources. So Waleswatcher read the sentence as implying that JRSpriggs had just creatively made up the T×S definition off the top of their head. JRSpriggs or Kbrose, can you please confirm one way or the other?

Kbrose, would you mind telling us the definition of "thermal energy" used by Hans Fuchs and/or Daniel Schroeder? Is it something distinct from internal energy and kT (energy) and other articles we already have? You wrote above that it's defined by "(dS/dU)_V,N = T^–1", but I don't get it, are you saying that thermal energy is the reciprocal of temperature? I find that weird, the units are wrong, and also intuitively one would expect higher internal energy at higher temperature. Sorry if you already explained this somewhere. Thanks in advance, --Steve (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the actual answer to this is that Schroeder mentions thermal energy just once, at the very beginning of his book (p.15) where he is building intuition. He defines it as N*f*(1/2)k*T, where N is the number of molecules and f is the number of degrees of freedom per molecule. Of course this is a fine definition as far as it goes, but it obviously isn't very general (for instance, it refers to molecules). Schroeder doesn't point this out, but for real molecular gases f is a function of T even in the gas phase, and that formula cannot be applied at all at a phase transition or to other phases. Schroeder says he will return to this formula later when he proves the equipartition theorem, but when he does so he only ever refers to standard thermodynamic variables (like the internal energy U). As far as I can see (and according to the index) he never mentions thermal energy anywhere other than around p 15. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can write (dS/dU)_V,N^—1 = T, if the inverse is confusing. But you cannot invert the partial differential. It tells you directly that you measure temperature to evaluate changes in thermal energy. But T is intensive while T.E. is extensive. Isn't that a most intuitive definition? It is exactly what it has meant since the days of Joule. That also implies that it is perfectly to ok to define thermal energy as the product of temperature and a change in entropy, as stated above. Thermodynamics only ever deals with a small part of internal energy, and it only ever describes CHANGES in internal energy, even when the system undergoes a nuclear reaction in the process. So, internal energy is often defined in a very restrictive manner, depending on the area of study. Only for the ideal gas is the internal energy identical to its thermal energy. Thermal energy expressions occur in a vast number of physical formalisms, the term e^x/kT is ever present. So why would it be so undefined ? I would say it is the very definition in most text books, not just a few. But often it is not emphasized, because it is so fundamental, perhaps, not terribly interesting. There is way more confusion about the term heat in text books than thermal energy, because heat is actually differently defined in physics than in engineering, and the public certainly has a heated opinion about many other topics.

So, given the preponderance of usage of thermal energy as a valid physics concept, I move to end this discussion and fix the article instead. Kbrose (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For years the article defined thermal energy as "the internal energy present in a system due to its temperature" or as the average kinetic energy per particle. That definition was never supported by any reliable sources, despite a request dating back to at least 2014. There is a reason no sources were ever supplied - you cannot define such a quantity in any real system (for instance, because of the latent heat of phase transitions). Even in idealized systems that definition is either not applicable or simply equal to the internal energy. Regarding the discussion here, Kbrose seems to be engaging in original research, which has no place on wikipedia (or perhaps s/he is suggesting thermal energy should be identified as heat, I can't really tell). The other commentators in favor of keeping the article have variously suggested kT, ST, and the internal energy U as definitions of thermal energy - which is fine, I have no objection if the page remains and just says that the term can refer to any of those (with sources, of course). Waleswatcher (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: Although I've seen this term used in textbooks, there aren't significant papers or other sources that use thermal energy, and it covered by heat and temperature. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Widely used concept so it is desirable that Wikipedia has an article. Wikipedia has an article on the luminiferous aether even though it has been determined that it doesn’t exist. Similarly, an article on fictitious forces even though they are fictitious. Wikipedia has articles on these concepts because they qualify as adequately notable. Dolphin (t) 07:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meets Notability standards Felicia (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is arguing that "thermal energy" is non-notable per se; the debate concerns whether "thermal energy" refers to a distinct concept, different from the concepts discussed in other articles. (see WP:NAD / WP:CFORK - if a single concept is referred to with multiple different words or phrases, we generally only have one article for it.) :-D --Steve (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This concept ("heat energy" as some physics texts call it) draws an important distinction from other forms of energy such as macroscopic kinetic energy, macroscopic potential energy, electric potential energy, radiant energy, chemical energy, mass-energy equivalence E = mc², etc. It is part of the internal energy U of a substance, namely the part that does not involve chemical reactions or conversion of mass to energy but only the transfer of heat between substances at different temperatures; equivalently, the part governed by the equipartition theorem. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is "only the transfer of heat between substances at different temperatures". If so, it is not distinct from heat, and it is only defined as a transfer of energy (which is not at all how the article defined it). You also say something rather different, that it is part of the internal energy. That's closer to what the article (used to) assert, but the difficulty is that there is simply no way to define what part that is. That is why thermal energy (as distinct from heat, or internal energy) just isn't a thing (in general, in thermodynamics). Waleswatcher (talk) 21:44, 16 April 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 21:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Callpage

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

PRODed twice already. I concur with User:Scope creep's rationale: "Fails the new WP:NCORP standard. Startup with routine news coverage, e.g. funding." SmartSE (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was planning to Afd it. The new WP:NCORP notability standard could almost be explicity written for this article. Delete. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam, no indications of notability. They appear to have one a couple of awards but these awards are not prestigious enough to meet the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 18 April 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 Wakhi people#Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association. Content can be merged from history subject to consensus. Sandstein 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association

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

I found some coverage in the books via G'books but trivial therefore this one fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association is mentioned in many books and news articles. I did not find anything which is promotional, people who researched Wakhi people, almost always mentioned this and what this organization is doing to preserve local culture. Among other reference, I found [35]. This book has more details. This article should be divided into background, as in most cases, reason for creating this was to promote Wakhi culture as it is overshadow by modern culture. Coverage in all the books is related to their culture, langugae and threats to their way of life and how this association is helping. So in context of Wakhi people and area where they live, this association is significantly mentioned, in reliable sources and multiple times. What is your opinion on this. --Spasage (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MY opinion, it fails per WP:ORGDEPTH. --Saqib (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note for closing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it may be redirected to Wakhi people#Organizations. samee converse 20:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content over there is unsourced and risk getting deleted. Redirection does not make sense unless someone fix it. On a related note, I don't understand why would someone mention the organisation (which is not notable at least by WP standards) in quite detail in an article about Wakhi people. Generally, we are not supposed to do that. A wikilink makes sense but whole passage does not. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say to simply merge it with Wakhi people#Wakhi Tajik Cultural Association. M A A Z T A L K 13:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say why? --Saqib (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? WP:AFDFORMAT reads: Alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. Explained in WP:ATD. M A A Z T A L K 20:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comment dated 11 April. --Saqib (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:ATD is a stronger argument here. M A A Z T A L K 17:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 21 April 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. Only one person supports keeping. Sandstein 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Nicholas Fernandes

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

Most coverage is (near) identical to the article about his company InstantTV. Insufficient editorial coverage about the person independent of the company. Most sources about his engagement in various bodies are primary, which is not sufficient for WP:BASIC. Lacking depth of coverage and independent coverage. Trivial corporate business reporting (such as reports about legal issues) does not establish personal notability. Additionally, there's a certain promotional slant to the article about both company and person. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernandes was named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. Young Global Leaders have had to have a significant level of impact in order to be selected. For example, Jimmy Wales, Mark Zuckerberg and Marissa Mayer are also Young Global Leaders. More information on Young Global Leaders according to the World Economic Forum themselves is at on Youtube^[1]. Techcrunch^[2] lists some members and the World Bank^[3] notes the selection process where selected members of about 100 are drawn from a pool of 8000 candidates. While I am not suggesting Fernandes has the same level of name recognition, surely he would be qualify for a Wikipedia entry.
Just Googling his name points to interviews at the World Economic Forum annual summit in Davos^[4] ^[5]. Very few people individually take on large corporations for a larger public interest goal (and more so in Singapore) so I believe he qualifies. Further, he not only invented the cloud-based DVR, but he also successfully ensured it was recognised as a legal offering. It's impossible to decouple RecordTV/InstantTV from Carlos Fernandes. That said, if you feel some parts are promotional, please feel free to remove those parts. I will add other details on other projects as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Updated Awards and Distinctions section indicating him being an academy member on the $1 Million Prize Global Teacher Prize^[1]. Also included references to other work and interviews in Davos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Twistedmind88: He is clearly a very busy business man, he is involved in many things, has done some good things and has media presence. However notability is not just about that. For an individual, it is about if the person is being talked about elsewhere, as opposed to the person talking about things. One would expect for a Singaporean business man of notability that Straits Times reports about him. A search for "Carlos Fernandes" and "Carlos Nicholas Fernandes" did not give any relevant hits about this person. For me personally, in a relatively small community like Singapore (or HK, UAE etc likewise), a primary notability test is if the leading English language paper reports about the person.

At the end of the day, there are many corporate leaders doing their job: running a company, networking, sharing thoughts and opinions about business today and in the future, be this at Davos on TV or elsewhere.

To put this into perspective: if I have done the research right, out of the 100 YGL in 2017, 13 have Wikipedia articles. Most seemed notable before being called on YGL. The Global Teacher Prize (for the record, he is not a winner, he is a member of the team of people deciding the winner), is over 200 people strong. I spot checked the first 20 in the list and found 5 with articles on Wikipedia, 3 of which are tagged with problems such as lacking sources or notability.

