Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< 18 June	20 June >

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. Sandstein 10:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Sahai

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

Promotional CV. If there is any underlying notability , it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is clearly promotional and the subject lacks notability.Goharshady (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the most extreme example of writing a Wikipedia article like a resume I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As The Incredibles (franchise). Sandstein 10:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredibles (film series)

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

Taking to AFD since PROD was removed. This article is premature when two feature films on their own are not a series. No prejudice against recreation if a third one is made, but it's too soon to say whether that will happen. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename The Incredibles (franchise), as there's a video game and two shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if shorts count for anything, but it seems misleading to say something with a video game and two movies is a franchise as that term implies more content is included (i.e. shows, three or more movies). Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is referred to as such in the Variety article "How ‘Incredibles’ Became Animation’s Hottest Franchise" and in this Washington Post article and others. It's also pretty much guaranteed that there'll be an Incredibles 3. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if anybody has deemed it a franchise, let's not jump the gun on whether a 3rd movie will be released per WP:CRYSTAL when that hasn't yet been confirmed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per above - Even though it only has 2 films so far, the series A) is called a franchise in RS (noted above), and B) has extra content outside of the main film series to justify a separate article, in my opinion. Nanophosis (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as per above, franchise is probably a better word than series.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename "franchise" as per previous comments. ₪RicknAsia₪ 07:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The Incredibles franchise. The term is used in the Book description of associate products.[1] Two movies, several short films, many games, massive value, the word "franchise" is easily justified. No need for parentheses. Franchise is better than series because the franchise contains much more than just the series of two movies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"xxx (franchise)" seems to be the standard title format, e.g. Halo (franchise), The Matrix (franchise), Alien (franchise), even XXX (franchise). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this one *has* been called The Incredibles franchise, and WP:Natural is preferred over parenthetical. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many series which just have two installment, no tv series, such as Kingsman (film series), is still count as a series.Giangkiefer (talk)
Keep but two RS calling it a franchise don't make it one. wumbolo ^^^ 11:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the article, but rename it The Incredibles (franchise) as other Pixar series articles that only have two films (Monsters Inc. (franchise) and Finding Nemo (franchise)) are like this. Zucat (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity so it can be improved. -- Alex^TW 02:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per above suggestions. The franchise currently incorporates films, video games and shorts. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 05:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. Plenty of material for an article, but not all of it film. /Julle (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to The Incredibles (franchise) per numerous comments above. Specifically, Zucat's examples of Monsters Inc. (franchise) and Finding Nemo (franchise) are sound precedents. — Satori Son 19:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only clear Keep comments are self labeled as weak and the weight of WP:PAG argument supports deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Owen Webb

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

Appears to be a non-notable academic with one book to his name and a non-notable award from the 'Dialogue Institute of the Southwest'. Sources comprise the University student newspaper, a faculty colleague and, erm, himself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Sionk (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, he's chair of a department (according to his university page) so meets WP:NACADEMICS. Sionk (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and procedurally blocking a speedy-keep withdrawal) Simply being a chair of a university department is not an automatic pass of WP:NPROF. I don't see sufficient coverage to meet GNG, and the existing article doesn't demonstrate to me that NPROF is met; I also don't see enough in a Google Scholar search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the book is in 245 libraries, a/c worldcat, which is quite high for a book of this nature. There are very likely to be reviews, and they need to be searched for. And he wrote an article on his speciality for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does to some extent indicate he is regarded as an authority. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. The award is not notable. The book has not been reviewed in MSM. The encyclopedia entry is a qualification of sorts, but not one of especial eminence. He is chair of a philosophy department, but then again I have a strong suspicion that Texas Tech is not in the premier category of philosophy departments. If a Texas-only version of Wikipedia should emerge, he would be a contender, I'm sure.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He is chair of one of the top MA programs in philosophy and I think the award is also important in showing notability. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Texas Tech is not listed in the top 50 graduate philosophy departments.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes the departments with PhD program. The list I mentioned only includes departments without PhD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was close to calling this a no-consensus but here's hoping for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One unreviewed book (at least, I didn't find any reviews in GS nor JSTOR) isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR nor WP:PROF and inherited notability by virtue of being associated with a program that only looks good when one artificially eliminates all doctorate-granting programs isn't worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Senate election in New York, 2018#Republican primary. Numerically, 8:4:2 for redirect / keep / delete. Discussion centers on whether the campaign coverage provides notability or whether this is a BLP1E case. This is a matter of editorial judgment and not something I can decide by fiat. So there is consensus not to have a separate article at this time, but no consensus to delete, which makes redirect the only possible outcome. Sandstein 10:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chele Farley

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

This is in effect a test case for the interaction of WP:NPOL and WP:GNG This person does not pass NPOL, being a candidate who has never held elective office, but is the formally nominated candidate of a major party (and two minor parties as well) for the US Senate from a major state. If any candidate were to be notable purely for being a candidate, Farley would seem to qualify.

There is significant coverage from a variety of major reliable sources, but almost all of it is directly in connection with the campaign. That being a much watched and well funded state-wide campaign for a national legislature in a polarized year from a large state, there is a good deal of it. Again, if this sort of coverage can be held to satisfy the WP:GNG (and the essentially similar WP:BASIC) this would seem to be an example that would. If all this coverage is considered routine under the circumstances, the remaining coverage (see the Town and Country article about Farley's wedding, and the Resident Magazine article about her appointment as NYC Finance chair for the Republican party, both cited in the article currently) does not seem to me to establish separate notability.

There has been considerable discussion of theses issues and the sources on Talk:Chele Farley, in the sections "Notability tag" and "Added additional sourcing". I urge that the comments there be considered as if they were part of this AfD discussion.

I also call attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Little (engineer), where another candidate for the Senate was found not notable under WP:NPOL despite an appeal to the GNG. (Note that I argued to keep that article. I am now bowing to consensus.)

I recommend redirection to United States Senate election in New York, 2018#Republican primary. But if the consensus here is to keep, I would not be unhappy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@YankeesFan85, Cullen328, 331dot, and Finnusertop: Pinging all those editors who commented on the article talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Depending on how this goes, I wonder if there should be an RfC to consider a modification to WP:NPOL. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in New York, 2018, which should be standard practice in such cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I will post a more detailed defense of the article tomorrow as soon as I have time, but I would like to note that there are significant differences between Farley and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Little (engineer) as cited by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} in that Little was a fringe and radical candidate without the support of a national party and only a single endorsement (That of David Duke's) to his name, whereas Farley has secured the nomination of the GOP as well as the Conservative Party and the Reform Parties of New York (both regular players in NY state politics), as well as both sitting and former elected officials, including governors, senators, and congresspeople. YankeesFan85 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes those are significant differences, but I would argue that they made Little the more notable of the pair. That a fringe candidate was apparently doing well in polls, that a candidate was opposed by the formal machinery of the party in whose name he was supposedly running, and that a candidate could support such extreme positions and still apparently poll well made him a quite unusual, and therefore notable, case in my view. Whatever may be said, his coverage was not routine. Do not make the all too common mistake of equating "notable" with "worthy" or even with "important", YankeesFan85. To be notable is to have been taken note of by society at large, to make a significant and lasting mark on some field or area of human activity, for good or for ill. There are no absolute and clear-cut ruelks for what will constitute notability, there are merely rules of thumb, which may be modified over time or in particular cases. They are all judgement calls, on one level or another. At least that is how i see it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until at least the election is over. In the unlikely event Farley wins, the text can be restored. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete The coverage that the candidate has is not independent of their candidacy, which could be an argument for WP:BIO1E. The larger argument here is that candidates don't inherently pass WP:NPOL without other notability. Being an investment banker and Republican fundraiser is not notable enough to pass the muster. See Draft:Zak Ringelstein, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Maine. If people want to be informed about their candidates, local media sources provide plenty of detailed information, as does Ballotpedia. Every election, (especially in the Canadian election articles I've worked on) there are always operatives with a clear WP:CoI who want to promote their candidate. I'm not suggesting that the editor in question has a conflict of interest here, but when John Doe Green Party wants to make an article for his local candidate who they feel has a clear shot of winning, it makes me suspicious of any entry with dubious notability. Bkissin (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in New York, 2018. This is, and should be the standard practice for candidates for national legislature, who are not notable prior to the campaign. The reasoning is two-fold. First, the election is a(n extended) case of WP:BLP1E as all the coverage about a subject is within the context of the election itself. The second reason is that losing candidates are likely to remain a low-profile individuals after the campaign is over. All of the pertinent information about the subject can be placed in the campaign page (including basic biographical information, polling, and other details about the campaign). If we regularly keep (losing) candidates, there is an increased risk of Wikipedia becoming a repository for campaign material and increases the risks of vandalism (as supporters and opponents of the campaign seek to edit the page to be favorable to their position). --Enos733 (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the suggested article per the comments above. SportingFlyer talk 15:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Farley is running for the United States Senate. She also is running in the third largest state in the country, which has the #1 media market in the country, and her opponent (Kirsten Gillibrand) is considered by many to be a top tier contender for the 2020 election for President in the Democratic Party. Furthermore, as noted by DES, this year is shaping up to be quite contentious, and interest in this race will be high at not only the state and national levels, but also the international level. It is currently only June but I think it’s safe to say that there will be a lot more coverage of Farley as election day approaches. Some of you are citing WP:BLP1E, though I don’t think it’s fair to characterize a long process that has many individual events over the course of a year as “simply one event”. There will be many more incidents and stories that will occur over the next 5 months which will be covered by national press, as this will be a race that affects not only the 20 million residents of NY state, but the country of 300 million as a whole. Furthermore, Farley’s coverage extends beyond just local publications in New York. Her actions have received coverage from multiple international news sites, including the Jerusalem Post and Arutz Sheva, two major reliable publications in Israel. How many non-incumbent candidates for US elected office receive international coverage? Unlike Ringelstein who some have compared Farley to, a candidate who struggles to get coverage in local Maine publications, Farley has been covered in major national publications like The Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Hill, and Breitbart, among others. Additionally, she has been covered by many of the significant local papers throughout the state, including those both in the City as well as Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Long Island, Rochester, and others. I believe this is overwhelming evidence that there is significant interest in Farley from the international, national, and local press. Also, this coverage is not solely limited to biographical information. Many of these publications are interested in her beyond simply the fact that she is running: they’re interested in who she is and what she stands for, and therefore an article covering all of this verifiable information is appropriate. Again, Farley blows the requirements of WP:GNG out of the water - you do not get covered by international news publications for being "non-notable". YankeesFan85 (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, the Israeli publications aren't actually about her, but rather about her policy on an issue important to that country, and would have been written about any nominee. SportingFlyer talk 16:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's extremely rare for non-incumbent nominees to get written about in a foreign press, this is in no way "routine coverage". I would also disagree with your characterization that the articles are not "about her". I'm not sure what else they could have said to be more "about her" as is relevant to the Israeli public as they are. YankeesFan85 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Republican nominee running against Gillibrand would say that regardless of who it is. The coverage is not about her per se, but what she said. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This argument seems to be both circular and essentially semantics re: the distinction of whether the article is about "her" or "her views". You might presume what a theoretical nominee may or may not say, but I haven't seen examples of the Israeli press covering any other non-incumbent nominees. YankeesFan85 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. At the Senate level, it is certainly possible for an unelected candidate to clear GNG on the basis of receiving substantially more and wider and deeper coverage than most other unelected candidates — it's certainly at least somewhat more likely to happen for a Senate candidate than it is for a House candidate or a state legislature candidate, but it's still by no means whatsoever guaranteed to happen for every Senate candidate. (And further, Senate candidates are also significantly more likely, though still by no means guaranteed, to already have enough preexisting notability for other reasons to have qualified for an article on those grounds anyway, such as having already served in another NPOL-passing political role prior to running for the Senate — so pointing out other examples of Senate candidates who got articles despite losing isn't determinative.) So being a Senate candidate is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, and it certainly hasn't been demonstrated here that she's already earned special case status. Even if we take YankeesFan's Israeli news stories as getting her out of the starting blocks toward being more notable than the norm, as it stands they're just WP:BLP1E for a single campaign comment, so they don't get her to the finish line all by themselves. Over the course of the election campaign, at least half to two-thirds of all candidates nationwide will be able to show something "out of the ordinary", such as getting namechecked in a "ten races to watch" listicle on CNN or Politico or making a five-minute appearance on Anderson Cooper 360 — so it still takes more than just one "out of the ordinary" thing to make a candidate more notable than the norm. There has to be a substantial body of "out of the ordinary" coverage, not just one or two hits, to make a candidate a special case. If a candidate didn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate, then she does not instantly clear the bar just because she made one comment that got her a blip of BLP1E coverage in Israel — her international coverage would have to explode to Christine O'Donnell proportions before it clinched permanent ten-year test-passing notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with multiple RS, including the international press. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough to show notability. Those who say she passes GNG are ignoring that GNG is just not enough for media saturated cases where the coverage tends to be very shallow, which is what we see with political races.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see any coverage un-related to the election. There's significantly less coverage than for Mark Harris (North Carolina politician), Kara Eastman, or other candidates who have been kept recently. While she's the presumptive GOP nominee, no sources give her a credible chance at winning the election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject has received significant coverage. Also, all 3 requirements of WP:BLP1E have not been met. Requirement #3 states "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The NY 2018 Senate race is significant. Farley's role in the contest is substantial and documented. Thus BLP1E does not apply in this case.– Lionel^(talk) 11:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 11:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a talk thread about it at the WikiProject Conservatism talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2018#Candidates_2; not independently notable. As an unelected candidate, does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is routine for this phase of the campaign, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets GNG and WP:BASIC bio guidelines. Other guidelines like NPOL and BLP1E are just additional inclusion guidelines to "catch" those that don't meet broader guidelines - voters above seem to be treating them as the only ones. Clicking the News search links above demonstrates significant coverage already and will only surely grow. --Netoholic @ 16:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Tech University College of Arts & Sciences. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech University Department of Philosophy

