Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 September >

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. No prejudice against recreation should better sources be found, per WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beybala Khankishiyev

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, I can't find mention of him on Google or academic databases. Rosguill^talk 23:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all military-related and should be delisted. Kges1901 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I suspect we may have the transliterated name wrong. I did find and link the ruwiki entry and azwiki entry~~, but haven't found this in the azwiki yet~~. beyond possibly passing NPROF, I think the supervisor of the Insurance industry in Azerbaijan would be notable today.az - we generally assume heads of similar regulatory bodies are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article contains several claims that would pass WP:PROF, and although not directly referenced, I have no particular reason to doubt them either. Searching for sources on Google etc. is not a good strategy for a Soviet academician; any sources that are out there are unlikely to be English, well-indexed, or even online at all. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There aren't any refs in the article that verify notability, they are 404, trivial or similar. I did a copyvio check because it looks like a copy and paste, returned nothing. This was probably an obituary. Google returned an entry saying he was a civil servant of medium rank. This wouldn't get past AFC so we shouldn't keep it. Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not noted, cant find references about him. Definitely fails WP:BIO --Jay (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. In the future, perhaps an Azerbaijani-speaking Wikipedian could bring forth sources that'd support an article here. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Raaber

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot find anything in English sources. The one Japanese one is WP:PRIMARY. I do not know if there are potentially some out there in other languages though based on his time in Japan and Europe. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It looks like the top 4 Austrian newspapers, between them, have mentioned Raaber a total of 3 times. Two appearances are trivial; he is mentioned in passing as one of several wrestlers in an event lineup (Presse, 6 July 2017 and 24 April 2018). The third appearance is a charity event announcement (SN, 3 March 2017). This guy is clearly not a legitimate celebrity, not even locally. On the other hand, there is an interview with Raaber in a 2009 issue of Profil, a distinguished political magazine, and a short biography of sorts in a 2015 art book (Peternel and Peternell, Who the Fuck is Alice?, Kein & Aber). I guess that means he technically meets GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Damvile (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "short biography" is a single paragraph, 120 words long. I think it's a stretch to refer to this as "significant coverage." Even if we accept the paragraph as significant, we currently have significant coverage from a grand total of 2 (two) independent sources, which means we'd be stretching the definition of "multiple" too. Kramler (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding "significant", a mention isn't significant if it's long, it's significant if it's not trivial. A mention is trivial if it's unconscious and/or automatic and/or unavoidable. When Raaber appears on a list of wrestlers appearing in some wrestling event, that's a trivial mention because his inclusion does not prove the author of the list has given Raaber any thought, considers Raaber interesting, or would have remembered Raaber's name the next day. When a writer makes the conscious choice to include Raaber in a book in which his appearance is not obvious, then this is evidence of Raaber having been noted, i.e. being notable. Regarding "multiple", it has always been policy that 2 sources can be enough, especially if the subject is geographically or recentism-istically disadvantaged, which is the case for Raaber. Lastly, Raaber has had a 90-minute movie made about him. Assuming you don't want to argue that a 90-minute movie is insignificant, that brings the number of sources up to 3. Damvile (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) KCVelaga (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Amber Swartz–Garcia

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of crimes or anything else. This is a two sentence article on an event 30 years ago that's unlikely to get any more coverage to permit anything longer. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news. » Shadowowl | talk 20:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be evaluated on its current two sentence length. The article was kept at an AfD debate in April of this year where the consensus was to keep. That debate brought forward many sources that can be used to expand the article. There has been ongoing coverage of this kidnapping in reliable sources for 30 years. The San Francisco Chronicle, for example, is not Pinole's local newspaper, but is instead the dominant regional newspaper for Northern California. The Chronicle has published at least 66 stories about this case over the past three decades. Consider this story about the impact of the kidnapping on her family and this story about the man who confessed to the kidnapping and murder. Both stories were published many years after the kidnapping. Ongoing coverage is not limited to the Chronicle and a reading of the April AfD debate will lead editors to many other sources that can be used to expand the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was notified on my TP as a former AfD participant (but I would have !voted anyway - I vote on almost all AfDs in the crime delsort). Ahould not have been nominated so close to previous keep. I will just repeat my previous comment : Significant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. 1989 1998 2000 2002 2009 2009 2013 2013 2013 2015 2016. books - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Seems early coverage is primarily as "Amber Swartz" (and that Garcia was tacked on at some later date - per this rather in-depth piece - her father Bernie Swartz was murdered a few months prior to her birth and her mother lived with Al Garcia but did not marry him due to police pension issues) - and that this was a nationwide photograph item in 1988... We judge NCRIME by coverage, and this specific kidnapping has very wide and continuing coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – This stub article is notable on its face, and there are many online and offline references to build it out. That being said, it currently passes muster as a stub. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have expanded the article significantly and added several references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, Well sourced and well worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article appears to be improved, with sufficient amount of reliable sources. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Enough already. BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY, atop the clear KEEP earlier this year. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources are reliable ones that demonstrate notability outside the immediate vicinity of where it happened. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the article is properly sourced. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the head count is roughly equal, a clear consensus to delete emerged in the second half of the discussion. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Jing (volleyball)