As the Basic notability rule states: primary sources (which are the YGL or Teachers Prize websites) do not count towards notability. There's also no notability by association ("I'm in a list with a notable person, so I must also be notable" does not work). To establish notability, there need to be secondary editorial sources, i.e. this needs to be talked about. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about him being covered by the Straits Times is fair. He has been covered numerous times including front page coverage. The problem is that a lot of that content has been removed from the website because Straits times has a pay wall and a monopoly on news. So some of it is available only from reposts on blogs. For example, if you do a search on the National Library Website and look for the newspaper for Business Times (the Business Edition of the Straits Times), 2 December 2010 you will find a reference to the article on him. This warranted front page coverage. It is no longer available except through an old repost on asiaone. Is there a way to temporarily show articles (and there are many) to establish notability - possibly by displaying them on a third party website? Of course, these couldn't be used ON Wikipedia (for copyright reasons), but they could be used to establish notability FOR Wikipedia?
He's also been spoken about (notable) - by the Minister in Singapore as a man who has "made his mark"^[2] on the country. This was covered extensively by the press too, but now only the original press release from the Government is visible. That said, as per the correct definition of notability you use, this should work.
He was also significantly covered following the Singapore Computer Society Young Professional of the Year Award in the press, but those articles aren't visible unless, I can share pictures of copies of articles from the National Library.
Global Agenda Councils (and the new name - "Global Future Councils") are a level higher than Young Global Leaders, since they do not have an age constraint. If you could check research there, I'd imagine the number of individuals with Wikipedia pages from that list would be a significantly higher percentage.
Finally, Carlos Fernandes is a very common hispanic name. The correct search item on Google would be "Carlos Fernandes Singapore". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/ and searching for "Carlos Fernandes Singapore". You will get over 50 hits - out of which at least 30 are about him. You unfortunately can't read the articles. If you Google the headlines of the articles, you will see virtually no hits, because of the way Singapore news works. If you need access to the actual documents, they are available from the library and I can probably help get them for you, but I trust that would not be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it helps, Fernandes was one of the few "industry leaders" (a term used by ASEAN - the Association of South East Asian Nations) invited^[3] to speak to ASEAN IT Ministers at the 3rd ASEAN Telecommunications and Information Technology Ministers Meeting, Singapore. Other speakers included the the then CEO of Singtel Lee Hsien Yang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake_Brockman Here are some press links. These do not show up on Google. See:

Two S'poreans named among WEF's global leaders^[4].
Appeals Court hits RecordTV Play button^[5].
Record TV shows with an online VCR^[6]
Spore firm offers free trial for online video recorder service^[7].
Ideas Man with a zest for life^[8].
Doing Business with the Big Boys^[9]
His software is so smart the computer is almost human^[10].
IT Leaders push the limits. Fernandes is center featured.^[11]
Can-do Carlos!^[12]
Hail the IT Heroes^[13]

@Jake_Brockman Trust your points have been adequately addressed. can we close this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some actual "keep" or "delete" opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no independent notability "Young Global Leader" is in my opinion a minor part of the WEF's elaborate self-promotion scheme, and of no encyclopedic significance. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notability established through various other press that has been independently added. Young Global leader is just one part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone claiming "delete" read the articles included on Google Drive?? Singapore is a media monopoly and does not keep news available publicly on the web. This issue of independent sources was raised and I have gotten the articles and hosted them on Google drive. Please kindly review the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 April 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. ansh 666 04:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Giebenhain

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

New article from a new editor that would have been stopped by WP:ACREQ. One ref bio about an actor who had two parts that are not referenced in the show's articles. Fails WP:ENT. This is why new users should start by editing existing pages. Here is the very short IMDB [36] Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for now at least. I wouldn't really consider his IMDB page to be short considering that he has almost 50 credits. His role on Raising Hope was actually a pretty big one, appearing in more than half of the episodes a d more than any other recurring character. He has also guest started on several big shows like NCIS and Bones. At the very least the article should be given a little bit of time to be expanded before deleting it. JDDJS (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please don't delete his article!!! He is the best actor ever!!!! You guys are crazy! Dag-bernit Wikipedia users! People just wanna make the Wikipedia bigger and funner! Just don't do it! Maude~Duggel (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any argument grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 09:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete IMDb is not a reliable source. It often inclusdes total falsehoods. It is not an acceptable source, so it does not matter how long an entry is there. Beyond this, Wikipedia does not aim to cover every actor ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb is enough to escape WP:BLPPROD, but not enough to show notability for AFD; it is not, ever, a reliable source. Note that the other reference in the article as of this writing only mentions Giebenhain as a "guest star", in the caption of the photo, not in the article text at all. That said, I can find quite a few passing mentions to him, largely from his role on Raising Hope, but nothing that constitutes significant coverage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ you guys don't want to keep one of the greatest actor's page anyone has ever seen, Todd Giebenhain is the king of acting! Not freaking Shahrukh Khan or Jack Nicholson! Those two suck! Maude~Duggel (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote twice. Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Hawk (Amtrak train)#Restoration. Sandstein 14:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belvidere station

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

WP:CRYSTAL: A series of alleged future train stations that, as of March 2018, supposedly "would have started" or "will start" in 2014 and "would have been" or "will be" completed in 2015, yet never appeared, and are either permanently on hold or otherwise paper fantasies, and some of which haven't even been narrowed down to a single site. Closeapple (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on Rockford station; Merge or Redirect all others to Black Hawk (Amtrak train)#Restoration per WP:PAGEDECIDE. These are all proposed stations on the proposed Black Hawk Amtrak line, use 2 or 3 of the same sources as their basis, and recite basically the same marginally-WP:CRYSTAL story except that Rockford station has slightly more detail and, more significantly, Rockford's big enough that its former railroad station might have been notable even if the "proposed" one isn't. All the rest can be boiled down in the parent article Black Hawk (Amtrak train), which basically says the same thing. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneseo station, which covers a similar no-longer-has-a station on another proposed northern Illinois line. --Closeapple (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Black Hawk (Amtrak train)#Restoration. Rockford's former station is notable, but there's nothing usable about it in the current article. I think it's very unlikely that this restoration will proceed given the current political climate in Illinois. If it does, then we'll revisit. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I created these pages too soon and they should be deleted for now. If and when the routes these stations are on finally get up and running, then we can ask administrators to restore these pages and update them to reflect the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wof2500 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Applying WP:CRYSTAL to these station articles is nonsensical as they really were and are stations, just not currently operating as passenger stations. How can WP:CRYSTAL apply to something that already exists? That all of these station have received in-depth coverage of the possibility of passenger service returning to them further demonstrates their notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of these even have prose about anything that was or is a station. In each, only the infobox is about the old station closed by 1981, and with no citations. (Except Lena station that has nothing about an old station at all.) So the sites that were/"are" stations have no references or text, and the sites that have references and text are not stations, never were stations, and will not be stations in the foreseeable future. Not only that, but for the future stations, most of the references are the same ones, broadly about the proposed new service line, not about each station; each article is then supplemented with news from a local paper. See the essay Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Audience. Whether for the old or new stations, where are the non-local references that support WP:GNG separate from the proposed route (or old route)? --Closeapple (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In each, only the infobox is about the old station closed by 1981" - That's actually an admission these were stations and that's the point. WP:CRYSTAL is nonsensical to stations that have already existed. --Oakshade (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: Well, not exactly. Service at those cities ended in 1981 when Amtrak discontinued the old Black Hawk. These articles aren't about those stations; they're about new stations which may or may not open at some future point. Possibly these are the same stations which closed in 1981, but there's nothing in the article about them so we don't know. We can't just lazily say that because there is going to be a station in Galena, and there was also a station in Galena up until 1981, that they are the same and therefore both notable. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 11 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Üqoi

AfDs for this article:

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

This does not seem to be a notable conlang. Professorjohnas (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I tried to find material to expand the article, but wasn't able to find much. The creator's page is only available using archive.org, and there's no evidence that Üqoi was ever picked up by a broader community or systematized. Delete. --Quantum 7 09:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I created the current stub based on the assumption that omniglot entries would have some notability. After further research I think that's not the case. --Quantum 7 09:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One sentence and no refs. Szzuk (talk) 07:51, 12 April 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, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umunnakwe Ugochukwu

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

Has not played in a fully professional league as defined by the WikiProject Football and required by WP:NFOOTBALL. There is also a concern with the verifiability as there is no coverage of this footballer. KingAndGod 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails to meets either second standard of WP:NFOOTBALL. He has played neither in a fully professional league (He has only played in I-League 2, Wikipedia considers only the Indian Super League and I-League as fully professional), nor has he played a senior international game for his country (or any international for that matter).FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY NZFC^(talk) 21:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFooty. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 8 April 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) 07:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that WP:GNG is met or that he is a notable soccer player. Papaursa (talk) 19:53, 12 April 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. Very rough, but there seems to be an agreement that the subject is notable, whether or not they meet WP:AUTHOR. ansh 666 05:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Baron Nicorvo