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

New article about a department of a constituent college of Texas Tech University. It's only cited to the university student newspaper and comprises mainly of an unsourced list of faculty. There's no evidence this department is independently notable of its college, therefore creating a standalone article about it is WP:UNDUE. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete: I agree with Sionk. This should not be a standalone article.Goharshady (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the text to the College. There are now independent refs, of a sort. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas Tech University College of Arts & Sciences. The only independent source (i.e. not campus newspaper) that looks to be reliable (as it's published by Wiley Blackwell) is the Philosophical Gourmet Report, but this is misleadingly represented in the entry as currently written; the source does not exactly list this as a "top 12" MA program but rather one "also worth considering" behind programs described as "the top program in the country"; four more with "very strong faculties"; and another four with "strong faculties". So I don't view this as a sufficient claim of notability nor even really anything to salvage in a merge, but it's a valid search term. Will note the college page had plenty of room for expansion to describe programs to the extent RS make possible. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Texas Tech University College of Arts & Sciences since I'm not convinced individual academic departments are notable. There is nothing exceptional about Texas Tech's philosophy department anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus that "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper" policy applies. — Satori Son 19:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air China Flight 1350

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

Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete,. I added another ref from a more reliable English source but I agree this does not rise to the level of notability or significance we expect for an article. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Meets WP:GNG. Notable, has significant coverage in Chinese language media, multiple WP:RS. Per WP:GNG "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.". Xinbenlv (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC) (WP:COI I am the page creator.)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless the pen was poisoned, this seems like a non-notable example of air rage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - no casualty and no lasting significance. -Zanhe (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS. Acnetj (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – minor disturbance by a psychiatric patient; no casualties, no damage, no lasting effects, and no encyclopedic significance. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Plenty of events will have their few minutes of news attention without any lasting significance whatsoever. /Julle (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altogen Labs CRO

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

Does not pass NCORP Natureium (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If delete: also delete AltoFect as redirect per WP:G8 — IVORK _Discuss 03:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did not start the article, but I did edit it substantially. Maybe it should be renamed to just Altogen Labs? If you look at the news sources for "Altogen Labs" it's a far more comprehensive list than for "Altogen Labs CRO". Granted, most of the sources on the current page are kind of crappy, I think a few of them warrant an article (GHP magazine is detailed). I started the Altogen Inc. page because apparently there are two Altogen's (the Inc. I think is more focused on chemicals and the CRO is more so preclinical work), but maybe Altogen Labs CRO should be merged with Altogen Inc.? The Altogen Inc. page has sources from Science and Nature (although they are not solely about Altogen) and combined with the current sources it might be enough to gain notability. I started AltoFect as well (inspiration gleaned from the lipofectamine page), but that probably isn't notable, so sorry about that. Natureium, I think the current Altogen Labs CRO page might find a spot in User:Natureium/todo, it seems to have sources of around the same quality as Aderis Pharmaceuticals, Biovista, and RespireRx, just to name a few, and I think it could be improved upon. I also am not really sure why Altogen Labs CRO should be deleted in context of other biotech companies (see Asuragen, Biotecnol, Diabetology Ltd, Esteve, etc.), and although comparison is not a reason to keep an article, I don't see why this should fail NCORP so easily. Maybe I'm too lenient and have a misunderstanding of NCORP, if so, my apologies. CarlBjornasson (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion from a throwaway PR account, clear UPE. Sourcing is churnalism, PR, primary and dead. Nothing good for WP:NCORP. The GHP magazine article mentioned above might be detailed but it is by them, it is not independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename - I don't think this is really different from Altogen Biosystems (where does the Inc. even come from?), and the content of both should be merged (and really condensed) into just Altogen Labs. I can make a merged Altogen Labs page (just not right now) and that might be cleaner than this mess. I haven't done much research on this yet, but just from preliminary searches, it seems to be well-known in the biomedical field and has enough coverage (I'm reading the "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" on GNG). I'll make the merged page either today or tomorrow, but regardless, Altogen Labs CRO and Altogen Biosystems (and Altogen Inc. for that matter) should not have their own pages. Where are the refs? (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice. Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. Likely UPE based on behavioural evidence; let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails NCORP; obvious adverisement. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made the merged page at Altogen Labs, which has far less puffery and unnecessary sections. See my vote above - I think redirects would suffice Where are the refs? (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This will continue to be a pain until an admin salts all three iterations of this toxic article. 2Joules (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Altogen Labs has been created while this is running, by User:Where are the refs?, and is now up for AfD by User:2Joules at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Labs. Pinging User:Natureium, User:CarlBjornasson, User:Duffbeerforme, User:K.e.coffman, who have !voted here. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I made the Altogen Labs page as per my comment above - I thought that Altogen Labs CRO and Altogen Inc (or Biosystems, whatever) were better off merged in a shorter page titled Altogen Labs, and that the other pages should be redirects and not the other way around. This deletion discussion is about content on Altogen Labs CRO that is invariably promotional and excessive; I tried writing a version that was at least neutral with what I found to be the most reliable sources from both of the other articles, so if you had read what I wrote previously it would have made sense to have this discussion focused on Altogen Labs and not the other pages.Where are the refs? (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respect to the above editor, the sources in the reflist remain very weak.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, please look at the reflist for the Altogen Labs page when I first created it (it is currently a redirect because of a speedy discussion I didn't get to see in time), I know the Altogen Labs CRO page is pretty weak in terms of sourcing.Where are the refs? (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's look at the refs on that page;

1. Already in the pretty weak Altogen Labs CRO page.

2. Already in the Altogen Labs CRO page.

3. Passing mention. Does not verify the claim made.

4. Passing mention of Altogen Biosystems. Does not verify the claim made of being a subsidiary.

5. Routine product announcememnt. Does not verify the claim made of being a subsidiary.

6. Already in the Altogen Labs CRO page.

Yep, reflist remains very weak. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shame of Gaeta

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

The content of this article cannot be verified by RS. In fact, a significant portion of its claims seem dubious. 1.) There is no evidence that Nazi propaganda spoke of the outcome of this referendum on the Anschluss as "Schande von Gaeta". On the contrary see the pertinent collection of primary sources NS-Presseanweisungen der Vorkriegszeit Vol 6/I.: 1938 Quellentexte Januar bis April, Munich 1999. Document 1109, DNB-Rundbrief of 11 April 1938, advises the German press: "Die Meldung ueber die Abstimmung auf dem Panzerschiff Admiral Scheer nicht aufmachen, aber gut platzieren, aber ohne Kommentar". (The news release about the referendum on the battleship Admiral Scheer not to be highlighted, but to be placed well, but without comment. (p. 381) 2.) There is no evidence that historical literature uses the expression, except for one, maybe two pieces which clearly quote Alois Hudal. 3.) The referendum at Gaeta was one of several for Austrian and German expatriates on German warships. It was not a referendum of Catholic seminarians alone. (see Volker Koop: Hitlers fünfte Kolonne. 2009, S. 129.) 4.) There are two sources which suggest that the outcome of the poll was 90% against the Anschluss. One is a Catholic Polish internet magazine which does not cite any sources. The other is an article by Robert A. Graham. He neither cites any sources to back up his claim. These claims seem dubious, because 5.) According to the Neues Wiener Tageblatt, 12. April 1938[2] 6,348 persons cast their vote upon the Scheer. 358 of these voted "No", 135 votes were not valid. Thus 92% approved of the Anschluss, which was much less than was expected by the Nazis and less than on the other warships. This was blamed on the hostile German exiles and priests. Those were called "Unbelehrbare" (unteachables). Assayer (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a significant subject that ought not to be obliterated from WP, but if nom's assertions are correct, it would be better if this were dealt with through merging this into a broader article on the Anschluss referendum or its extra-territorial aspects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of 90% voting against the Anschluss can't be verified, and there is little indication that the event of only 90% voting for had any importance whatsoever. Sure, it could be mentioned in an article detailing the expatriate votes for the Anschluss referendum, but are there any reliable sources for that at all? Best keep option probably is to redirect to Shame of Gijón as redirect from misspelling ;) —Kusma (t·c) 09:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seem to me that it would be very hard to verify this with an independent source. As Graham seems to be not quite independent and Hudal certainly isn't, this fails WP:V/WP:RS. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Does seem dubious and cannot verify; even if it could be verified, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEOLOGISM: Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Article is about a vote among an small group of people of no importance whatsoever, and the result appears to have been misrepresented in the article. Assayer raises some good points about the article's factual accuracy. Alois Hudal is an interesting character, but this incident is not worth mentioning in his article, much less in the Anschluss article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Family detention

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

Per WP:NEO or WP is not a dictionary. For deletion or at least a redirect to a proper target, if there is one. This imparts no more than a dictionary definition - ie 'family detention is a situation where family members are detained together.' This does not discuss why the idea of family detention is notable. Being used in news sources is not establishing why the term warrants an article.