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

Single secondary source, mostly filled with quotes from the subject. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), played in international tournament, with reliable secondary source. Marthadandridge (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned nothing about Notability being an issue. My problem is the sourcing. A single source, which uses many many primary quotes, reduces it's reliability as an independent source. Of course google translate can only go so far... -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single source is a tag, not a rationale for deletion. FIVB is independent of the subject, and is reliable. deletion is not an quality improvement process. Marthadandridge (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: verifiably international player. PamD 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in sources, difficult to argue notability given the paucity of sources. W C M_email 13:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unfortunately, volleyball isn't covered under WP:NSPORT, but it seems most sports count a player on a national team which has competed at an international level or participated in an international tournament - including the Olympics - as notable. Why not just tag the article with any of these instead of putting it at AfD? originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 14:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AFD is not cleanup. I agree that the current state of sourcing of the article is bad but she played in an international tournament, with RS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played for the national team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given sourced international competition. Ralbegen (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given evidence presented below. Ralbegen (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closer Query - I'm wondering if there are two sourcing issues here. One is that GNG takes precedence over NSPORT (which merely offers quick and ready aids) and that GNG wouldn't seem to be satisfied. The other is that even if that weren't the case, can NSPORT be expanded (albeit reasonably) in such an ad hoc fashion, or does its absence mean GNG is the only notability issue to arise? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep participation in an olympics as verified in this article is usually sufficient for inclusion as it is expected that Olympians receive significant coverage offline if not online, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atlantic306 Did you verify the source? She never played in the 2004 Olympics, see Volleyball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters. She was indeed on the 18-player roster (2004_FIVB_World_Grand_Prix_squads), but not on the 12-player Olympic roster. The article says "She participated int the 2004 Summer Olympics qualifying tournament." but China qualified in 2003 and did not participate at all in the 2004 FIVB Women's World Olympic Qualification Tournament. Timmyshin (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case have struck my keep vote!, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD User:Originalmess User:Ralbegen User:Editorofthewiki User:L293D Please back up your statements with facts. Just because her name is on a roster doesn't mean she appeared in any games. If you believe she played for China please tell us which game. Timmyshin (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as nomination does not specify a valid reason for deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion). Bakazaka (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't hold up so long as anyone since has posed a deletion reason, which they have. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite being on the 18-person roster for the 2004 FIVB Volleyball World Grand Prix, I don't see evidence she appears in a match; WP:NSPORT is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Comment~~ I agree with User:power~enwiki being in a roster doesnt make notable. Just being in the team for Olympic Qualifier isnt notable either. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is what a google search in Chinese sources yields on Zhao Jing (volleyball). Haven't had the time to look through the search results to see if she meets WP:BASIC myself, but maybe this will help anyone who is interested. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Suggestions to Keep yet admitting that we have no sources are inexplicable under Wikipedia terms. No major wins reported anywhere. Therefore, subject fails WP:NATHLETE since claims to the contrary are not verifiable. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Maybe sources exist in Chinese but I don't see that the GNG is met. I also don't see anything to show WP:NSPORTS is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched through many English and Chinese sources and have to conclude that this player does not meet BASIC/NSPORTS. Only substantial coverage is the secondary source already cited in the article (which, as pointed out in the nom, is mainly quotes), with the rest just being routine game coverage. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as well as believing, firmly, that GNG is not satisfied by the absence of sources, and that should be enough to make it insufficient. There is also a lack of clear evidence she actually satisfied WP:ATHLETE - with any doubt on that it make there no functional case to retain at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Ramírez (photography)

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

Photographer fails WP:NBIO. Contains assertions of notability, but none of the awards, festivals, or museums mentioned have their own article. Could not find any reliable sources to add. Brad v 20:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any mention of him anywhere. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also not able to find sources from which to build an article. One museum does have an article, which has been added, and another now has an {{ill}} to Portuguese, but I didn't find references for his work being included there. Note that there is coverage of a photographer called José Manuel Ramírez,[12][13], but that's a different person, born in Seville, not Jalisco. › Mortee _talk 16:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not following all the details of how things developed during the three weeks this was running, but it looks like the pre-existing redlink problems have been resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mankri