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

The article was created by a now blocked user who has some COI. the subject is author but apparently fails WP:AUTHORS. The cited references does not discuss the subject in depth but his non-notable work such as books. Some ref are self published so not independent. I am also unable to find significant coverage about the subject in independent RS thus nominating this for community to decide. Saqib (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 newspaper profiles; first novel that has attracted attention. I expanded, sourced the article a little. I think he scrapes past the bar at WP:AUTHOR. I do see that he probably created his own page, enormous numbers of actors, writers, wanna-be self-help gurus, etc. do that. And, if they pass the bar, we keep the articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Please provide here those two 2 newspaper profiles. Would be easier to me and others to make assessment. --Saqib (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazette (Cedar Rapids),Fighting the pull of poetry, this poet finds his muse in the military's role in his life in latest novel; The Capital Times, Thisbe Nissen and Jay Baron Nicorvo love being married to a writer (each other).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so the former one is an Q/A type interview which is considered primary source and material contained in such Q&A type interviews are not acceptable to cite claims on WP therefore it fails to meet GNG. Latter one is clearly not WP:SIGCOV. The story discuss the work of the subject not himself. Also point to noted is that the standard set for sources to establish the WP:N is higher in AfD as compare to support claims within an article so I would say unless we get some solid sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, we won't be able establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem ot misunder our standards. Assertions made by an interviewee in a RS are WP reliable when cited to the interviewee (According to Nicorvo...). Interviews and feature stories in reliable, secondary sources not only count towards notability, they constitute it. Here, two of the interviews (WMUK and The Capital Times) are local and therefore count less; The Gazette (Cedar Rapids) is not local to him. Moreover, there is no requirement that we can source a bio for an individuals under WP:CREATIVE, if the work is notable, the creator is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nicorvo.. what is that? As per WP:IV, a subject may approach a niche magazine and succeed in getting an interview published, which is marginal and only barely more than self published, and may even be discounted under WP:NOTPROMOTION. Some are just softball Q&A allowing the interviewee to say anything he likes....These kinds of interviews are broadly unhelpful in establishing notability. full stop. I agree feature stories and profiles in independent RS are acceptable but these Q&A type interviews are not therefore one should not be using them to establish the WP:N. I'm not satisfied with the quality of sources provided here to establish the WP:N. And I agree if the work is notable, the author is notable but in this case, none of the subject's work (novel,book) is notable at least by WP standards. I'm afraid you are unable to provide here some solid coverage about the subject. --Saqib (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My iVote is based on WP:AUTHOR and the reception of his first novel, and the some press attention as a poet. In addito to the two interviews discussed above, there is a review and an interview that ran on WMUK, a review in Booklist, a capsule review in Library Journal , two inclusions in book-of-the-year list and some other stuff. As I said, to me, it seems to scrape by, but let's see what other editors think.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical if audio or video interviews are even placed in AfD's to establish the WP:N? I am willing to hear what others have to say about my nomination. --Saqib (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audio and video in WP:RS media like the public radio station WMUK are treated in the same manner as other reliable media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I said I am not sure if audio or video interviews are even placed in AfD's to establish the WP:N.. --Saqib (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:NAUTHOR isn't met, but WP:GNG probably is. This isn't a BLP1E case now, but if the author is never heard from again, it might be considered one in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: could you please explain why do you think the subject meet GNG? GNG means "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". --Saqib (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the ref from the gazette looks ok, there are other bits and pieces, I'm ok with audio/video being used as refs as long as it isn't user generated like youtube. Szzuk (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found an article on the novel The Standard Grand has been created just recently. The subject has received most of the coverage due to this novel so Wouldn't it be better idea to Redirect this BLP into the novel article ? @Szzuk, Power~enwiki, and E.M.Gregory: what are you thoughts? --Saqib (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I almost always prefer to merge the book to the author's article when both are of marginal notability. As far as GNG, the various newspaper coverage (not entirely about either his book or his wife) is enough for me, though only barely; it's possible to interpret enough of it as trivial such that the person does not meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, it is marginal but we may as well just leave it be. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:power~enwiki that it makes sense to write up this book on author's page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 22 April 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 prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Miller

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not proven. References are dead. Makro (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe weak-ish...). In cases like these, I check Variety, THR, and Deadline to see if there are non-zero mentions – Logan Miller actually gets multiple "hits" from just these three press outlets. He headlined the Disney XD series I'm in the Band, and seems to have gotten some "heat" for Love, Simon and the upcoming The Maze (2018 film). (There's also significant roles in Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse and Before I Fall (film).) Considering all of this, and the fact that he's a still-working actor likely to accrue more credits, I think he nominally meets WP:NACTOR. All that said, the article could sure use some of that available sourcing from Variety, THR, and Deadline, etc... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 14 April 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. Very low-quality discussion, few editors actually address the quality of the sourcing. Can be renominated if still deemed deficient after the editing that has been done. Sandstein 06:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Davis (businessman)

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

~~No notability outside of Prodege. Fails WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the article was created by Nicoleprodege, unlikely coincidence? Clearly an SPA which explains why there is so much unsourced info on his early life, and basically everything expect his being chief of Prodege. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - few press releases but nothing more. Lorstaking (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "No notability outside of Prodege", he is a businessman. He is supposed to be notable because of his business. E.g. Donald Trump is notable only because of his business career and presidency of the US. He wouldn't have a Wikipedia article if those are not considered. As for Chuck Davis, there are sources like [37][38][39][40][41]. KingAndGod 14:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found some more third party coverage, and added it. I also culled some of the unsourced promotional info. Davis served as CEO for three companies on Wikipedia, and is an active partner with Technology Crossover Ventures, a >$2.5 Billion VC firm that should have its own article.[[42]] I'm looking for other coverage to add now. Passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is too much bias against businesspeople and toward inclusion of sports and actors here. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

And the reason why you think we should keep this one is? ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at this state, a mere CV/promo page. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be sorted by editing. Not a reason to delete. KingAndGod 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added some more info with sourcing, and culled some of the unsourced info to make it less problematic. Does that change anyone's delete vote? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:49, 10 April 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 appreciate RoySmith's point that these could well be interesting lists for readers; I'll be honest and was somewhat excited to read them. That being said, they are, as many have pointed out, hopelessly incomplete, and will forever be due to the sheer number of molecules (I'll also add on a pedantic note that "molecule" is overbroad, and could arguably include every transcription and translation product from every species). More relevantly, there doesn't seem to be any indication that molecules as such have been described or the subject of great writings in the context of their century of discovery. Such information is more relevant and interesting for elements, but it does not appear so for molecules. The importance of molecules has nothing to do with how notable their year of discovery/invention may be; I don't need to care when water or TNT were "discovered" to care about what they do. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of molecules discovered in the 21st century

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

This list is so uncompletable as to be useless. The number of molecules currently known is astonishingly large, and what counts as discovery? shoy (reactions) 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

shoy (reactions) 20:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociate 21st and 20th centuries per nom as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not sure about the 19th. That one possibly could be short enough??? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th century list might be viable as List of earliest discovered molecules. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of molecules, organized by century and year of discovery, for an article with similar structure you can rewiev.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_shipwrecks_by_year

The previous link shows an article with millions of shipwrecks, what they did with the article is separate them in smaller list, one list per year...

This page belong to a series of three pages, that begins with the definition and discovery of elements and molecular theory that starts in 17th century and the first molecules properly discovered by John Dalton and Amedeo Avogadro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_discovered_in_the_19th_century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_discovered_in_the_20th_century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_discovered_in_the_21st_century

The articles are for now not so big as the Lists_of_shipwrecks_by_year, and it is to small that is ok to have theme grouped in pages listing molecules discovered by centuries and not in lists of discovering by years.

If the lists gets big enough I will create lists per decade o per year.

Molecules are way more important that ships and new molecules are discovered and created all the time.

A single molecule could look so small that has to be observed in microscopes, but if we group one specific molecule in the whole universe in one place and we put together the same molecules, for example, water or oxygen... We could no just fill a swimming pool with it, not just an ocean, but a whole galaxy with water or oxygen... In fact there should be galaxies full of water... and our planet could be located in a desertic zone not worthy even for a visit for an smarter and more advanced civilization.

And in other hand, the use that we can do to each molecule could not have limits, could be a drug, a source of energy or even can be part of ourselves during our lifetime. Discovery of new molecules should be as or more important than the discovery of a new star, galaxy or planet.--Zchemic (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps list of sodium compounds discovered in the 20th century or list of iron compounds discovered in the 21st century would be much shorter. --Leiem (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. List is incomplete and unverified but has all the hallmarks of an indiscriminate list. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Date of discovery is a mostly irrelevant statistic for a chemical compound - let's leave collections of statistics such as these to databases that are designed for that purpose such as Chemical Abstracts where you can find the first reported date for over 100 million individual chemical compounds. These lists are a bad idea and hopelessly unmanageable on Wikipedia. A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#List_of_molecules_by_year_of_discovery indicates Wikipedia's chemists are opposed to having these lists. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per WP:NON-DEFINING: do not categorise non-defining properties of an article. - DePiep (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the infoboxes {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} (together 17k articles) don't even have a parameter option "date of discovery". (And yes, {{Infobox element}} has — equally correct). - DePiep (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Ridiculous (although well intentioned). How does one confirm the date of discovery (vs date of publication)? Also seems useless.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the list will be much too long to every be useful. Restricting to molecules rules out other kinds of substance, such as ionic, or covalent crystals. Instead of this there could be a history of chemistry in each century, but that is irrelevant to the uselessness off these lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that I'm swimming upstream here, but I think these could be interesting and useful articles. However, I'm unclear what the inclusion criteria is. For example, List of molecules discovered in the 19th century includes water in 1811. What does that mean? Certainly, people knew water existed before then. Is 1811 when the molecular structure was worked out? Probably not, because there wasn't any understanding of covalent bonds until a century after that. Or was it just when the stoichiometric ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen was worked out? Or something else? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 13 April 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. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Gage