The court case (half the article) mentioned discusses a judge who held child migrants had to be released from detention centers -the holding itself has nothing to do with family detention centers.

Immigration is a hot topic, but there is no reason this article needs to exist. Again, it does not impart anything meaningful upon the reader, and at best uses synthesis to pull together sources which use the term. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update in response to votes: Does usage of a term mean it automatically deserve a WP article? I certainly think not. I'm not sure what significance we can show other than 'yes, families being detained together is called family detention.' I don't see what this can offer that articles on detentions and immigration issues generally don't already cover. This seems to have been created in haste in response to controversy around the separation of families at the border. I don't know why any reader would need to know what 'family detention' means when they can just figure it out using common sense. But that's just me. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: Have you looked at the Women's Refugee Commission report? I would think that seals the case for this being a real topic beyond a dicdef.--Pharos (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe El Cid is misrepresenting the article's contents. "imparts no more than a dictionary definition" Is not true. User:Pharos and I didn't rip off a dictionary, and I went on to discuss three terms (all from sources which discuss the recurring issue of "family detention") used for the places where it is done. I went on to discuss a recent court case where policies regarding FD were redefined. This is a stub and should be given some time to grow before immediately targetting it. I'll add some further content to this if it might stem ECEC's complaining, but "not..meaningful" and "no more than" is a blatent falsehood.

I don't understand how someone can say the holding of people has nothing to do with the centers in which they are held...

Please see special:diff/846607980 I have added some new content discussing the history of family detention. This is clearly more than just a dictionary definition. I think there is clear reason for the article to exist. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (edit conflict) The article is still a stub and has existed for all of 2 hours. The intro actually says 'family detention refers to multiple family members being held together in an immigration detention context' - I fixed the dicdef issue before you posted this AfD. The issue of detaining families together or separating them in an immigration detention context, or choosing not to detain, is an important one globally, not just confined to the US, and this article should explore the different approaches by country. See for example Women's Refugee Commission report.--Pharos (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a significant term; a quick search on Google Books or Google Scholar will pop up more than significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 21:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the rationale for deletion was more or less valid at the time (it was just a definition of the term) but the article has evolved past that quite a bit. It's definitely been fleshed out sufficiently at this point. Deville (Talk) 01:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep—This is broadly covered in reliable sources, and families are held in distinct facilities. The current article is tending towards a US-only view, but that can be corrected or the article name made more specific.--Carwil (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - legitimate article on a notable topic, more than a mere dictionary definition. The article may have been created in response to recent political controversy, but that doesn't mean it's not a viable subject.
Keep but most of the article needs to be re-written. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not cleanup, and the sheer scale of the coverage surrounding this topic is proof of notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is in the news sources so valid WP:NEO and it passes WP:NOTNEWS as it's not all that recent. Nominator should read WP:RAPID. wumbolo ^^^ 10:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: meets GNG per review of available sources; the article has been much improved since nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: meets GNG. Sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josefine (Brazilian nightclub)

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

Does not seem notable enough to warrant its own article Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Promotional and not notable Goharshady (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-check before delete could be notable regionally but doesn't have much online. May have something in Native language and region. Mia Watson (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not notable, not even regionally.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have A7 tagged this article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Sebastian Salvador

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

Does not seem notable enough. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have A7 tagged this article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Comments show a near even divide here (I am discounting the SPA). Nor is an examination of the arguments based on WP:PAG helpful as both sides are looking at the same sources and citing the same guidelines (and essay). IMO a further relisting is unlikely to bear fruit. I am declaring a hung jury and a mistrial. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi Garg

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

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

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

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

The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. There's no assertion of notability that passes WP:N Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article almost cleanup removed promotional Content and unnecessary citations.

I found many similar articles on Wikipedia but it's not worst them. Example:Veena Kumaravel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:30A3:CA70:0:0:28D8:E0AD (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — 2405:204:30A3:CA70:0:0:28D8:E0AD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman You are a scholar and moderator on Wikipedia. Why are you not helping us to cleanup this article rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:30A3:CA70:0:0:28D8:E0AD (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GOLDENRULE, have notability on The Hindu. Well known author. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this article and found deletion message. By reading this I have not found any promotion content here and in this article have enough known citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.196.34.242 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — 146.196.34.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not yet notable per WP:GOLDENRULE, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Significant, independent coverage from WP:RS is need to meet those criteria, not brief mentions in WP:RS about her giving a lecture, nor obvious paid puff pieces like these: [3], [4] aren't the kind of coverage required to show notability. WP:TOOSOON at best. TMG^talk 18:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GOLDENRULE, have notability on The Hindu The Economic Times. Well known author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 20:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NAUTHOR; significant RS coverage not found. SPA activity at this AfD is concerning as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Absolutely meets GNG. If it would have been a draft, I would have accepted it at AfC. Dial911 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 17:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Peterson

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Passing mentions here and there, not enough to assert notability. Hitro talk 18:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Convinced by Bagumba that there isn't much material worthy of merging beyond what is already present at LeBron James#Basketball ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 St. Vincent-St. Mary Fighting Irish men's basketball team

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

This article is only of interest because it was pro star LeBron James’ senior year in high school. Per the article: The story of the year was obviously senior forward LeBron James It is otherwise non-notable. This season is already covered with two paragraphs at LeBron_James#High_school_career. A dedicated article expanded would only be clutter with unneeded game-by-game minutiae (WP:NOTDIARY). —Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Vincent-St. Mary High School. I suppose there are plenty of sources available on the season but they all focus on LeBron James. But it would be better served with a subsection on the high school article. I've never seen an article on a high school team, though I have seen an article for a player's high school career and that was deleted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already mentioned in St. Vincent–St. Mary High School that they won a state championship in 2003, and James is already listed there an an alumnus. There doesn't seem to be much else to merge that would be WP:DUE for a general article about a high school.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge, the latter if there is information in this article not contained at St. Vincent–St. Mary High School or LeBron James. Deville (Talk) 13:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ikoku

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

Local coverage, not notable enough for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Before now like i stated in the speedy delete of which i tagged and believed declined, This is just another self promotion page by someone related to subject or paid by subject to create a page. Sources provided to be "reliable sources" are not reliable. There's nothing In depth from a reliable source like Vanguard (Nigeria) or other similar sites citing or covering him. Edidiong (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep billionaire founder of numerous businesses and head of tourist board seems a high profile figure in Nigeria with coverage in reliable sources such as Encomium Magazine and other magazines and press already included in the article. Passes WP:GNG, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Atlantic306 he is a former chairman. Which reliable sources mention him as a billionaire? Even if they did, being a billionaire is no claim to significance. If being an ex chairman of tourism board and wealth are his only claims, he might be a candidate for CSD. 2Joules (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Encomium magazine states billionaire, he has enough coverage for an article Atlantic306 (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then the Encomium article goes against Forbes. Forbes does not recognize him as a billionaire. This casts even more doubt on the Encomium article and makes it even more unworthy as a source. Aside from puffery, there is marginal coverage. 2Joules (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes gives billionaire list in dollars, Encomium Magazine is a notable Nigerian magazine that recognizes billionaires in naira. While Forbes is clearly the most credible for financial information on people, I find your comments overly critical of the magazine. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well billionaires in naira are even less worthy of inclusion. If the magazine is a local one, then it is even more worthless as a source. 2Joules (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the current exchange rate 1 billion naira is only about 2.8 million USD, that's far from being anywhere near a billionaire or notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sources with many independent articles about the subject. That alone is enough reason. Whether he is a billionaire or not is irrelevant. I would dread to think this wikipedia had a policy where the wealth of someone made them more or less notable.Egaoblai (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Egaoblai there are no news articles about this subject, and no web articles from reliable sources either. Where are these independant articles located exactly? At least not in the newspapers. 2Joules (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the reference section and all the articles where the subject is even part of the article. I'm not sure why you're implying that only newspapers are allowed for sources here. And even still, there are both magazine and news media sources there like All Africa. Egaoblai (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Egaoblai That is exactly why the article should be deleted. Trivial mentions do not count, being a part of an article is not enough. Although news is not the only reliable source, but having zero mentions in the news is a sure sign of being non-notable. 2Joules (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are they trivial mentions when the subject is literally the headline of the articles. Egaoblai (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the reliability of these sources, but you can't call the coverage trivial mentions, and you can't call the coverage "local", unless you say it is local because it only covers Nigeria. Which only covers 923,768 km2 and 185 million people. I guess USA Today is also "local" by that criteria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- his notability as a billionaire has been debunked (see above) and the article lacks reliable source coverage. The Encomium article is actually an interview, so its primary, the rest of the sources are even weaker.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a tricky one, and I can see why people are !voting on both sides. There is coverage in sources, but these are dismissed as local, and that Michael/Mike/Myke Ikoku is only of local interest. But "local" in this case depends on a world view which sees Nigeria as a small community. However, Nigeria is the leading country in Africa, and is the seventh largest country in the world by population. We are troubled on Wikipedia by Systemic bias which leads us to see events and people and sources in the West as more reliable and important than those in Second or Third world countries. We do struggle with sources that are based in Africa and India, even though they may be comparable with Western sources. Ikoku is mentioned in a range of Nigerian publications in a familiar manner to suggest he is a notable figure there. One of his companies is a leading hotel listed on TripAdvisor. In terms of Nigeria he is notable. As Nigeria is not a small backward village, but a significant country with a significant population, he meets WP:BASIC. SilkTork (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this individual has received sufficient cover in Nigerian sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. He is spoken of with great familiarity in the sources used in the article, and if he is known to the Nigerian populace, he must be notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft that reads like an autobiography or COI-based writing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I did a little cleanup and read the sources, and they don't seem very journalistic. I'm also not seeing any notability in the various businesses he started, of which there are several. The flagship hotel of his group doesn't look very impressive. I certainly don't want to contribute to anti-Nigerian bias, but there just doesn't seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phishy McPhish

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

Character does not meet even the most basic of notability guidelines. According to Marvel Wikia, this character only appears once; a Google search only turns up Wiki entries; the page is only linked to by two other articles, one of which is List of Marvel Comics characters: P. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His name and power(s) are unknown, plus he's not even mentioned in the Brotherhood of Mutants, to which he supposedly belongs. That's about as phancrufty as it gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How has this article survived since 2006? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's his superpower. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Sounds plausible. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A rubbish article that does not meet WP:GNG. Agree with Argento Surfer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mutant (Marvel Comics).Vorbee (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What content do you think should be merged? The article you link doesn't mention this character and isn't a character list. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced article about comics character which turns up once and has, it seems, left no lasting cultural impact. /Julle (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 17:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endo Generation

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

Declined A7. Can't find any indication the group would pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. There's a ja.wiki article, but only one vaguely reliable source on it (translated version), which isn't enough to hang a GNG claim on.

The group is defunct as far as I can tell so it seems unlikely to generate new coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. This content belongs on the group's Facebook page, not here.--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sydney Trains A set#Series 2 as consensus is behind a merge or redirect and that seems to be the most popular target. The content can be merged at editorial discretion. Hut 8.5 20:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Trains B Set

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

No references. Google search does not turn up references that will support this article.

Redirect to another article in the Sydney Trains may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to article on Sydney trains. As it at the moment, this article is badly typed (I saw at least one spelling mistake) and the first part is taken up with a conspicuous notice about a sandbox being in the article's namespace. However, there might be enough information to be taken from this article and merged with the article on Sydney trains. I do not think there is enough in this article to justify having a standalone article, and the notice about a sandbox does suggest that this article was created by a relatively new user of Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact it had a {{User sandbox}} tag should have no bearing on a keep, merge or delete decision. I simply removed the tag. This is something I do fairly often. New editors can't be expected to be fully aware of all our procedures. wbm1058 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very likely that this topic will be notable. There are several newspaper articles on the new trains. However they fail to identify them as "b set". If the writer can come up with reliable sources, and not fan sites that would be good, but a merge may be needed until there is real reliable information about the name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion or merging is most suitable, as the information is inaccurate, and there is accurate information already on the Sydney Trains A Set page. The names are correct - the internal order was indeed known as SGT (Sydney Growth Train), the trains are targeted as B-sets B1 through B24, and I've included correct carriage numbering on the page concerned. ~Jaymie Treadwell - I don't have a User/usertalk page on here, editing as visitor only. Contact me via Facebook Messenger for more information if required~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.12.117 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be redirected to Sydney Trains A set which should be renamed Sydney Trains Waratah set The Sydney Trains website which was replaced by the by the Transport for NSW website in the past week, only refes to Waratah Trains and unlike other letter sets, make no mention of A or B sets ^[1]Fleet Lists (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Waratah Trains Transport for NSW

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps participants in this debate can come to a consensus on the best redirect/merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE with no hindrance to a subsequent merge if desired. The issue of whether or not the title is an official name is not a matter for AfD and does not effect in any way whether the material should be kept. Having said that, a redirect to Sydney Trains A set#Series 2 does seem sensible, as does the rename suggested by Fleet Lists. SpinningSpark 22:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Fleet Lists.Charles (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect appears to be becoming the consensus.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phishy McPhish

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

Character does not meet even the most basic of notability guidelines. According to Marvel Wikia, this character only appears once; a Google search only turns up Wiki entries; the page is only linked to by two other articles, one of which is List of Marvel Comics characters: P. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His name and power(s) are unknown, plus he's not even mentioned in the Brotherhood of Mutants, to which he supposedly belongs. That's about as phancrufty as it gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How has this article survived since 2006? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's his superpower. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Sounds plausible. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A rubbish article that does not meet WP:GNG. Agree with Argento Surfer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mutant (Marvel Comics).Vorbee (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What content do you think should be merged? The article you link doesn't mention this character and isn't a character list. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced article about comics character which turns up once and has, it seems, left no lasting cultural impact. /Julle (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaphet Kotto (band)

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

Hello. This passes neither WP:BAND nor WP:GNG. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two full-length releases on Ebullition meets WP:MUSIC; there's a lot of noise in the source record from the actor, but I'd be surprised if this band didn't get covered by indie punk zines of the day, like Heartattack and Maximum Rocknroll. Chubbles (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has been relisted thrice already, so no point in relisting again. There appears to be no consensus regarding the amount of coverage or cultural impact the magazine carries. There is no compelling evidence either way. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Jagat (magazine)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) and WP:GNG too. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Computer Jagat is a notable monthly magazine in Bangladesh since 1991. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 03:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masum Ibn Musa, can you prove that the subject is notable? Remember that notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been covered by reliable sources, the magazine also frequently collaborate with the government of Bangladesh holding ICT fairs including one in London. It has also been cited by a number of books.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from mentions and name-drops, none of the sources have in-depth coverage. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has reliable sources Heshiv (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't find the "keep" !votes very convincing and would like to see which source discusses this magazine more than just in-passing. The sources currently listed in the article are absolutely insufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- While none of the sources individually show in-depth coverage but collectively they show that reliable sources, including the largest newspapers in Bangladesh, have covered it since the magazines founding. The fact that it holds official events with government agencies in Bangladesh and outside show that it has some credibility. It is the first Computer magazine in the 8th largest country in the world by Population would have some degrees of notability through having pioneer advantage and a large captive audience. A former government Minister in West Bengal, India, identified this magazine in an interview with DW as a type of Bengali language publications they would like in India. Some common sense application of policy is needed here and not an overly bureaucratic response. Look at articles on other computer magazines like MacMinute, MacGuide, MacWEEK, Windows Magazine, etc, who have far fewer sources and still not deleted or even nominated. Why the delete votes despite sources? see Wikipedia:Systemic bias. By comparison this pioneering magazine has received continued coverage from a wide spectrum of national news media in Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listed sources are all minor and mostly in-passing. The !vote above makes an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that fails to convince me. --Randykitty (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Magazines and newspapers are always difficult to find sources. Rival publishing houses will rarely want to discuss them, even if notable, and publishing houses associated with the periodical will be dismissed as not independent. We should therefore be cautious about declaring a subject non-notable after a cursory search fails to turn up in-depth coverage. Further, there is a language problem to overcome here. I am seeing a fair smattering of cites in books and scholarly papers to articles in the magazine. While that does not in itself establish notability, I find that encouraging and it shows that the subject is more than an unnotable enthusiast magazine. This paper on internet access in Bangladesh discusses the subject and opens with "The pioneering and bold computer magazine of Bangladesh, The Monthly Computer Jagat,..." While that discussion is somewhat less than in-depth, it is more than a passing mention. I also find it encouraging that scholars are willing to declare their editorship of Computer Jagat in the brief author bios sometimes included in published papers such as Nibaran Das does in this paper, again showing that the magazine has some kind of scholarly status in Bangladesh. I know this is all very weak, but it is enough to convince me not to delete. SpinningSpark 11:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tried to search for sources in the magazine's native language. I believe the correct search term is "কম্পিউটার জগৎ". Not speaking Bengali, this is difficult for me to assess the results, but there does indeed seem to be some in-depth coverage. For instance, there is this news item of a collaboration between the magazine and the Bangladesh Computer Society. SpinningSpark 12:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to oppose this nomination in view of what Vinegarymass911 and SpinningSpark say above. James500 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Finlay

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

I am not convinced of Finlay's notability. There is no SNG for beauty pageant winners, so unfortunately we have to use the WP:GNG or else WP:ENT.

I searched the following areas and did not come up with any substantive content about Finlay, aside from her obituary.

The usual Google, GNews, GBooks, GScholar
Archive.org (metadata, text, and archived websites)
Cuban Heritage Collection Digital Collections, University of Miami
Library of Congress
Digital Collections - The Cuban Revolution at Yale
Granma Archives Index
Miami Herald archives (obituary from here)

Newspapers.com shows a number of routine exact-duplicate paragraph-length reports from July 1954, reporting that she won Miss Cuba, with others mentioning that she was competing in Miss Universe. I would argue that routine coverage of that nature, limited to the time around the event, does not satisfy WP:N, which requires coverage to be over a significant length of time. (Especially since these were almost all duplicates, presumably from a news agency, which means they aren't really independent of one another). In essence, Finlay is a WP:BLP1E - she won Miss Cuba once and then never really made the news again. I don't think that qualifies her for notability by our standards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is notable for of winning Miss Cuba and for being in Miss Universe. Carole King Johnson, Miss USA 1955 and Charlotte Scheffield, Miss USA 1957 only reference is their Obits; so what makes them notable if not winning Miss USA and participating in Miss Universe? Or are Miss USA winners more notable than Miss Cuba? Forgive me if I entered this incorrectly but I have not made an entry in Wikipedia in a few years. Callelinea (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callelinea, I think you meant Carlene King Johnson and Charlotte Sheffield, if I'm not mistaken (just so anyone looking at the comment can see the links). "Other articles exist" is a common argument to make at AfD, but it's important to judge every article by its own merits and not by those of other articles. For what it's worth, I agree that the sourcing on those two articles is not great, and if there's nothing else for them, they should probably also be deleted - but that's an argument to have at their AfDs, not this one.

Something difficult about articles for pageant winners is that, as I mentioned in my nomination, there's no specific notability guideline (SNG) for them - nothing that tells us, "the winners of Pageant X are presumed notable, the winners of Pageant Y are not", etc. So we have to fall back on the general notability guideline (GNG). Possibly a case could be made for using the criteria for entertainers (ENT) to judge her by.

In Ms. Finlay's case, I couldn't find very much in-depth independent coverage of her, which leads me to believe she doesn't qualify under the GNG. I also found no evidence that she meets the criteria for entertainers (Significant roles in multiple notable productions, large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment).

If you disagree, the best thing to do is locate in-depth reliable sources that would show that she passes GNG or ENT, which would mean the article should be kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Acton, Ontario. There's not a duplicate !vote here, but it seems the consensus of average is to delete and redirect. I am not merging current content because consensus is the article is based on inferior sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acton Fall Fair

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

Well written article about a local fair. Nothing beyond local coverage, and can't find a whole lot of in-depth coverage even there. Simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Keep - Agricultural shows are significant events in my country e.g. Royal Bath and West Show. I first looked for "Three Counties Show", for which there is no article but we have Three Counties Showground. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, agricultural shows can be "significant" — but they're not exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Acton, Ontario since I am not convinced of its notability but it may deserve a blurb on the main page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one non-primary source here to even begin establishing notability, and it just links to a general content directory for the defunct local community weekly while providing no title or date information to help us figure out where in its 100+-year haystack the content actually being cited might be found. This is exactly why I keep getting on people's necks about the need to provide complete citation details and not just blank URLs or links to generic content directories. Something like this would have to clear WP:ORGDEPTH on the basis of coverage that expanded beyond just the local weekly newspaper, but there's no evidence of that being shown at all. It can absolutely be briefly mentioned in the town's article, but the sourcing here doesn't earn it a standalone article of its own independently of that. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Acton, Ontario. As it stands we have an article about an event based on poor sources. I'm not seeing much available beyond some rather routine local coverage. It's presently mentioned in the main Acton article, so a redirect seems sensible. I would say that I don't oppose a merge, but as the current article is based almost entirely on primary sources there's not really anything to be merged. No opposition if someone wants to elaborate on its coverage in the Acton article a bit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I am invoking NOTAVOTE here. While the Keep !votes are more numerical I am unimpressed by the WP:PAG basis of their arguments. That said there is only one comment supporting deletion and that is not enough to establish consensus even in the face of the rather weak Keep arguments. After three relists it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masao Akashi

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

As the article creator said on creation, there is only one source (in Japanese). Now there are a couple more, but none, including the Japanese one, pass WP:RS. Arrangers are rarely notable, and there's no evidence of non-trivial coverage of this one. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources doesn't pass WP:RS? Which one is reliable? What other informations you need in order to keep this page alive? Thank you!

(Qucipuci0)

Keep This page could prove useful to listeners of Japanese music and the references are decently diverse. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. The issue is sourcing, not whether it's interesting or not. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Rickinasia user said, for such main reason I created an article about Masao Akashi. I didn't include information in bio more than what's available and verifiable. Instead, I made list of involved artist bigger because that's where I have more confidence with. --- (Qucipuci0)

Keep. Played bass for B'z and arranged or produced for many extremely notable bands. As an aside, this might be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Category:Japanese music arrangers, Category:American music arrangers, etc. seem to indicate that arrangers are often notable. Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What other source I must add for this page being kept and not be anymore in list of deleted? So far I add sources are all what I asked from my japanese friends. --- (Qucipuci0)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike composers, music arrangers are usually not notable. There are surely exceptions, but don't think this is one of them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 19 June 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)} 17:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Masao Akashi formed his own band under name "Masao Akashi Band"(MAB ref. from onwards) and was active in years 1996-1998. Here is proof.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001120215900/http://www.jin.ne.jp:80/jack3/disco3.htm --- here is his profile http://web.archive.org/web/20001120215900/http://www.blue-z.co.jp/Akashi.html under discography list you can see "MAB profile". they were signed under indies label blue-z records. and here is official profile from "MAB" profile http://web.archive.org/web/19991014020221/http://www.wao.or.jp:80/user/kirimura/AMG/akashi.html

This informations was available but I didn't have any source of it so I didnt include it earlier.