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

No notability proven Makro (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has had some promotional editing, but I have added enough for it to easily pass WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think he's sneaking over the line for gng with the added refs. Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 19 April 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, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honeysuckle Gelato

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

local company with local following, according to the article itself. Only the first ref is conceivably usable. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at worst this would be a merge and redirect to Ponce City Market per WP:PRESERVE. In addition to the extensive coverage in the Atlanta Magazine article noted above there is also lots of coverage from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, recognition as an important local food purveyor from the University of Georgia, and coverage in other Atlanta area news sources. I deem it enough to make this special company with distinctive products notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local company that fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, it cannot decisively meet WP:NCORP. And does not have a Wikipedia administrator as a frequent and cherished customer. But it runs up quite a few mentions in the media. And it's not too soon. And it's a business that contributes to the Atlanta Community Food Bank. So, weak knees. -The Gnome (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None, zero, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. FloridaArmy says there is "extensive coverage" in the Atlanta Magazine but completely fails to say that none of the coverage could be considered intellectually independent since it consists of interviews and quotations or small mentions-in-passing, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Perhaps FloridaArmy, who !votes a lot at AfD could point out some of the "extensive coverage" that would be considered to meet the criteria for establishing notability? FloridaArmy also conveniently forgets to point out that the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) articles are blog posts, thereby fails WP:RS as blog posts are not considered as reliable sources. We really need contributors who !vote regularly at AfD to provide !votes based on policies and guidelines especially if their !votes are based on the quality of sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) you're wrong on notability and interviews, they do help establish notability when done by reliable independent sources. "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."

2) I am seeing news coverage not interviews. Lots of articles on this Atlanta indie business. Jist click the "news" libk above.

3) You haven't addressed why if this business isn't independently notable, failing to merge content according to wp:preserve would be appropriate when an aplroproate target with bysinesses in the market already exists.

I've looked at the many articles discussing the company and its products. Choosing it for an award as one of Atlanta's best. And discussion of the founders, product offerings, and role in the Ponce City Market and notability is clearly established per guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) No ... articles that rely extensively on interviews and quotations are not intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Clearly stated in the guidelines.

2) Please post links so that the "news" articles can be assessed.

3) Sure, if there's anything notable to merge.

And post links to the articles you are referring to. The guidelines for establishing notability are different in relation to references than those references that may be used to support information and facts within an article. The criteria for establishing notability requires two sources. To date, zero sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor establishment of local and passing interest only. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 21 April 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) 02:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grandson (Musical Artist)

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

A young rapper who fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. maybe WP:TOOSOON. Saqib (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this just states that he exists and doesn't even attempt to document anything that could even be measured against our actual inclusion standard for musicians — and it doesn't cite anywhere near enough references to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of our complete inability to determine whether he passes NMUSIC or not. Technically, in fact, this is outright speediable. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 9 April 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi

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

Mostly unsourced and (partly copyvio) hagiography of a Shia cleric in Kashmir which doesn't appear to credibly assert notability per WP:BIO. I've searched online yesterday and today for WP:RS on him: this is difficult for a bio of someone from Kashmir, and transliteration of his name is not given here or anywhere I can find online. So I've used a best-efforts transliteration of "آغا سید مصطفی موسووی", and can find nothing in WP:RS under that spelling either. His main claim to fame seems to be as the successor to his father-in-law, Ayatullah Aga Syed Yusuf Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi. I do see a few WP:RS in GNEWS about that similarly-named relative online, but WP:Notability is not inherited. The only source cited in the article that mentions him is the source of the copyvio, [43], an obituary from the organisation he founded and led, Anjuman-e-Sharie Shian, which I wouldn't consider to be a WP:RS. Some of the claims in the article, about a leadership struggle in which Iranian ayatollahs got involved, might make him notable if we could find some sources for it. But these might be in one of several languages. I tried to cut it down to a stub in the hopes of Farsi, Kashmiri, and Arabic speakers getting involved with referencing and proving me wrong about his notability, but was repeatedly reverted by the article's creator, a new editor. I'd be amenable to moving this to draft, if other editors think there's a good likelihood of verifying some of the claims made. But as far as I can tell he fails WP:BIO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per [44] [45], [46], [47] I suspect he is notable, and is usually referred to as Agha Syed Mustafa and leading a large part of this group following a 1982 split. His sons also went on to senior positions. I am holding off my !vote as I am not sure about the quality of the sourcing here, but my gut feeling is that he probably is notable - though the language issue (and naming variants, including the whole leadership family being named in a very similar fashion complicating things) as well as lack of on-line references (the 80s are actually tricky - much is not digitized, and you have less book coverage than earlier periods) might make finding stuff difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a help, didn't occur to me to search on just "Aga (or Agha) Syed Mustafa". And I forgot to mention, their surname is also romanized various ways online: so far I've seen Moosavi, Mosavi, Moosvi, and Mosvi. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The romanized Persian is usually Mousavi (regarding Kashmiri translits, well..... it seems to vary), but it seems that the last two components of the name ("Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi" - with or without the al-....) are often dropped.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are you satisfied with Icewhiz's response and the sources contained therein, The Mighty Glen? Would you like to withdraw the AfD or continue? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The response from User:Icewhiz was welcome, but I don't see how we can judge notability at this point, with the references currently cited. There's a ton of references added since the AFD began, but most don't mention him, and it's difficult for me to judge the reliability of the ones that do. I'd be content with a "no consensus" for now. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, but in passing. I suspect he is notable, but will not !vote bolded as I am unsure of source quality here and the level of my topic area knowledge (and given I just suspect notability). A no consensus would not be a bad close (assuming no experienced India/Pakistan editors weigh in).Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 21 April 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaede Aono

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

Not enough in-depth coverage (only some routine and trivial coverage) from independent, reliable sources, hence does not meet WP:GNG, and definitely does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks any notability.FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:40, 5 April 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Payless DIY

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

Defunct DIY chain with sources linking to Do It All. Can't see any notability with this one... Nightfury 08:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep. This is of an age where online information is going to be scanty. However, there are some indications it could be notable with some library searches. Some of its history is in back issues of Retail Business. Only snippet view available on gbooks but it appears to be reasonably detailed. There are lots of passing mentions of their takeover and merges, and they frequently get mentioned taking part in the battle over Sunday trading laws of the era. Court cases concerning their Sunday trading are cited as precedent cases in books on law. SpinningSpark 14:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs more than one reference to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: Well the book Tales from the Marketplace gives it a couple of paragraphs. Not much, but it's strongly encyclopaedic with citable facts on the history. Note also that the Retail Business source I linked above is a volume of issues and Payless DIY seems to have articles in two separate issues of the magazine. The magazine Do-it-yourself Retailing is again only snippet view but appears to have a substantial article. This book seems to have a lot more than a passing mention, snippet view won't give anything that can be put in the article but almost certainly there will be something there if the full article is accessed. The legal actions on Sunday trading I mentioned above [48][49][50][51][52] are passing mentions, but together could probably add a sentence or two to the article The first source in that list in particular is a secondary source that puts the cases in the context of the effectiveness of political lobbying. SpinningSpark 09:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - expecting a simple Google search to throw up much on a 1980s chain seems fruitless. It looks like someone needs to roll up their sleeves and do some historic research and citations on this one, with Google Books being a decent starting point. I'm seeing multiple decent discussions in sources like Investors Chronicle, and an 1994 book on one of its parent companies. I do wonder if it would be better placed as part of an article on Ward White - which seems to have more significant references, and seems to have significance in the history of Boots UK and the Sunday Trading Act 1994 Mattyjohn (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are no delete votes, a cleanup discussion can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular warfare

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

This word seems to be a neologism with no actual difference from "asymmetric warfare" - I considered proposing a merger, but looking over the article there is not much salvagable content here due to the articles over-reliance on primary sources. This Routlede source [53] explcitly states that "irregular warfare" "asymmetric warfare" and "non-conventional warfare" are all different phrases that mean the same thing, so this title should redirect to the main article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: Right now we seem to have at least four articles on the same subject including:

Even if there is a justification for a standalone article about the American military doctrine, we surely do not need three separate articles devoted to it (all with citations to the blog irregularwarrior.com)... Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and this is not a neologism (which if at all asymmetric warfare is) - use of this term dates back decades at least. Thre might be merit for a merge - maybe - but it is a complex decision here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I confess to being puzzled by Nom's assertion that there is "no actual difference" between Irregular warfare and asymmetric warfare. Nom is perhaps unfamiliar with literature on these two types of warfare. But the should be a WP:SNOW keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why E.M.Gregory is puzzled because I posted WP:RS supporting it here [54] - he should post secondary WP:RS instead of making vague statements about uncited "literature"?Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The irregular war definitions are so broad as to both internally contradict each other, as well as both overlap and contrast with asymmetric warfare. If one definition was so clearly the accepted one, then picking that and working with it would be fine, but given the frequent usage of each, we seem to have an article that rests on a very shaky/changeable base. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many useful scholarly and political terms in have variant and/or competing definitions, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Here' a JSTOR search on this topic: [55].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that irregular warfare encompasses any or most warfare not between regular armies engaged in a formal war. This encompasses Unconventional warfare, and in most cases also encompasses Asymmetric warfare (but not always - a very strong nation against a very weak one could be asymmetric with regular forces on both sides). In any case - this is a widely used term.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact same article as Unconventional Warfare and Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine) - it is cited to the same primary sources, including the same blog. There isn't anything worth merging from this article.
variant and/or competing definitions should be dealt with in one article, not by creating POVFORKs - according to WP:RS which I posted from Routledge there is no difference between the terms, with some scholars preferring one to the other in describing the same topic...These arguments sound like they are pushing editor's WP:ORSeraphim System ^(talk) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Routledge source you posted says nothing of the sort. It does say "Irregular warfare of this sort is sometimes referred to as" - treating a subform and not the entire concept.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a subform of irregular warfare. To take the example you described, a conventional army facing one of overwhelmingly superior strength (as in Iraq) will splinter and engage with unconventional tactics. They are different terms describing the same thing. The definitions in these articles trying to classify one as a subform of other are inconsistent, and they are either unsourced or sourced to the same non-RS blog - please don't just repeat what you read in the article here as an argument against deletion.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeated what the source you provided said - which is not that they are the same. Some, but not all (e.g. irregular forces on both sides), forms of irregular warfare are asymetric. The terms are not equivelant.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the book does not provide the best definition. It does say "irregular warfare of this sort" and then goes on to say 4GW, OOTW and irregular warfare overlap. Even if you were able to show sources to justify a clear conceptual distinction between asymmetric warfare and irregular warfare in WP:RS, it is even more unlikely to distinguish irregular warfare from unconventional warfare. How many POVFORKs do we need for one topicSeraphim System ^(talk) 15:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The academic consensus is that non-conventional warfare is asymmetric warfare. What makes the conflict non-conventional is the asymmetric power between state and non-state actors. Some sources yse the word irregular warfare as a form of asymmetric warfare, others say asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare - but the majority of WP:RS make no distinction. They use one term or the other -this latter category of sources pose the largest problem to editors. For example: [56] - Why would we include this content in one article but not the other? This is not a good way to write articles. These views should all be represented in separate sections of one-well written article about non-conventional warfare. Sections that grew too long could be spun out. Once again we have a case where four or five articles have been written on the same topic, and they are all of poor quality and sourced to primary sources or blogs. The best approach here is deletion of the POVFORKs and redirecting - can someone please say what content of this article they feel is worth salvaging by merger? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that academic consensus is nothing of the sort. The latest source you brought says asymetric is usually irregular. So it usually a subform. Not always. And some irregular is not asymetric.Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone posting on this discussion without bothering to post any WP:RS backing their opinions should at least be aware of the widely accepted basic facts about this topic - this is not even something that is controversial or disputed. The only WP:RS for splitting these is the US military doctrine which this article is based on [57] that says asymmetric warfare is a component of irregular warfare, which also includes "terrorism" - but the majority of academic sources consider terrorism to be a form of asymmetric warfare. More sources:

Asymmetric warfare of all forms share the same similarities - [58] [59]
irregular (asymmetric) warfare [60]

This entire history should be discussed in one article. It's a neologism. I think editors should consult some of the literature before commenting per WP:FORUM. Icewhiz You said And some irregular is not asymmetric - what is the WP:RS for this? Think about it - if it was conventional warfare between two militaries it would not be irregular warfare. These are all different ways of saying the same thing - Wikipedia articles are not written from the POV of U.S. government primary sources and the arbitrary and poorly explained distinctions they have chosen to make. If this distinction is supported by secondary sources you need to post those sources to explain why you are voting keep.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would, however, withdraw this nomination and agree to move this to a merger discussion if an editor who supports keeping this article could indicate which part of this article and its sourcing would be worth salvaging by merging? I didn't see anything when I nominated but if someone who claims more familiarity with the literature can explain which part of this article has value, then I am open to a merger discussion. What is the point of a merger discussion if there is nothing in the article to merge?Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far every source you have brought to this discussion has actually supported irregular warfare as distinct from asymetric. As an example, two non state actors - e.g. Kurds vs. the former Islamic state would be an example of irregular warfare that is not asymetric (as would be a few other sides in the Syrian civil war). So would be several African conflicts. We have an abundance of sources that discuss irregular warfare.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think that - the source literally says asymmeteric warfare in the sense of such armed conflicts being entirely unconventional warfare in nature or sharing the same ingredients or characteristics of irregularity. You will have to post the direct quotes that support your argument here (or on the article talk page later), because I don't see that in the sources at all...
The example of the Kurds and ISIS is an interesting point, and personally I agree that it would be an example of irregular warfare that is not asymmetric - but do you have any sources on point for this? It would require a major rewrite of the article in any case, but if there is sourcing for this it might establish notability for an independent topic.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the POV of the US irregular is often assymetric (with the exception of the US using irregular proxies, e.g. Bay of Pigs and many others). IS /Nusra/ Kurds is a bit too modern of an example for academic writing, but there are plenty of sources on irregular warfare in various African conflicts.Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well studied form of warfare with its own voluminous literature. As the Routledge source linked to in the Nom suggests, IW can sometimes overlap with Asymmetric Warfare (AW). But this does make IW = AW anymore than phenomena like Formula One means Driving = Racing. We often have IW involving "irregular elements fighting against other irregular elements" - when they are of about the same strength, as has been the case for example in some of recent factional skirmishes in Syria, then it's not AW. Similarly, in the admittedly fairly rare case where two grossly mismatched regular forces fight, its Asymmetric but not IW. I hope this helps clear up any confusion.FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've recently returned from a long wiki break, welcome back. An article in this condition should properly be TNT'd. There is nothing salvageable in the article and it will have to be rewritten entirely based on secondary sources. Posting forum like comments without WP:RS supporting them does not clear up any confusion. If we go by the sources and not your WP:OR these terms all mean the same thing - non conventional warfare. There is no widely accepted working definition more specific than that (neologism).

There is no widely accepted, working definition for this term in WP:RS - that is a neologism. No editor has been able to post a reliable source for how to define this. Every source we have looked at defines it differently, and none of those definitions is distinguishable from similar definitions given for asymmetric warfare and non-conventional warfare. No one can really say what the accepted definition of irregular warfare is, only that it is in use. That is a neologism. Until editors can produce sources to support their personal theories about how these words should be defined, this article should at least be moved back to userspace/draftspace. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cursory search shows that multiple books and journal papers have been written on IW in the past few decades. This is not a neologism. I disagree that definitions conflict - for the most part they are quite aligned - but even if they did this would not be grounds for deletion. This is a 10 year old article that is not great, but not bad either (the def according to US doctrine in the lead should probably go, as should some refs). This is far from TNT.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can say I disagree but the fact is that the definitions in the sources do contradict each other. A term can be in use and still be a neologism. In fact, most neologisms are compound terms that are artificial constructs, much like this one. Most of the article is sourced to the blog irregularwarrior.com and to primary sources. The fact that this has been in mainspace for 10 years is embarrassing - the length of time only means that significant improvement is unlikely. It shouldn't just stay in main space like this forever with an empty hope that a competent editor, knowledgeable about the subject, will come along and do the work to rewrite the entire article based on secondary sources - it should be draftified unless someone is actually planning to work on it.
If all the primary sources were removed than it would basically be stubified - that might be better than a redlink, but the encyclopedia loses nothing by redirecting this to Unconventional warfare...I guess this could be discussed further in a merger proposal - but you have declined to indicate what part of this article you think should be kept by merging.
The arguments here have focused a lot of asymmetric warfare but have not addressed the possibility of redirecting/merging to unconventional warfare - Even if there are WP:RS to support the one case editors have proposed of irregular warfare that is not asymmetric (between two irregular forces, instead of one irregular force and a conventional military) why couldn't that just be added to the unconventional warfare article?Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to merge to Unconventional warfare has even less merit than asymmetric - which is why I at least did not address this. While UW is IW (usually), this does not mean UW=IW. Unconventional warfare refers to the very narrow use of irregular warfare (using on the ground resistance movements and/or some other proxy force connected to counter regime forces) by a state actor to overthrow the regime of another state actor. IW is much wider than that - e.g. guerrilla forces that are not supported by foreign governments (and of course the example above of Kurds / Nusra / Islamic-State against each other).Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome back Seraphim, most kind of you. From my less than complete knowledge of the sources here, I think you might have a stronger case with UW. Still, Icewhiz may be correct, they obviously know what they're talking about in this topic class. Certainly some scholars do like to differentiate IW & UW, for example good professor Stathis Kalyvas (now at All Souls Oxford) has been doing so in various books and papers since at least 2005. As EM Gregory says, "definition conflict" issues exist with a great many useful scholarly terms. It's been said that "All other trades are contained in that of war." , while in contrast no less an authoritative source than von Clausewitz defined war as merely a subset of Politics. Yet obviously the vast majority of sources make a distinction(at least implicitly), and we best serve our readers by having separate articles for war & politics. With IW & UW I agree consolidation was worth considering, but on balance keeping separate articles seems the encyclopaedic thing to do, per WP:CONSPLIT and the fact there is sometimes distinction in the sources.FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Icewhiz is correct is not what matters here, whether or not WP:RS support his proposed defnitions does. various books and papers - usually a reference given in a discussion should be enough for an editor to verify. (Page numbers and quotes should be provided when an editor requests them) - as I have done here. This is not really a good use of time because this will all have to be discussed again during a merger proposal where contributing editors will be expected to post supporting WP:RS, which they have declined to do here despite several requests. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and While I honor the raising of the redundant article issue, deleting is not the solution. Starting a dialogue on the various pages, on starting with a single merge of two of them is. Sethie (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable subject; meets GNG, for example: Ethics Education for Irregular Warfare, War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A single book published by Praeger Security does not show WP:GNG, it shows that this is a POVFORK - with the hundreds of books available no one has been able to point to one that explains the difference between unconventional warfare and irregular warfare. Only sources that use one term or the other.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:34, 11 April 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 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Kannada-language media