Stefka probably doesnt know how difficult is to obtain old informations in Japanese. I better speak out once situation is known instead of saying false statements. He's very popular in Japan. I also included on profile television appearance, i was lucky to find footage on net. Information if he made another appearance is difficult.

---(Qucipuci0)

You continue to make arguments for deletion. The fact that it is difficult to find sources is an explanatio nf or why there are no sources to establish notability, not a reason for ignoring that fact. WP:POPULAR is likewise not a reason for keeping. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gemar Mills

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

I'm really not seeing significant coverage for this one, beyond some one-off localised coverage, and a few other passing mentions where he is a spokesperson for a school. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered by The Atlantic & Fortune.com Joaomufc (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established through coverage about Mills already in the article, particularly in The Atlantic, plus coverage elsewhere, including here. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources provided to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A big paragraph in the article was copyvio case. I removed it and now it seems to be okay to remain on Wikipedia as references have some reliable sources. Dial911 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WomanSpirit

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

Fails notability, only 25 google news results, and a very small circulation. Many of the main google results are just primary sources as well. ShimonChai (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The related person Ruth Mountaingrove is also up for deletion here --Theredproject (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google News isn't really a great resource for coverage of materials that ceased publication before the web... This one looks to have been pretty influential, though, and looks to pass WP:GNG. It has an entry in the Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women and is mentioned in several other entries, it has its own section in Women's Periodicals in the United States: Social and Political Issues, there's the Lambda Book Report, and several other sources with more-than-a-mention-less-than-a-full-section. It's also the subject of a few university collections, it seems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rhododendrites. Google News really isn't a great indicator for something that ceased publication in 1984. /Julle (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 17:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Ride Tour

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

DePRODed because apparently a previous AfD existed, but isn't noted on the talk page. In either case, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has 2 references; one from Underwood's own site and the other from a fansite - neither are reliable sources. Tour listings are not automatically notable - see Wikipedia:MUSICOUTCOMES. PK T(alk) 12:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed; withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Glockler

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

Contested PROD. No more notable now than when the article was last deleted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I would not be opposed to a redirect to Saxon (band) though he has received some fairly reliable and independent media coverage for his personal life ([5], [6], [7]), and for being a sort-of elder statesman drummer beyond his work with the band ([8], [9], [10], [11]). If kept the article definitely needs better citations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No good reason given for deletion. --Racklever (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article needs additional citations to support the biography. Beth tils (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references found by doomsdayer520 (I'm not sure why I didn't find them) and the other keep !votes, I will withdraw the AfD nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Santa

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

Donna Santa (Brazilian nightclub) links to the page too.

The nightclub doesn't seem notable. Little to no hits when searching on Google. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass in WP:NCORP.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 23:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have A7 tagged this article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 17:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kaul

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

This article was copied and pasted from draftspace after the draft was rejected. Subject fails WP:NBIO, as does the company he founded. Article relies on unreliable sources and sources that only mention the subject in passing. Brad v 13:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable founder/CEO of a non-notable company fails to receive significant coverage in reliable sources. The creator appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed and is very likely using multiple accounts please see see this investigation. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Sanchez

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

Electioneering for or by a politician only known locally. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and therefore meets WP:GNG. Brad v 13:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a candidate for mayor in Phoenix, Arizona. All the coverage appears to be local, and candidates for a local position must receive national or international coverage to meet WP:NPOL or meet WP:GNG prior to their campaign for office. --Enos733 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources are his mayoral announcement and. He isn't independently notable of his mayoral race, and he's not presumed to be notable because of his mayoral race either. Fails GNG, NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 15:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates for mayor of their city — and campaign-related coverage in the local media does not get a candidate over WP:GNG in and of itself, because campaign-related coverage in the local media always exists for every candidate in any election. To get over GNG, he would have to either (a) already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway, or (b) have his campaign-related coverage explode so far out of the ordinary and expected that he had a credible claim to being more notable than most other mayoral candidates in most other cities. But neither of those things has been shown true here (and no, the historic firsts that he will represent if he wins an election he hasn't won yet are not strong claims of specialness for a candidate, either). Certainly this will be recreatable on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify for an article this far in advance of the election. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage will exist for every candidate for mayor. That does not make them notable. Phoenix is a large enough city that if Sanchez is elected mayor he will be a shoe-in for notability. However he has not yet won the election, so until that happens he is not notable. I have to admit my personal desire is to keep this article for various reasons, but Sanchez does not meet our inclusion criteria at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stockdale Country Club

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP / WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft for a nn golf course. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of historical interest, passes WP:GEOFEAT Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a run of the mill country club, less than 100 years old. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faction films

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

Not enough reliable sources to establish notability and Corpdepth. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject could notable if we look at locations and filmography but I only found name mentions after clicking on the find sources tab above.Mia Watson (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage of this organization found in BEFORE. Sources in article do not establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grudge Match (website)

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Previously at DRV so sending to AFD. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced and promotional. 344917661X (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetrixx

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

Fails WP:BAND. I find the strength of the source cited to close the last AFD as a keep to be too weak to constitute significant coverage. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy call

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

Unsourced for over 8 years, and may not even be correct.[[12]] Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe it fails WP:Notability which begins by saying: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics". I've looked in a couple of reputable dictionaries and cannot see anything that defines the term to comply with the article content. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep. I think that with the sources added, my concerns have been addressed and so we should close this discussion. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete But only on the basis of WP:TNT in that it might be a copyvio of [[13]] - no capture on wayback so they might have copied it from wikipedia Lyndaship (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep following sourcing and rewrite. Do wonder if the title is the best though, most peoples experience of courtesy calls goes along the lines of "Hello Mrs Foo, this is just a courtesy call......." Lyndaship (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [14] does not inspire confidence this is a reliable source for a phrases meaning (or even existence). This looks like a variation of Urban dictionary.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We now have some sources, but I still think there is an issue in that this is not the sole use of the phrase.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think we can close this. Still not sure (as we are not a dictionary) but at least it is now sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Izzat Kutebar and Lyndaship: - care to take a second look after rewrite and sourcing?Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've largely rewrote the article and added references - still stub or start level - but enough for an article. Diplomatic courtesy call is clearly notable - this is a key function on the head of mission level and covered quite a bit (both as a topic, and of course coverage of individual calls). There might be non-diplomatic use as well, though I'm not sure that of a nature that deserves an article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on Diplomacy. There is really no need for this term to have its own separate article. -wolf 13:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "courtesy call" is a fairly common English usage. Or was. In Anglo-American society "courtesy calls" were formal social calls paid to categories of people, a hostess after a party, newlywed couples, families who had just moved ot the neighborhood, families in mourning. I am frankly not sure that we need an article on this phrase. But I would oppose redirecting it to the Navy or to the diplomatic corps. Makes more sense to improve the article, since all of the uses with which I am familiar are essentially similar: a formal social or professional call that one is expected to pay. beware PRESENTISM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fairly standard bit of etiquette. If the article needs work then this is done by improving it, not deleting it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has much improved since the AfD nom; no present content or notability concerns. Lead could be expanded; but that's about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no longer "Unsourced" as it was at the time of the AFD nomination, and has been expanded significantly. Dream Focus 01:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important activity undertaken by diplomats on a day to day basis, and the article is now in good shape. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a GF nomination. A BEFORE would be inherently difficult given how common this specific phrase is, however, with the addition of fuller sourcing it seems clear this passes the general notability guidelines. Kudos to Icewhiz for salvaging it. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common phrase, and this is beyond mere dictionary treatment. /Julle (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels Up

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

non notable, and primarily an advertisement for an small aircraft chartering company. . A considerable amount of advertising has been removed already, but what remains is essentially a promotional directory entry, sourced only to press releases, notices, and a promotional interview with the ceo discussing his plans for the future.. The only exception is references to a minor safety incident that involved one of the aircraft. There has been considerable edit warring if it should be included--I think it should , if there is to be an article, but it alone is not enough to justify one . DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the above statement Mia Watson (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Jayaprakash

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

The source cited is permanently dead and I cannot find an archive. Source searches reveal mainly affiliated sources or fan videos and a blog post. I cannot evaluate one more source from a website called "AnimationExpress" as my antivirus has identified it as hazardous. Probably fails WP:CREATIVE, going for an AFD as opposed to a PROD so others who have less neurotic antivirus software can analyse the aforementioned source. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Only the Facebook works - under 2k followers. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly falls short of the general notability guidelines rule of two reliable, secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Answers

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

Several source searches are not providing adequate coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Catholic Answers is certainly encyclopedic. The article may be deficient, but it can be improved with a bit of work. I'm working on other projects at the moment, but I can direct my attention once they are done. Ergo Sum 12:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Deficient" hardly begins to describe the problem. The criteria for a WP entry for an organization include "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But most of the citations are the organization itself and the others are all related to various degrees. That includes its own promotion of a cruise and items for sale in its shop. Follow the citation to the USCCB and you'll find the organization listed in a table, but no significant coverage. There's a fawning profile of Keating on EWTN that I suppose is a form of journalism, but hard to distinguish from advocacy and not exactly independent. The other EWTN citation is just to a program schedule. Again, not significant by any measure. The Charity Navigator citation would be useful if the article itself had substance, but still doesn't meet the coverage criteria. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While there doesn't appear to be a lot of in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources, there is definitely a great deal of light coverage. Just to list a few: Huffington Post, Live Science, The Guardian, The Bulletin (newspaper), The San Diego Union-Tribune (newspaper), Hello Giggles, and Teen Vogue. This is legit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see seven passing mentions... The Banner talk 11:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per GoneIn60 above. Jzsj (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need reliable, independent sources that write about the organisation. Passing mentions fail that point. The Banner talk 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: due to GoneIn60's incredible job finding new sources. The article will look great after expanded and newly found sources added.– Lionel^(talk) 11:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, GoneIn60 brilliantly found seven passing mentions with no value. Please read WP:RS. The Banner talk 11:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice

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

Non-notable organization that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see sufficient coverage for a NPOV article to be written about this subject. Note that there was a related discussion about the founder at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graylan Hagler. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I'm not sure a better article on Hagler couldn't be put together in spite of the 2015 AfD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weak keep. I am singularly unimpressed by the WP:PAG basis of the Keep arguments, however after being relisted and with no pro-deletion commentary, we are where we are. This close is w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekklesia Project

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

Source searches are only providing directory listings, name mentions and passing mentions; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep -- This appears to be an organisation that has held an annual conference yearly for 20 years. The article suffers from the same problem as with many organisations, that the main source on it is an internal one. Unless organisations are controversial enough to get attacked in the media, they do not get external coverage, but that should not prevent them being notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google scholar results seems to show that the project is active and influential. A small number of the the articles are about the project (such as this one), likely enough to write an encyclopedic article. Others refer to the project as a part of the publication process/research/etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half Baked Beans