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

Listcruft.. There is no good reason showing why such a list is worthwhile. Saqib (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article(Link) also exists for Tamil Nadu state. Its a collective information of all media categories. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Saqib (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is listcruft, the article creator would be advised to find the best way of organising the information; for example - create categories, put the information in a new prose section or use "see also" wikilinks. Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 19 April 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) 02:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LK Sudhish

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

This page was speedy deleted twice last year under G7 and G11.. this is a BLP on a film producer-turned-politician but basically it fails WP:POLITICIAN because the subject never elected to state or national level parliament. Second this may also fails WP:PRODUCER because seemingly he may have produced some Tamil movies but on a closer look, I found that the subject was not the actual producer but some company called Captain Cine Creations which is apparently run or owned by Vijayakanth... Vijayakanth starred in all the movie mentioned on this page and is brother in law of the subject. Saqib (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsuccessful election candidates do not pass WP:NPOL just for being candidates — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clinch notability as a politician, and otherwise the only other route to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself. But this offers no such evidence at all: film producers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie either, but get Wikipedia articles only if they can be reliably sourced as clearing WP:GNG for their work as film producers — but LK Sudhish's work as a film producer is "referenced" to IMDb-like databases and blogs, not to any media coverage about him. There's also a history of conflict of interest here, as the article's original iteration last year was created by the subject himself as an WP:AUTOBIO (which, furthermore, falsely claimed his holding of a political office he has not actually held), so even though I can't prove it this time I have my doubts about this version's creator too. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator's assessment is correct, the subject was a candidate for a political office but failed to win said office, and their career as a film producer fails WP:ENT.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and does not appear to pass WP:ENT either. SportingFlyer talk 21:50, 7 April 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 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Jha

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

Non-notable model and beauty pageant contestant, I originally prodded this article, but the prod was then removed by the author without any improvements in the sources with a comment made edits to make the article unbiased. There is no evidence to satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL and no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with the observation of of this other person; Media reference has been provided and the page is not promotional at all. She brought a lot of pride and fame to country by winning Miss International Tourism from participants of 108 countries and was a Femina Miss India Top-5California.match1 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@California.match1: Can you please provide a reliable source to support your assertion? because as per what I can see is the winner of Miss Tourism International 2006 was Manea Florina. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987:Yes, here is the link to a prominent publication of India- DNAIndia for your reference. Seems like you are getting confused between "Miss Tourism International" and "Miss International Tourism", The way it works is that Top-5 of Miss India get sent to 5 different pageants like Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International etc; Please see this link-[61] California.match1 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@California.match1: Ok so as per this interview published back in 2006 she was the winner of a non-notable beauty contest Miss International Tourism which is different from Miss Tourism International so winning a non-notable/minor beauty contest does not impart notability in my opinion and there is no evidence to setisfy WP:NACTOR either. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987:I beg to differ. As a matter of fact, Miss International Tourism is bigger than Miss Tourism International which is backed by a South East Asian Conutry. You may have seen this in a DNA India link. Not just that, she was one of the Top-5 Miss India as well and I can't post the youTube link because of wiki policy but you are more than welcome to look it up and here is another link to support: [62]. Hope this suffices.California.match1 (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable beauty pageant loser.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. samee converse 08:04, 13 April 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. Despite the assertion of additional sources, they don't seem to provide notability, and WP:NPROF doesn't seem to be met. ansh 666 04:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Zangeneh

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

does not meet notability criteria, has too little substance, and too few sources Schnapps17 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that it is my opinion that he does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnapps17 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable academic, I've added sources and more are available. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar shows citation count too low for WP:PROF#C1 [63]. Journal editor could pass a different WP:PROF criterion but only for a significant and well-established journal, which this one doesn't seem to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So... what happens now that this has been relisted twice with no more input?Schnapps17 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 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 Newton-X. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewtonX

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

Non-notable tech company startup. Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of in-depth, significant sources that mention the company itself as opposed to covering the field of AI and tech startups. Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the same reason, with what limited coverage the start-up being focused around interviews. Also a likely WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON failure given that the company was founded in 2016. It is also important to note that the company does not inherit notability from it's founders, which themselves are likely non-notable. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company has major investors, huge clients, and notable founders. Editing to make this clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElainaNX (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Newton-X. I created this redirect after deleting the first appearance of this page as A7 because it's a plausible search term. The company discussed here is not notable as the nominator has pointed out despite the newly added "sources" one of which dates before the company was founded and the other merely mentions it once without context. I found no more coverage than that (except some "says John Doe, CEO of NewtonX" mentions). Regards So Why 06:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adheres to WP:COMPANY due to validity of sources concerning founders and company (Wired, VentureBeat, TNW, Harvard Business School - all of which = multiple and reliable sources WP:SOURCE and WP:RS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElainaNX (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ElainaNX has been blocked for sock puppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElainaNX.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, some new refs were added but notability didn't change. Szzuk (talk) 07:31, 12 April 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) 02:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Pierre Layman

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

non notable minor academic and minor writer. I was asked a few days ago for my opinion at User Talk:Ritchie333, and said: "It's easy to document the books on WorldCat, and that's what I use to prevent WP:BLPPROD when relevant; I do not consider PRnewswire a RS for bio. There are a few more books, but the only significant one is Biology Demystified. ("Running..." is just his phd thesis,which has never been cited; he has no research publications. I added the thesis and the ref to the article.) . The information in the two press releases is absurd hyperbola. The only possible WP:PROF criterion is the subsection of criterion 4, "Tor example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." One of his book is in 1200 libraries. But it is not a college textbook, but a very elementary presentation--the publisher's blurb found in the Worldcat reference, makes it plain that it is deliberately written to be something easier than a textbook. And I don't think this single book would meet WP:AUTHOR either. I haven't looked for reviews , though. This is an attempt at a promotional bio presumably motivated by a forthcoming publication. A remarkably unsophisticated attempt at puffery, to judge by the originally submitted text, which can still be seen in the ref it was copied from. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been a little conflicted on this one, as can be seen in the discussion that led up to this. The subject abundantly fails GNG, and from what I can tell, it's not actually possible at this point to write anything other than a barely and overall poorly referenced stub. Reading DGG's take on it, one in these two areas in particular I respect, arguments for AUTHOR and PROF are borderline at the very best. So I'm inclined to think that in a situation like that, where nothing other than a barely and overall poorly referenced stub can in principle be written on a BLP, we should probably err on the side of deletion, since according to policy, all this poorly referenced material should be removed anyway, leaving us with essentially either a blank page, or a short bibliography for an article. GMG ^talk 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not part of the discussion referred to above. I ran good faith searches on his name and on Biology demystified but found nothing useful - a Proquest news archive search turned up 5 press releases and nothing else. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 10 April 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 13:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Stewart

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

Queried speedy delete for notability query. This page has stood for 12 years :: better discuss it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has written one - apparently not that successful - book on his own. No other indicators of notability.Wikitigresito (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of a single book, published by "Ithaca Books", my searches have not turned up the least trace of that publisher, and I assume that the book is self-published. I cannot say for sure whether any of his academic work in forestry or in Arabic/Islamic studies is notable (several book chapters listed on the page,) but the article itself seems to indicate that this may be an individual whose trajectory has followed the sort of tragic path depicted in A Beautiful Mind (film). In sadness, E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 10 April 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) Szzuk (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Young

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

WP:BLP of a person whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources, rather than to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media. Neither being a non-winning contestant on a reality show nor appearing as a guest judge on a different one is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this to qualify for a Wikipedia article — he would have to pass WP:GNG on the strength of media coverage, but none of the sourcing here counts a whit toward getting him there. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, samee converse 08:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a rudimentary WP:BEFORE comes up with lots of coverage in reliable independent sources of this pastry chef, inventor of the renowned PieCakein, celebrity chef, and culinary businessman. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – is Mr. Young Julia Child no. But has garnered enough reliable – secondary news coverage to meet WP:GNG guidelines as shown here [64]. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some sprucing up, but seems to meet GNG. GlassCobra 16:32, 24 April 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. Well that was an interesting one! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Kurrajong Heights - Modern Residential to Cost £25,000

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

Appears to be a wholesale copy-paste of a news article from 1926 with no claim to encyclopedic notability. Madg2011 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY - None of the content available on Trove is mere copy and paste.

In Trove's About Page https://trove.nla.gov.au/general/about (and verified by me during a telephone call to The National Library of Australia +61 02 6262-1266) it states:

About Trove Trove helps you find and use resources relating to Australia. It's more than a search engine. Trove brings together content from libraries, museums, archives, repositories and other research and collecting organisations big and small. A list of contributors and partners whose collections are included in Trove can be viewed online.

Trove's origins can be traced back to a project launched by the National Library of Australia in August 2008. Its aim was to build a portal for all of the Library’s online discovery services, including the Register of Australian Archives and Manuscripts, Picture Australia, Libraries Australia, Music Australia, Australia Dancing, PANDORA web archive, ARROW Discovery Service and the Australian Newspapers Beta service.

Today Trove is transformed, growing far beyond its original purpose and becoming many things to many people: a community, a set of services, an aggregation of metadata, and a growing repository of full text digital resources. Trove is a platform on which new knowledge is being built. It is a collaboration between the National Library, Australia's State and Territory libraries and hundreds of cultural and research institutions around Australia, working together to create a legacy of Australia’s knowledge for now and into the future.

Best of all, Trove is yours. As you text correct, comment, tag or contribute content you are helping to build a better service for everyone.

During my telephone conversation with the Librarian he was interested to hear that I intended to use the newspaper clippings for inclusion in Wikipedia. He said that as long as I credited The National Library of Australia I was allowed to use any newspaper scan before 1950 as they were out of copyright and now in the Public Domain.

This article (and hopefully many more) will form a part of the MAIN Wiki page I am constructing called [Kurrajong Heights Hotel] that is in Draft at the moment.

Here is a link to the condition of this article in Trove https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/85956118

Will I have to go through this for every news clipping I add to Wikipedia?

User:Southern Armada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Armada (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add any news clippings to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper archive. You can link to pages on other websites (see WP:REF), but please don't just copy things like this. It's not what Wikipedia is all about. Please also note (re: Draft:Kurrajong Heights Hotel) that we don't write articles as a sequence of quotes from newspapers. Again, that's not how encyclopaedias are written. Use your own words and cite the sources; don't just copy from elsewhere (except very sparingly when a direct quote really is appropriate). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper archive. - Indeed, Trove is the newspaper archive. We don't need to mirror it here. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ajf773 (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This. Is. Not. An. Encyclopaedia. Article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per the two editors above. While this appears to have been created in very good faith as part of creating an article, Wikipedia entries need to be encyclopedic content. Trove does a great job of preserving material like this, and should be used as the reference for the article - there's no need to bring references 'in house' by copying their text into Wikipedia as was the intention here. Southern Amada, you might find Help:Referencing for beginners useful. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as nom. Didn't mean to WP:BITE the newcomer - certainly seems like the article was created in good faith. Madg2011 (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not on the internet unless I put it there. Therefore it cannot be cited. The scans on Trove are barely readable and when a person (as I do) corrects the scan it is still not in a presentable form. Did anyone check my source? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/85956118 In bringing the existence of the Kurrajong Heights Hotel to the internet (as there is nothing now) it will be preserved. And preserving the journalistic jargon of the time is worthy of keeping, not my grammatical version of what happened so many years ago. I have even created an image of the headlines to preserve that historical feel. Southern Armada (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of news stories and the like. Trove welcomes reader-generated corrections to the automatically scanned text (which appears in the column at the left of the page), and has a large community of volunteers who do this (details of how to participate are available here). If the Trove scan and its automatically generated text aren't useful, I'd suggest that you correct it. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is not on the internet unless I put it there - Trove is on the internet, the article is on Trove so therefore the article is on the internet. I just noticed that you created Draft:Kurrajong Heights Hotel. If you really want to use the Trove source you don't need to duplicate it as a separate article. Just use the pertinent facts and cite trove in Draft:Kurrajong Heights Hotel. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you do not understand Trove - It is unsearchable by any search engine such as google. Therefore, unless the general public is acquainted with Trove and is willing to try reading fractured scan text or try and read the actual newspaper print then none of it will be found. Trove is a tool to make the text available to developers not a publishing platform. This is something that I am attempting to do by collating the only available recorded history of the Kurrajong Heights Hotel into one place while retaining the look and feel of the grammar of the period. I am NOT trying to make Wikipedia a repository of news stories, I and trying to record the history of the Kurrajong Heights Hotel Southern Armada (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Armada - there are a wide variety of Wikipedia citation templates that can, I assure you, accommodate news archives like Trove. It's not necessary, and against the rules of Wikipedia, to create an article consisting solely of primary-source material to serve as a reference for another article. Madg2011 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Armada - I think you'll find that most people here understand Trove. We've been using it for ages. As Madg2011 said, it's against the rules of Wikipedia to create an article consisting solely of primary source material. As I said above, the correct method of using Trove material is to write an article, preferably in your own words, and to cite trove from your article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me towards these citation templates that accommodate news archives? I cannot find them. Southern Armada (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Armada This is not the place to do so but tomorrow I will put a message on the talk page of your Kurrajong Heights Hotel draft to show you how to simply cite from Trove. JennyOz (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. The subject of the article, in its current form, is a newspaper article. Said newspaper article itself totally fails WP:GNG. There are no critical works written about the newspaper article. Accordingly, it is an unsuitable topic for Wikipedia. (Whether the text of the article is free and can be used on Wikisource is an entirely separate issue.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately. Southern Armada you have put in a lot of work but unfortunately it is just not in the form of a wikipedia article. Please take heed of the advice and comments already offered by others above and keep on editing in wikipedia. We need editors like you who have an in-depth interest in subjects and can create content. Aoziwe (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:TNT in current form.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 8 April 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lehlohonolo Seokwe

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

person seems not notable, they have results when looking up the exact name, however looking up CyberGeek yields no immediate results. Creeperparty568 - It and all! 03:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quick check of Google, one or two hits. Doesn't seem notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 and and tagged as such. Zero coverage other than social media profiles, and no claim of significant in the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederica Mathewes-Green

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

Article relies too much on primary sources and there's not a single coverage of her from independent sources (i.e nonreligious publications) that could establish her notability. Slightlymad 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - not many ghits. Doesn't seem notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a Media section to the article outlining some of her contributions. She has been someone the media has consistently consulted for many years. GeorgeofOrange (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frederica Mathewes-Green has been a leading writer in the national forum, on topics related to Eastern Orthodox belief and practice for many years. AmityNook (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article could be improved some more (maybe trimmed?), but she does have coverage in independent sources and meets WP:GNG, so I think the case for keeping is sufficiently met.[65][66][67] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 3 sources, I cannot open the first, which is in the group blog Patheos, but the 2nd is letter-to-the-editor referencing an article written by Mathewes-Green; and the 3rd is a book that quotes something she once wrote. None of these supports notability. At this point, I'm not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as an author. Most of the remainder of the article is fluff, especially the media section, and if the article is kept, I will remove it. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 18 April 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) 02:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IDNPLAY

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

Software developer for gambling sites. No indication of notability, and sources are passing mentions. Calton | Talk 02:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable software. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the article was created by user with blatant conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 5 April 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 08:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise1st

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

Bog-standard travel agency/cruise seller. No real sources other standard business notices and warmed-over press releases. Calton | Talk 02:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quick check of Google, not much on this - no independent references - doesn't seem notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a relatively small travel agency advertising their wares, refs and google not showing notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 19 April 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 20:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coach convertible

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

"Coach convertible" is not an accepted term for automobiles, and the article's subject of aftermarket cabriolet conversions in the United States does not seem encyclopaedic. 1292simon (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - doesn't seem to comply with GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Coach convertible' just means it is a vehicle modified by into a convertible by a coach work company instead of the original vehicle manufacturer. We can come up with a different title is that is your only complaint. The information is predominantly US because the original editor is from the US. However, he put in 'Conversions for the Australian market' and 'Conversions for the European market' as recognition that other countries do it too, even if he doesn't have that information himself. The way to deal with this is to add information, not delete what is already there. Why do you think it doesn't comply with WP:GNG ? (Would have been easier if you linked to the guideline instead of making me go search for it.) He supplied secondary references to books on the subject. Stepho talk 03:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Book hits, when not irrelevant or cribbed from us, point back to a once-off vehicle from Fageol back around 1950 which could be converted back and forth between a cargo truck and a bus. I gather it was not a success. This seems to be one person's made-up word, and it's not even clear that there were significant numbers of convertible conversions. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any non-american reader would expect to read about coaches with no roofs (ie this (Although one could say the picture is a bus and not a coach) ..... - Point is the title is very misleading, Title aside I'm not finding any sort of evidence of notability at all, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 15 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid (1992 film)

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

non-notable direct-to-video release that does not meet the notability guidelines of a Wikipedia entry. Film is barely referenced in notable sources online and does not have the cultural significance meriting its own page Magic1million (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, doesn't seem to comply with GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM, primarily due to lack of coverage from reliable sources. Slightlymad 04:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we search on Google, we can easily find out about this movie. I think that there is no problem with Notability if someone fill in the source. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216882/ --Yeoncong323 (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoncong323, IMDb is not an arbiter of film notability, nor is it a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB. I did search on Google if there's available sources for it that are vetted by WP:FILM/R, but there's none. Slightlymad 06:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slightlymad, I did not know IMDb was an unreliable site. Thanks for letting me know.