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. One of the many sources in the article is independent but that is a trivial mention (the company founder is quoted briefly) - the rest of the sources are company listings or press releases (including slightly rewritten press releases). Book reviews of books published by the company don't count towards notability, promotional material even less so. bonadea contributions talk 07:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I see maybe 1 source that I would use, the rest are trivial mentions or promotional pieces/press releases. To the credit of the page creator, however, I don't think they have a conflict of interest, as they've been working on other pages for various Indian publishing houses. Nanophosis (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly scrapes into GNG range but fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH; per nom, many sources cited are either trivial mentions in passing or are not independent from the subject. In addition, no in-depth knowledge of the company is provided by the sources cited and the company has (and makes) no real claims to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Its on the verge of Keep and Delete. Mia Watson (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not the strongest participation but after three relists we are where we are. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banglar Shera Poribaar

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

Another of those non-notable Bengali programs...besides two Times of India sources covering the initial promotion of the show (focusing more on the actors present than on the show itself) no other sources were found.... Delete. — F R ⁺ 06:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failing notability guidelines. Strikerforce^Talk 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrocrush

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

Run of the mill website, not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to indicate how this meets WP:GNG or WP:WEB guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a website, sourced only to its Alexa rating as at 2014. There have been some passing mentions for this website's worst-this-or-that polls, but I am seeing no WP:RS coverage to establish its notability. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly cited article with multiple claims failed to me Wikipedia's criteria verifiability in addition to that the subject also failed to meet WP:BIO. In the previous AfD the result of the discussion was keep yet it was not properly established whether the subject is really notable. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 12:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – More than meets Notability guidelines. Referenced anD quoted in the Outlook India, Washington Post and Times of India to just name a few and shown here [15]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Generally the sources are the articles that he wrote himself and others who have referred him are reliable. My Lord (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only two independent reliable third party sources are merely passing mentions of him...Delete (Discounting all sources written by him or which could have been influenced by him....) — F R ⁺ 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 19 June 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)} 17:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Momm

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

I do not believe that this individual meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A Google search does not return significant coverage independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because Internet is changing over and over again and so the informations that you cannot retrieve anymore. The days of fame for OM are gone. You guys should learn about what Internet is and how it works. But hey, i support this deletion, so there's more for me to put it to the Music Wiki ;) --2003:C7:9BD0:2D00:C69:7383:A131:A286 (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, so if sources exist that are no longer available, it would be useful to know about them to see if anyone can track them down in an internet archive. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage by reliable sources, appears to fail GNG. Strikerforce^Talk 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - search of (including behind some paywalls) turned up nothing except the briefest of passing mentions. Fails NMUSIC and GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Marzin

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

non-notable business profile Heliotom (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere profiling, absolutely non-encyclopedic. Dial911 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Action Button By Speakable

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

Notability concerns for this company/product. The coverage appears to be only of the launch, and only because Bono's daughter is involved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails as entirely promotional and also, none of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 23:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP due to sources being just routine coverage of announcements and the like, plus WP:NOT a free advertising webhost. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Roa (musician)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Most biographical coverage in reliable sources is trivial, though there is some (see [16][17][18]). A consensus of editors also found the MYX charts unreliable (see WP:BADCHARTS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MYX Hit Chart). Magnolia677 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source is even close to being something adding towards passing GNG, so it clearly fails that. I am still trying to figure out how John Roa is a mononym.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in reliable sources including those identified by the nominator so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 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)} 17:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mature Times

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

No credible claim of significance. (I know that isn't an AFD criterion, but it implies non-notability, which is an AFD criterion.) No evidence of notability as defined by independent coverage. Google search finds plenty of hits, but they are all either its own advertising or about its own coverage. Did not find any coverage by independent reliable sources such as critics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; I'm finding nothing substantial about its currrent publisher, Highwood House Publishing. There is no information on the official website about its previous publishers except that they exist. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a free monthly publication designed for over 50s. I see it at my local public library. I guess it does not easily meet our notability criteria, but it has apparently got a circulation of 200,000, which is more than many local papers, and I think merits inclusion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A circulation of 140,000 (added to article with reference) makes it appear notable. Ifnord (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Thought and Ethics

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

Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article; only finding passing mentions in various searches. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is being used as a WP:COATHANNGER for an attach on Intelligent design. The theory that the universe has a designer cannot be proved, any more than the rival theory (atheism) that there is no God. Any claim that science can prove atheism is equally pseudo-scientific. Its argument is circular, as the conclusion is actually among its assumptions. I do not know this organisation and thus whether it is notable or not, but Intelligent designis a widely held belief and WP cannot dismiss it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:COATRACK. StrayBolt (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are 60+ results on newspapers.com about the organization, which may be used to improve the article (which is poor in its current state).[19] In the meantime, the article could/should be stubbified. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable organization based on coverage available, even if the article could use a major rewrite. Involved in a high-profile court case that found ID to be religion and not science. I'm not opposed to WP:TNT, but we should definitely have an article on the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Anachronist. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The sources are weak and do not show that this org pass GNG requirements. While creationism is notable not all organizations related to it are notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 17:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Burgon Society

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Society's website looks as if it is purely a vehicle of Bible for Today Baptist Church. AS a local church his is not inherently notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see passing mention at google news and newspapers.com[20], not enough to create an article with a neutral point of view. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Action for Israel

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

Not finding any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources after several searches; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Most of this article is about the South African branch of what purports to be an international organisation. If it is such, why do we not have a proper substantive article on the Geneva-based international organisation? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organization was more active in the late 20th century, I added some sources and a little material. I am not at all certain that it still exists, or that http://www.christianactionforisrael.org/ is the same outfit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note diligent searching produces no indication that this org. still exists. Political organizations have short half-lives. A non-notable website by this name does now exist. I have put this organization into the past tense. In its day it did get WP:SIGCOV, one national chapter was headed by a bluelinked person, and it is mentioned in a number of books. Moreover I have improved it with reliable sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjada Mata Temple

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not able to find anything substantial that can help establishing notability. Apart from that, article is not suitable in mainspace in it's current form. Hitro talk 08:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks as though someone a few years back started to create this article, and abandoned it before adding content, let alone references.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to have added that I searched for it, and failed to identify it. (It may exist and be notable, there are a thousand and one notable temples in India we do not yet have articles on. And they all have multiple common names, with multiple transliterations.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content in the article....Besides a few tourist websites and Wikipedia mirrors no sources could be found — F R ⁺ 09:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice

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

Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions; not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As no participation yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the org.'s own website really mention "No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice" as an organization. Curdle (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bishop

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

PR puffery. Only coverage is in press releases. Heliotom (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject has not received substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:BIO.Beth tils (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Rahim

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:DIRECTOR because he has directed only one film. He received an award but I would say its a not a major one so It does not help establish WP:N remotely.

I would say director of a single movie is not something that would be expected to have an article on Wikipedia, unless he meet GNG as well. The subject received press coverage (Trivial mentions) due to his debut movie but lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fails WP:DIRECTORHeshiv (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. The tribune article is a puff piece that claims he is an "Ace" director whilst talking about his upcoming directorial debut. Seems like a contradiction in terms. Dunya news is routine coverage of an upcoming film, and the other is a passing mention in an interview followed by a list. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tunego

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Sources are a mix of churnalism. scope_creep (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ORGIND The author is independent of the content. Several different sources are provided. WP:NCORP TUNEGO is inherently notable because they have demonstrated effects on entertainment via the media coverage on their Exclusive Industry Portal. TUNEGO is also notable due to their media coverage in Hypebot, Digital Music News, Music Business Worldwide, and Music Connection. (AzaleeMaslow (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

AzaleeMaslow, You are not 'independent', in fact you have a massive COI. As you were paid to write this article, it's obvious you would vote to keep it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AzaleeMaslow: If they're notable, they need not pay you to create article for them. It would've been created by unpaid volunteer like any other notable business. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet the criteria of a number of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH are both left unmet due to a lack of in-depth, independent coverage. Note that the vast majority of the sources cited by the article are press releases ("Startup/IPO Tunego raises X amount of money" as a hypothetical) announcing funding, which is an issue as Tunego does not (per WP:NOTINHERITED) inherit notability from its investors nor artists using it, and press releases do not fulfill WP:NCORP's criteria for valid sources. Per the nominator's point, the article is also awash with churnalism and corporate spam, as could probably be expected given that it was created by a disclosed paid editor. Note also that the sources cited indicate that, as of May 2018 the company has raised around $13 million, which is a trival amount when compared to other companies; this raises WP:MILL issues as the company does not denote why it is notable when compared to other similar companies, and WP:TOOSOON needs to be considered as the company is relatively small and still considered a newcomer to the industry.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmitigated, paid-for spam. A classic example of what the encyclopedia is not for. This company has done nothing to demonstrate significance or importance. The sources mainly just confirm its routine seed capital. and its entry into the market Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very weak referencing that cannot establish notability nor pass the strengthened NCORP. Also compounding this is the fact that the paid editor knowingly decided not disclose that they were paid to create and promote this article as required by policy. They only did so rather reluctantly after I suspected that and confronted them with the issue. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Zhe

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

This seems to be created by the staff of the online education website, or even himself. User:Wanmen is the pinyin of "One-Man University", the website created by him. Therefore, it is very likely that this violates WP:COI and WP:PAID. This user was blocked as a promotion-only account on the Chinese Wikipedia and this article was deleted. In addition, the controversy part is poorly sourced (only one Peking University BBS link). E8xE8 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unclear if the 'university' is notable (it has an article at zh:万门大学, ("ten-thousand door university" rather than "one man") but even if it is Tony Zhe seems very unlikely to be. Only evidence of his notability seems to be a minor academic dispute reported by a BBS.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most likely meets GNG. The report from China Science Daily (http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2014/9/304247.shtm) is mostly on himself, while the report by Jilin University News (http://news.jlu.edu.cn/info/1037/9724.htm), while covering the university, also talks a lot about the subject. Btw I cannot find reliable source on the degree dispute, since when do we quote bbs posts? --Skyfiler (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep I did some Google search and it appears to me an obvious keep. Meets WP:GNG, has significant coverage by national-level media XinhuaNet and iFeng(凤凰). Xinbenlv (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 14:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Young Man (film)

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

Fails subject notability guidelines comprehensively. ∯WBG^converse 06:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF, no notability beyond existing. BOVINEBOY2008 13:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is completely silent on what the plot of this film is (the section sub-titled "Plot" says "This section is empty"). The only references are a few external links, one of which is the Internet Movie Database, and Wikipedia is not meant to be the Internet Movie Database. Vorbee (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teardrop Nirvana

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

Unsourced, probably a hoax Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm Brazilian and and I've never heard about this park.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No information or mentioning about this park can be found, likely just a hoax. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A glance through the first fifteen pages of results in a Google search for this subject does not show this specific attraction. Strikerforce^Talk 16:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely a hoax, and if it isn't then it's not notable. Also note that if this reaches consensus to delete, we should remove it from Teardrop (do we have to wait for the AfD to end to do that?) LittlePuppers (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3, a blatant hoax. The image captioned "bubble maze" is actually an image of the Château de Marqueyssac, aside from almost certainly being a copyright violation. Nanophosis (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs to be obviously verifiable. /Julle (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Jesus Christ (Toneyite)

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

Non-notable organization that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a splinter of a splinter groups of LDS. If the article showed evidence that this that there was more than one congregation, I might have voted to keep as a (small) denomination, but what I read suggests that there is one congregation (if that). If I am wrong, others will no doubt correct me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to source this splinter church and its leader, and cannot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable religious group; I can't find enough to justify an article on Forrest Toney (which currently redirects to this article) which would be the only possible redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see significant coverage or any indication of a significant role for the subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Accord

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

A non-notable organization that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The number of redlinks in the article suggests that its associates are NN. It looks like the Canadian aid organisation of LDS. I am very duibious of its notability, but have not formally voted as I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find independent sources to satisfy WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Kelly-Clyne

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Links are brief mentions, interviews, or lack mention of individual. Appears to fails WP:N. Article created by paid editor. reddogsix (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons as were given by everybody except the creator of the article in the previous discussion. There was no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines when that discussion took place, and there is none now. References are not independent sources, or do not give substantial coverage, or both. Four of the references are merely announcements of an appointment in trade publications and similar, and they contain substantial amounts of text which sentence by sentence gives slightly paraphrased copies of the same statements: clearly merely four write-ups of the same press release. There are web sites which exist largely (or in some cases even entirely) by publishing paid for write-ups of press releases in this way, and presenting it as though it were independent journalism. Other references are no better, including, for example, a mere list of Kelly-Clyne's works, and one of them doesn't even mention him at all. This article is a good example of one of the problems caused by paid editors who come here to use Wikipedia to promote their clients. In such cases there is a severe conflict of interest, as the editor has a vested interest in trying to get the article accepted, which conflicts with the interest of trying to make sure that content follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If this discussion ends in delete, as the first one did, I hope the editor will now accept consensus, rather than creating an article to publicise his or her non-notable client for a third time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, fails WP:SIGCOV. Agree with conclusion of the AfD held 6 months ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and at least some of the bluelinks are fraudulent. For example, it says he works for a media company called Big Breakfast, but the link is to a 90s television series in Australia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:NACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn to Oak Foundation

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

Non-notable organization that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Available sources are all primary and do not meet the standards of WP:ORGIND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this outfit may indeed found a university, but it fails WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apart from Eastmain, the "keep"s are by blocked users or users with less than 30 edits. Sandstein 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fynd

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

As usual with companies of this sort, every reference here is a press release or a mere notice. There are more of them than usual, but no evidence of encyclopedic notability DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This bylined article from Economic Times is reasonably in-depth and from a reliable source. The article was published in 2014 and uses the company's previous name, Shopsense. This Business Standard article is behind a paywall but appears to be independent and in-depth. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and met WP:GNG, obviously an article can't meet all WP policies. Every company and article is notable somehow in their respective industry unless an ordinary electric store on the road side. Mia Watson (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that's a rather unsuaul opinion, considering that we have a basic principle, WP:NOTDIIRECTORY. How would this make us diffeent from google? DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough references which falls under Wikipedia:List_of_online_newspaper_archives#India. It was however in minor violation

with WP:NPOV policy which has been corrected. Sachdevpuneet (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article notable but WP:NOTDIRECTORY Applies. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice: sourcing does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. Yet another nn startup using Wikipedia for advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some substantial features here: e.g. the Times of India article which although no doubt based on a press release does nevertheless provide information about the capitalization and business model of the company in what is evidently an independent, reliable, secondary source.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Third round startups of this size are rarely notable. Most of the sources in the article are PR driven. BEFORE shows around 42 true google-news hits (after filtering adding a founder's name, since Fynd is not a unique name) - which also seems to be mostly promotional driven (funding round news releases by the VCs and the company, company PR releases).Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sorry, NCORP hasn't been met. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desiderio Arce

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. All available coverage is primary, which does not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. searching turned up a single 1967 article in Deseret NEWS, with a sentence on him as a young singer turned missionary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Questions:
- Are sources relating to the Mormon church considered independent?
- Is there a notability guideline relevant to missionaries?
- Are there Spanish–language sources we are missing?

These questions need to be answered before I !vote, because I'm not sure he is non-notable. He seems to be significant since he is a South American recognized by the U.S.–based LDS church. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret News, while certainly reliable, is affiliated with LDS at one remove (complicated ownership) and, therefore, additional sources are needed. Publications published by LDS may be reliable, anc can be used to build an article, but are not independent and do not establish notabilit. The reason for my delete opinion is that that single sentence in Deseret was the only hit I got in a Proquest news archive search. Please feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone finds more sources, in English or Portuguese. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable either as a musician or as a religious figure. bd2412 T 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current sourcing does not pass GNG. Dial911 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Venmo. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqram Magdon-Ismail

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

Not enough in-depth coverage for stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Venmo. At least borderline WP:GNG. Pburka (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Venmo so as not to give inappropriate publicity to his current venture. Deb (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Venmo; not independently notable but a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Mountaingrove

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

This figure is not notable, less than 30 google news results, and she established a very small magazine that has little to no coverage or attention to this day. Her land trust was 147 acres. To put that into context, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy an actually notable land trust has 250,000 acres. ShimonChai (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The related journal WomanSpirit is also up for deletion here --Theredproject (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems worth noting that her papers are in the archives of a major university [21] and her NPR affiliate did not one, but two 30m shows to her memory [22] [23] and the local paper published an obituary [24] --Theredproject (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's typical for the local paper publish an obituary for people who have little to know notability, it means nothing in terms of notability. ShimonChai (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A paid obituary does not establish notability. An article about the subject written by a staff writer of the newspaper does establish notability. Moreover, the radio broadcasts also establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has substantial coverage in reliable sources such as a women's bio encyclopedia published by the respected academic publisher Routledge as well as other rs books and press, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plus add that to have ones papers considered important enough to be included as part of a major university (U of Oregon) collection is no small accomplishment. A clear keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry for Moutaingrove in Feminists Who Changed America is a clear example of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (the archive referred to above). Vexations (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Vexations and Atlantic306. /Julle (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aly-Us

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

Non-notable musical group with lack of independent reliable coverage. Only passing mentions in sources. Tinton5 (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it should be deleted. It is a true classic of the house-music genre. Added more citations re NPR, moby. If you google "the best classic house" and the track you get lots of hits.

This is a niche genre. Heavily African American. Also LGBT.

Ps - song has nearly 7m youtube views. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhdshoes2 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed misplaced comment. @Bdshoes2:: New votes go at the bottom of the nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄)

Tagging @Alansohn for his Jersey-centric viewpoint.Bhdshoes2 (talk)

Weak Support - Notability seems not too good, does not really meet WP:BAND, however, it is debatable. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 19:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had a high charting release on a Billboard chart and has reliable sources coverage such as NPR and Allmusic, passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some sources in article are not indepedent; others indicate notability but not significant coverage. Search finds sources that could be added that would be enough for a short article such as this. "Follow Me" charted in the UK twice, both times outside the top 40 but in the top 75. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The sources found by the previous voters must be added to the article to make it more viable. Those sources indicate that this group had one big song that charted in US and UK, which in turn generated a little media notice at the time and some more recent "lost classic"-style nostalgia. Should be enough for a presentable stub article, but it needs to be cleaned up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva

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

Not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this subject. It appears that virtually all coverage is published in primary sources, which does not establish notability, and none of the primary sources appear to constitute significant coverage either. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not enough media coverage on the individual itself besides being in articles which are to broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have other people with the position of Area Seventy been kept at AfD? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quick search, doesn't look like substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TL;DR: fails GNG, etc. Traditionally, bishops of major denominations "are notable by virtue of their status", even if sourcing is from that denomination. LDS bishops are specifically excluded from that, however (disclaimer: not a Mormon, may contain inaccuracies):

Ref Priesthood (LDS Church), LDS bishops < area authorities (Quorums 3+) < general authorities (Quorums 1-2) < Apostles < First Presidency
The general authorities exercise administrative and ecclesiastical authority. Area presidents are general authorities
Seventies consist of Quorums of up to 70 members aged 55+. Members of Quorum 1 are appointed for life but may go emeritus at 70. Members of Quorum 2 serve until release (but generally for 5-7 years, which would take them into their 60s) -- but may be promoted from Quorum 2 to Quorum 1
The LDS currently has ~109 general authorities, at a ratio of ~1 for every 135K Mormons (about 15m LDS members). There's about 1 bishop for every 250K Catholics, or 1 bishop for every 100K Anglicans, so this is a comparable ratio for general authorities, but not for area authorities.
There's thus a case to be made that (while other denominations' bishops retain de-facto notability) some level of the LDS hierarchy should treated equitably and endowed with the same status. This is probably the general authorities of Quorum 1 and above, though perhaps Quorum 2 as well for simplicity.
The area authorities of Quorums 3+ and below, however, should be considered to have no presumed notability, and would need to demonstrate that they meet GNG or an SNG. No evidence has been provided or found that the article's subject does. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hydronium Hydroxide. The subject is not high up enough to rate as automatically notable, and there are zero sources otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 14:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PeerCast

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

Unreferenced, OR-heavy article about a service that apparently only existed for a year. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no news coverage as far as I can tell. Fails GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Nanophosis (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Defunct service with no sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulyses Puzon

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

A boxer - A WP:BEFORE, found no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOXING. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search failed to find coverage to show WP:GNG is met and the article's only sources as just lists of his fights. He never fought for any titles that WP:NBOX mentions and an overall record of 18 wins in 52 fights doesn't help support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.PRehse (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. After two relists and no clearly defined pro-Keep or delete comments it's time to close this. Based on the discussion I am not comfortable calling this a "soft delete." Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Hatcher Davis

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

I tagged this article for proposed deletion and I was surprised that Atlantic306 removed the tag based on the rationale that Davis's 1972 book Peirce's Epistemology has about 100 citations on Google Scholar. A mere 100 citations of only one book since 1972 does not make him "highly cited", which is one of the notability criteria for academics. Also, that was Davis's last book even though he was an academic for another 40 years. Here is my original rationale for proposed deletion, which is still valid: I was reading a book by this article's subject, William Hatcher Davis, and I decided to look him up. His obituary in the Elk Valley Times indicates that he died a year ago. I was about to add his birth and death dates to this article, but then I noticed that the article has been tagged for notability since February 2010. After some more research, I could not find any information that indicates that he meets the notability guidelines for academics. Therefore, per WP:DEL8, it is time for this article to rest in peace, just like Professor Davis. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Davis may meet notability requirements for an author based on reviews of his works. I do not have access to these reviews of The Freewill Question, but here are the citations : Exner, K. (1972). Davis william H.: "the freewill question" (book review). Meisenheim: Anton Hain, etc. and The freewill question (book review) (1973). . Madrid: Facultades de Filosofía de la Compañía de Jesús en España. And one for his more cited book Peirce’s Epistemology [25]. The common names of these books make them hard to search in databases...maybe others will have better luck. If this survives AfD, this link may help fill some biographical details [26]. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's worth pointing out that the reason why Davis's 1972 book Peirce's Epistemology has about 100 citations on Google Scholar is because the book's subject, Charles Sanders Peirce, is a notable philosopher who has been influential in multiple fields. Those who are citing the book are writing about Peirce, not about Davis. Biogeographist (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they're talking about what Davis said about Peirce, then it counts in Davis' favor. That's one of the big themes of WP:PROF: academics can be notable through their work, as evidenced by citations and other indices, even if people don't lavish biographical attention on them. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined a sample of the sources that cite Davis's Peirce's Epistemology, and it appears to me that the sources that cite Davis's book are citing it as a secondary source on Peirce, or as an example of a book covering a certain topic in Peirce's work, not as an example of Davis having contributed original ideas that are widely discussed, which is the point of Criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Any one of many other secondary sources could be cited in place of Davis's book; see, e.g., McKaughan, Daniel J. (October 2008). "From ugly duckling to swan: C. S. Peirce, abduction, and the pursuit of scientific theories". Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 44 (3): 446–468 (449). Other examples of the Generative Interpretation include Nickles (1985) and Joseph Brent's (1998) biography of Peirce, which emphasizes Peirce's idea that abduction is a form of guessing by which we come up with explanatory hypotheses to be tested. This approach is also found, to varying degrees, in Davis (1972), Shanahan (1986), Roth (1988), Turrisi (1990), and—despite more attention to economic considerations—Brown (1983). Biogeographist (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, he wouldn't have to have provided novel ideas; if his book were regarded as a definitive text on Peirce scholarship, then that would count in his favor under WP:PROF#C4. However, I can't find any evidence that this is the case in this particular instance. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hypothetical at this point since none of the criteria in WP:Notability (academics) appears to apply in this case, but if by "text" you mean a "textbook used in courses" (per Criterion 4: widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education) then Criterion 4 would apply. Biogeographist (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that if Davis' book were widely used in university philosophy courses, then WP:PROF#C4 would apply. However, I do not think that is the case, so as you say, it's all hypothetical at this point. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 27 June 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)} 17:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Knight