Delete - no coverage, fails WP:GNG. Oddly, there's yet even another Little Mermaid animated film, from 1998.[[68]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I had originally omitted the word "speedy" as this had happened after over 7 days, sorry. (non-admin closure) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original, incorrect closure, overturned by myself: ~~The result was keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Black-Yellow Alliance

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

Article subject does not have verifiable notability and has been deleted from German (!) Wikipedia many times for being an advertisement of a completely irrelevant political ~~party~~ group.

de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/30._Juni_2005#Schwarz-Gelbe_Allianz_und_Bild:Manfred_Koerner.jpg_(gelööscht), de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/9._Dezember_2005#Schwarz-Gelbe_Allianz_(erledigt,_Wiedergänger), de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Dezember_2014#Schwarz-gelbe_Allianz_(geSLAt) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It might not even be a registered political party. The requirements to officially form one for an election might not even have been met by this... club. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I checked Factiva, 4 articles there, but I think the issue is we are searching English language media. If you search for the German name of the organisation, you get more than 7000 hits. Probably would get more if you specifically searched Austrian or German language media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: Your "hits" when searching might mainly be about the German alliance between CDU and FDP (conservatives and liberals), which is commonly called a "black-yellow" alliance. It has nothing to do with the Austrian club. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

many of the articles seem to be referring to the monarchy (not that I can read German) so I gather they must be talking about this party, unless the other one also has monarchist leanings as well.! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: Having knowledge of German, I can assure you that the vast majority of articles are about the (non-monarchist) German political alliance between between the German parties, because they have formed the federal government several times (I think more often than any other coalitation), for example Merkel was elected chancellor with the votes of the black-yellow-coalition for her term from 2009 to 2013 (Second Merkel Cabinet). Furthermore, the term is also used to refer to the numerous coalitions of these parties at state and municipal level. In contrast, the Austrian Black-Yellow Alliance apparently has never had a member holding an elected office. Wikitigresito (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikitigresito, that's helpful - however, another point in support of keeping - there are pages for this article in 7 different languages. So it would be odd for it be deleted because english language wiki thought it wasn't notable, when other non english language wikis thought it was, particularly when its about a foreign concept. I'm generally for erring to the side of keep in these sort of situations. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral There is indeed some coverage in reliable sources in German, but just surficial notes because this political group is so strange. As far as I can see, they have not won any elections nor have had any significant impact on Austrian politics in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitigresito (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikitigresito: Thank you for supporting the deletion, but please also point me to the coverage in reliable sources. This might be a coincidental misunderstanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Here in Süddeutsche http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/monarchisten-partei-ein-kaiser-fuer-oesterreich-1.1713784 and here in Der Standard https://derstandard.at/1373513432272/Monarchisten-Wir-sind-keine-Nostalgie-Partei. However, after and before 2013 I don't really find anything. Also, they explicitly do not view themselves as a party: http://sga.monarchisten.org/die-monarchisten.html Wikitigresito (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikitigresito: Oh. That really hit me unexpectedly. I did a Google News search (for the English term, now that I think about it) and all I had received was exactly 4 articles, and all about my expected German coalition. Alright then. Combined with these two articles, Nightstallion's arguments are beginning to convince me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again, the last one of my four even reports about the article subject: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mixed-feelings-as-austria-bids-farewell-to-the-last-of-the-habsburgs-1.601706 -- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About not being a party, this part of the Sueddeutsche article might be interesting:

Schon bei der Nationalratswahl im Jahr 2008 wollten die Monarchisten antreten, bekamen aber nicht genug Unterstützer-Unterschriften zusammen. Sollte es wieder nicht gelingen, "wäre das auch kein Beinbruch", sagt Alexander Simec, "dann probieren wir es nächstes Mal wieder."

Attempted rough translation by me:

The Monarchists already wanted to take part in the legislative election in 2008, but did not receive enough endorsing signatures. Should it again not succeed, 'that would also not be the end of the world,' said Alexander Simec, 'then we will try again next time.'

Although they officially don't view themselves as a party, they did at least in the past seem to attempt to take part in the election -- and failed to do so. It's really just a club, seemingly contrary to Nightstallion's statement that it is "ridiculously easy to set up a political party in Austria, even easier than setting up a legal association" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a bit of a misunderstanding, I think. Many political parties all around the world claim not be a party, but instead a “movement”, usually even “of people just like you and me” or “citizens' movement” (= Bürgerbewegung). —Nightstallion 06:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been featured in electoral reporting repeatedly, even if they never actually managed to contest an election AFAIK. The reasons given by the nominator are also erroneous, for two reasons: The German-language Wikipedia is notorious for being very restrictive in their criteria for notability and encyclopedic value; and it is actually ridiculously easy to set up a political party in Austria, even easier than setting up a legal association (Verein). ;) —Nightstallion 07:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightstallion: This, too, might be about the German alliance between CDU and FDP (conservatives and liberals), which is commonly called a "black-yellow" alliance. It might have nothing to do with the Austrian club. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This decision is harder than I expected it to be. The result might really be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to give you some more links with news reports on the SGA: neuwal, neuwal (again), Die Presse, Der Standard, Der Standard (again), Süddeutsche Zeitung, Österreich, Bezirksblatt. (They're mostly concentrated on pre-electoral coverage, of course.) I'll readily concede that they're not the epitome of notability, but while there are actually over a thousand registered political parties (again, it's ridiculously easy to register a *party* (especially compared to a Verein, which has to comply with far stricter regulations) – what's far more difficult is to be allowed to *contest an election*), there aren't actually that many that even make a serious attempt to contest national elections, so I'd argue that helps their notability in addition to the news sources I cited. —Nightstallion 06:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was honestly surprised by the articles about this subject, and I had misinterpreted the Google results to be all about the German CDU-FDP (black-yellow) coalition. Maybe I even had been influenced by a filter bubble (I'm from Germany, and information about these parties is very likely to be more relevant than this Austrian group to me), but I had definitely misinterpreted at least one Google News search result that did show an article about the article subject. In my decision to nominate the article for deletion, I wrongly expected the German Wikipedia's deletion discussions to be useful for making a good decision here. I learned in this week that they are using stricter criteria than the English Wikipedia does, and that a strongly deleted article there does not imply lack of notability here. Let's keep the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 12 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who)

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

Non-notable fictional character who fails WP:GNG, better fit for the Dr Who Wiki than here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The info from AHistory seems to be enough to pass the GNG, although I agree that the other sources provided aren't brilliant, nor have I been able to find any others from a quick Google. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- A single usable reference doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED, therefore it still fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Grandfather Paradox, there's a workable reference here and the parent article is rather stuffy. Szzuk (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not a Dr. Who fan, and know nothing about this character, but I skimmed the article and it appears to be well written, and while the sourcing is light, it's sourced using a Dr. Who guidebook. It is also acceptably integrated with links to other Dr. Who articles, so I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. I also don't think a merge and redirect to Grandfather Paradox will work, since the articles are quite different, but perhaps a line or two could also go there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:01, 27 April 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) 03:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Jagota

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

An advertorially-toned page for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, quotes by the subject (i.e. [69]), and other WP:SPIP sources. Created by a banned sock (Special:Contributions/Jiahimedluke); pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anatha_Gulati. Likely UPE. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTLINKEDIN, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTRESUME Acnetj (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite abuses as such Wikipedia is not a platform for self advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 6 April 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 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations Global Network

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

The article is currently sourced to the company's website, corporate filings, and press releases. BEFORE searches with PR agencies are always problematic as they return a huge number of results, however, diving deep into these they are almost exclusively contact lines in press releases for the company's clients, or completely incidental mentions such as staff members being quoted and then referenced by employer. Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with this nomination. There doesn't appear to be a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 18 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta Films

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

A distributor in the Australia & New Zealand markets, not a producer. We could add a list of films they distribute , to change a mere listing to a product catalog, but neither belong here. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mere company listing, with no sources -- or even suggestion -- indicating notability. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. They exist but they don't qualify for an article - yet. If this ever changes it can be restored. MarnetteD|Talk 04:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources given at all to demonstrate notability. Indeed, A7 might potentially be in place, for a Speedy Delete, but I'll leave CSD considerations to those significantly more knowledgeable. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, only profiles, press releases, and brief (and by brief I mean brief) mentions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above arguments. Hoverfish Talk 15:17, 6 April 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 13:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sealup

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

obvious PR notice for non notable firm by obvious spa. Unaccountably kept back in 2009. a basic google search found only advertisements DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable business. It should have been speedied since when it was created. –Ammarpad (talk)
Weak keep - Their product is featured in a few fashion magazines, as linked here [[70]], and Robb Report discusses them (albeit with a lazy typo in the URL)[[71]]. They're mentioned here, briefly [[72]]. There's also a history with Jacqueline Kennedy that apparently made them famous back then. This blog (I know - not a RS) says they were important in the late 1950s and early 1960s, probably because of Jackie O.[[73]]. Since notability isn't temporary, per site convention, they probably warrant at least a few lines. I can't find anything on the Italian Wikipedia, for what it's worth, but there are some Italian hits (sorry for the unfortunate metaphor) for founder Filippo Chiesa.[[74]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. samee converse 08:30, 13 April 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.

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwUMVP77cT8

[2] ttps://techcrunch.com/2009/02/25/world-economic-forum-announces-new-batch-of-young-global-leaders-mark-zuckerberg-chad-hurley-kevin-rose-and-more/

[3] ttp://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00818/WEB/OTHER/EXCEPTIO.HTM

[4] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpFHE91mIDo

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk7DSwhnD4Y

[6] ttp://www.globalteacherprize.org/academy-member/carlos-fernandes/

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Nicholas_Fernandes#cite_note-12

[8] ttp://asean.org/joint-media-statement-of-the-3rd-asean-telecommunications-and-information-technology-ministers-meeting-singapore-19-september-2003/

[9] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GN0l3dHFLY3gxazA/view?usp=sharing

[10] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GWFh2VU5WUGFIOTg/view?usp=sharing

[11] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GQXQyV0g0V05YbVE/view?usp=sharing

[12] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GUFpKeEFIZTc5WDQ/view?usp=sharing

[13] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GNE1NRXNILVhUa0k/view?usp=sharing

[14] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GekZ6Q1NLak0xTkk/view?usp=sharing

[15] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GbE93Um5jLWFoMEk/view?usp=sharing

[16] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GNnI5b2w4RUN5Ymc/view?usp=sharing

[17] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GanAyRW41akRlY3M/view?usp=sharing

[18] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8oAS_iKSo8GV0tMSzR2TFRXVlU/view?usp=sharing

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]