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

No notable wrestler. He is just a develoment talent in WWE's farm territory. Just had a few matches. Too soon for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - wrestler is an active member of WWE's televised roster, article has significant independent coverage. Dannys-777 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "significant independent coverage" looks like wp:routine. Most of the sources are just a few televised matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are 3 different WP:RS which have independent articles based on him. I believe this is enough to establish WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage. The articles based on him are all from the same local media group from his hometown. Nikki♥311 04:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dannys-777. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is it written that being an active member of WWE's roster makes you automatically notable (WP:INHERIT)? Please provide a rationale for how he has significant independent coverage. Nikki♥311 01:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[27], [28], [29] (although this source requires a subscription to view it), [30], and I did find others with a mention, and there are the other obvious reliable wrestling sites. Next time, Nikki311, go at the person who made the initial comment not me. Galatz made a comment about sources, but you never went at him. No need to come at me. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 4 are passing mentions. Sources 2 and 3 are from the same local media group from his hometown (as I said above in response to Galatz). I responded to him and you. I just replied under your comment, because it came after what I initially wrote. Nikki♥311 23:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 19 June 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)} 17:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROUTINE coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britton Buchanan

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Reality tv runner up... no sourcing to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BLP1E. May be justified once other content is added. It's a work in progress. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you do understand that BLP1E is a rationale for deletion, not keeping. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no other commentary required. Bleucheeses (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And no rationale for keeping given. Just saying. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails BLP1E, no evidence this runner-up can pass the GNG otherwise. No valid Keep rationale given. No other commentary required. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Lots of tongue in cheek "no commentary required" ivotes, but to get serious: this is WP:BLP1E and should fail based on that and yet a simple google reveals coverage in legit independent sources such as Rolling Stone, Parade Magazine, People, Carson Daly, etc. indicate that although his initial fame was the result of reality television, he has gotten the necessary attention beyond that to squeak through WP:GNG. Problem is this article has zero sourcing and really needs re-written to be kept, but the subject itself passes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Lindahl

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

Non-notable musician. PRehse (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near enough to show that Lindahl is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep does have an AllMusic bio here which states that he was a X Factor finalist at the age of 14 but it doesn't review or even list any solo releases, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Finalists aren't notable, even if we trusted AllMusic bios, which we don't. No evidence he can pass the GNG. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Verma Jeetu

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN not yet elected to public office and lacks significant coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being spokesperson for a political party can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be properly sourced as clearing WP:GNG for that work, but it is not an automatic guarantee of a Wikipedia article in and of itself. The sources here aren't particularly helping to get him over GNG either, as they mostly comprise sources in which he's the speaker being quoted about other things, not sources about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spokespeople are very rarely notable. Only if they create a lot of media content on their own that has an impact, and nothing near that is suggested for Jeetu. Micahel Otterson is the person who made me add that caveat, and I have no clue if we have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 17:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waves platform AG

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

Promotional article about an unremarkable cryptocurrency related company. Fails WP:ORG . Razer(talk) 16:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the page should be retained. I disagree that the article fails WP:ORG. The company and it's activities are notable in the field in which it operates and has been reported on by most cyptocurrency news websites and on mainstream media. In my view the article is not a promotional piece but a succinct, factual account of the company and activities. Citations are present from a disperate range of sources. I would find this page useful if I read a news story about an interaction between a government department or enterprise and either, Waves Platform or Vostok and wanted to check context or background here, on wikipedia. Glerant (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added further citation references including from CNN & Forbes news sites, expanded some sections and made small grammar edits.Glerant (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of the four reliable cites in the article, one's a dead link, two are the same link (and is a BLOGGER) and the last doesn't mention the subject at all. Fails NCORP and the GNG. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am no expert in bitcoin industry but as per references and industry it has good coverage. Better an expert from an industry can explain. Mia Watson (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article Waves platform, which covers thir technology. An additional one for the company serves no purposes but promotionalism/ Given the similarity of the names, there's no need to even redirect. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed broken citation link, Alexander Ivanof (CNN) and added further citation for Vostok (TechCrunch). Glerant (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taking heed of the comments by Razer & DGG I now agree that this page could be deleted. I moved the sections that I felt could be useful to the main page for this subject.Glerant (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Chobey

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

No significant and non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, other than a binch of name-mentions.Fails our subject-notability guidelines and general notability guidelines.A bunch of the current sources are unreliable and by a mile. ∯WBG^converse 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete functionary of minor parts of a minor party with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cabayi (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification. The article doesn't state anything about this in its body text, but it's been categorized in Category:Uttar Pradesh MLAs 2017–22. I don't know nearly enough about Indian politics to know whether this is a badly written article about an incumbent MLA that just needs to be repaired to put the basis for notability where it belongs, or whether the creator just copy-pasted another article as a "template" and failed to remove the irrelevant categories. Can somebody with better Hindi or Urdu language skills than mine verify either way? If she is an MLA, then it's a keep with refimprove because she would pass WP:NPOL #1 — but if she's not, then it's a delete as the position the body text does claim for her is not an "inherently" notable one and the sourcing (comprising glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about her) isn't getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat, she is NOT an incumbent MLA...category removed --Adamstraw99 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks for the clarification, Adamstraw. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not a notable politician...office bearer of a 'wing' of a regional party, never an elected representative. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tap Tap. Delete and merge isn't actually possible because of boring reasons. But consensus is to not have this article, and a redirects later merging from history if anybody is so inclined. Sandstein 18:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tap Tap Glee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tap Tap Glee

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

Article was previously deleted by User Callanecc (talk · contribs) for not being notable per a PROD nomination by User BU Rob13 (talk · contribs). Article was recreated by User Mayamaya7 (talk · contribs) immediately after Tap Tap Revenge 2 and Template:Tap Tap series were nominated for deletion per the same notability issues. Previous articles Tap Tap Revenge 3, Tap Tap Revenge 4, Nine Inch Nails Revenge, and Nirvana Revenge have all been deleted or redirected per lack of WP:Notability and WP:Reliable Sources. User Mayamaya7 (talk · contribs) restored all of these around the same time without consensus, and they are all now back to redirects thanks to User Polyamorph (talk · contribs).

I also propose deleting Tap Tap Revenge 2 and bundling it with this AfD. It currently has a separate AD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tap Tap Revenge 2. Also of note is the Tap Tap Series Template which is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_16#Template:Tap_Tap_series.

Edit: Apparently the user who recreated, User:Mayamaya7, is an indefinitely blocked WP:SOCKPUPPET.

-R9tgokunks ⯃ 00:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @The1337gamer:, @Czar:, as users have participated in redirecting of related articles per failing of WP:GNG. R9tgokunks ⯃ 01:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why this can't be merged to Tap Tap? Would seem to be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Ya, I'd agree that this title doesn't have significant coverage as is. czar 01:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced content to the respective section of its parent (series) article, Tap Tap. czar 09:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - Non-notable. Maybe a simple sentence in the Tap Tap article would suffice. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Tap Tap. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Tap Tap.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NukeThePukes:, @Czar:, @CAPTAIN RAJU:, @Lee Vilenski:. I also have a separate AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tap Tap Revenge 2, but i'm thinking it should be bundled with this as the issues with it are the same. I'm not clear as to how bundlign would be done in this case, though. Any thoughts on deletion/merger of that article? R9tgokunks ⯃ 23:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling only makes sense at the outset when the articles in the article group will not be discussed individually. It makes more sense to ping those who participated above to see the other discussion as well than to merge that discussion here when the above participants may or may not agree that its case is identical to the one under discussion. But this is all besides the point as these articles under discussion should have, reasonably, been redirected as an alternative to deletion before coming to AfD. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 09:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed is scene related.

The first AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2010, the second one as "delete" in 2013. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails PORNBIO, nothing to see here but plastic, move on. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete This article shows everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. In the 2010 keep discussion people actually argued to keep based on sources that in the same breath they admitted were primary sources. If an article is being built on primary sources it is not follwing in the wake of reliable source coverage, but trying to forge it. I am not sure in what world of unrighted wrongs we would even want to force more coverage of pronographic performers. However, since righting wrongs is not the purpose of Wikipedia, we do not do it. Ivy fails any and all GNG tests. The sourcing on her is never reliable. I think it is high time we scapped the horrible pornographic notability guidelines and wrote some new ones that had a likely connection with coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to the promotional, spammy goobledy gook churned out by the pornography industry itself. True, the pornography articles have been regulated to the extent that the total number of articles in Category:American pornographic film actresses has actually gone down. I think it was once over 500, maybe even over 600, it is now below 400. Still, it is a huge category, and far bigger than is at all needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is time that Wikipedia reigned in its unreasonable coverage of utter drek.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Johnpacklambert: I believe that 500 in a universe of 5 million articles is not a problem. I perceive a delecionism in articles related to pornography. But I agree with you that WP:PORNOBIO should be updated, maybe even deleted and WP:NACTOR changed to include pornstars. Awards can be partial, while criteria like popularity are not taken into account.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No eligible award wins to pass WP:PORNBIO. Lacks significant secondary source coverage to pass WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not materially improved over the version deleted in 2013. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 18:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montana State University Office of the Provost

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

This is an article dedicated to a single office within a much larger university. The provost of a university generally lacks the notability to be included in an encyclopedia article as a separate entry, and much of the material on the page reads as if it was pulled from the websites for the university describing those programs. Uncrfe (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article looks more like a page from publicity material for the university than an article in an encyclopedia. Also there doesn't seem to be significant enough coverage in independent sources for notability. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kinda sad that an admin is responsible for most of the content here. You'd think an admin would have a better handle on notability guidelines and the GNG. Superficially, there are lots of sources, but once you eliminate primary sources and touch on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE, what you got here is a lot of namedrops and casual mentions. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NukeThePukes: What are you talking about? The article was mostly written by Mike Cline three years before he became an administrator. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Waratah Trains Transport for NSW

[1]