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

The first and third entries should be deleted per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. The creator asserts that there is some controversy over whether the second entry is called 'Mankri'; this is the only valid redirect target. I have tried redirecting it and moving it to be worked on in draftspace, but the creator repeatedly puts it back this way because they don't agree with MOS:DABMENTION. Agree or disagree, those are the guidelines, and leading readers to non-existent redlinks and blue links where they are not mentioned nor would it make sense for them to be mentioned, is not helpful. Disambiguation pages are indexes of information in Wikipedia articles - not a search engine like Google. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I – the creator – don't disagree with DABMENTION, or any other style guideline. What I object to is for it to be narrowly interpreted and applied without the appreciation of nuance. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced information is added to the pages for the respective entries demonstrating that they are, in fact, known as some variation of "Mankri". I trust that if such information is added, this AfD can be withdrawn. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - WP:Deletion is not cleanup; please AfD/PROD/CSD the individual articles first. If all entries are deleted, then this would be a valid deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete vote due to the fact the disambig. actually has only 1 article relating to it. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The third entry on this page came out of this RfD discussion (see there for sources), the second entry is apparently an alternative name of the article linked (and that article had been at this title for eight years until yesterday), and the first entry is a redlink on an inherently notable topic (source). – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are sources supporting inclusion of the term in an article, add it to that article with those sources. If there are not, delete it from the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 21:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can't see the problem with it. All three entries are valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, I think it might be better if you vote keep rather than oppose as that vote is a bit unclear. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. Bit of a brainfart there! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The entries are backed by sources and are pretty much self-contained. If any editors take issue with the fact that two of the articles linked from this page don't presently mention the disambiguated term (and hence these entries fall short of the WP:DABMENTION style guideline), then the solution is to use the sources provided and add the missing mentions in any way they feel would benefit the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure about that> I am having trouble finding sources of any quality for these propositions. bd2412 T 13:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apart from Makri, Bulandshahr (whose source, in the article, might not count as reliable), quality sources have been provided for the other two entries – see my comment further up the page. Are there any issues with these sources? – Uanfala (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have added the information for the first link. However, so far I see a WP:TWODABS situation. What sources support the use of this term for Burmese monarchs? bd2412 T 16:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - See Coffee's comment in the RfD I linked above, one of the sources there was this (pp. 79, 82). I'd advise against including any of these mentions to the target article, unless sufficient context is added about the titles as a whole. – Uanfala (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see why a better source is needed to verify Mankir in Uttar Pradesh. GNS approved the name as recently as 2015-08-20. The one in Rajasthan is well supported here. Is someone disputing the Burmese title? And yes I agree that a dab bluelink should mention the item and provide a citation to a source, but that can be remedied. See also Makri Population - Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh from the India 2011 Census. --Bejnar (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a rough consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF and possibly also the GNG. A major concern of those editors in favour of deletion, that this is a BLP without reliable sources, has been rectified by David Eppstein. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etzel Cardeña

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "No reliable secondary sources tending to show notability. Two of the reference links are dead, but can be seen by their names to be in any case primary sources; one is to the editorial board of a journal that Cardeña is on; one, in Swedish, is an extremely popularly written interview with Cardeña ("Are you more telepathic when you're in love?" "Why are Swedes so rude?") in Salongk.se, via the Wayback Machine; the venue is no longer online. The last one, billed in the article as an article written by Cardeña, is actually an open letter signed by nearly one hundred academics, of whom he is one, and published in the controversial Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (see our article)." The PROD was contested with a claim that the subject meets "multiple WP:PROF criteria" - however, the WP:RSes to write an article from are not only not present, but don't (on a quick WP:BEFORE) appear to exist. Perhaps they do, but we need the actual sources before a WP:BLP can be allowed to exist. David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits, fails WP:NBIO. Since this is a BLP, the fact it has no sources also is a reason for deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full transparency: I wrote the PROD rationale which David Gerard quotes above. The PROD was removed with the comment that "article makes a clear claim of notability through multiple WP:PROF criteria; prodder appears to be using the wrong notability guideline for this subject".[14] Of the WP:PROF criteria, I believe the remover must be referring to number 5, "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment ... at a major institution of higher education and research". I say that because I can't see any other WP:PROF criterion that Cadeña remotely meets. It is claimed in the article that Cadeña is "the Thorsen Professor of Psychology at Lund University"; so, he holds or held a named chair appointment. Lund University is certainly a major institution of higher education and research, but there is something unusual about the Thorsen chair of psychology. The only mentions of it that Google finds are closely together with Cardeña, in contexts where Cardeña himself has listed his credentials, with one exception: an interesting article from 2015 titled "A decade in the borderland of science", just one and unfortunately in Swedish, in Sydsvenskan, a respectable daily. Apparently the Danish industrialist Poul Thorsen had difficulty in persuading any major university to take his money and create a chair in parapsychology: both Copenhagen and Stockholm declined. I quote an exerpt from the Sydsvenskan article:

Lengthy quote from source

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Quote from Thorsen's will:

"The rest of my fortune will be offered to a Swedish university in the order of Lund, Upsala, Stockholm, as the university in question will undertake to apply the interest of the untiring fund capital for full or partial remuneration of a professor, possibly a lecturer, in parapsychology linked to teaching in hypnologi."

"The story of Lund University's most odd professor's chair begins in 1961. The Danish manufacturer Poul Thorsen writes the above formulations in his will. It states that his wealth must be devoted to two purposes. One was to ensure lifelong livelihood for two women, servants in the Thorsian household. The second was to finance research within Thorsen's great interest, parapsychology. From the beginning, Thorsen would [=wished to] benefit Copenhagen University, but they thanked no [=declined]. The same message met Thorsen in Stockholm. In the end, Lund University accepted the donation. An important role, then, was [=was played by] the director, Philip Sandblom, who thought that the money could come in handy. Together with the psychological department, Lund University succeeded in part in [=in partically redefining] the purpose of the donation, so that it also included research within the somewhat more accepted field of hypnology, ie research on hypnosis. At the beginning of the 21st century, the last of the two women in the testament had died and the money could eventually be paid to Lund University, where the professors at the psychological department did not see any obstacles to announcing the service [=to inviting applications for the new chair]. So [=This] was done in May 2003.
That it was not any service was pretty clear soon [=That it was not just any chair soon became clear]. Not least for [=to] the dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Sune Sunesson, who was able to [=had to] handle Lund University's probably most laborious appointment case ever. "

(Note: This is from Google Translate, as far as possible. I'm a Swedish speaker, and have offered clearer alternatives where I found the machine translation incomprehensible. The whole article, which expresses doubt about letting this kind of chair into Swedish academe, is well worth reading.)

What's my point? Well, it seems strange that his type of named chair, obviously not nearly as respectable as a regular Swedish professorship, can on its own make a person notable. I can't believe that is the intention of WP:PROF. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

If this article stays, that's definitely worth discussing in the article. There was also (non-RS) discussion of the Thorsen chair in ScienceBlogs - the chair was empty for decades until Cardena accepted it - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ping David Eppstein, who contested the PROD - do you have any good sources on Cardena? - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C5 (named chair at a major university), #C8 (editor in chief of a notable journal) [15], and #C1 (16 publications with over 100 citations each on Google Scholar). Making fun of someone's research specialty is not an adequate reason for deletion, and neither is using the wrong notability criterion (this is a case for PROF, not WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even given prima facie notability - we still need the actual RSes for a BLP, and the article doesn't have them. Do you have them? Then they need to be there in practice, not just hypothetically, for the article to be allowed to exist - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: I didn't use WP:GNG to assess notability, I used WP:PROF. You suggest its criterion C1 is satisfied by "16 publications with over 100 citations each on Google Scholar"; I don't agree. C1 goes like this: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". The number of publications with 100 citations does not in itself show that. (100 bare citations isn't much.) I don't so far see any reason to believe his research has had a significant impact. But I'm ready to change my mind if you supply the independent reliable sources that say it has. P.S. Is it my quotes from the interview in Salongk.se, which was offered as a source in our article, that you call "Making fun of someone's research specialty"? The interview was offered as a source, and I tried to describe its character, to assist the non-Swedish-speaking reader, without any intention of making fun. It's actually a better source, being at least secondary, than several of the others.Bishonen | talk 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  - To me this objection reads as "I don't believe in our established notability guidelines so I am going to make up different requirements that articles must also satisfy". We have hundreds of published reliable sources discussing his research, some of them likely in-depth. And C1 was only the third of three notability criteria that I cited him as passing; we only need one. In any case, if you pretend that for reasons GNG should take precedence in this case, [16] and [17] look like reliable in-depth independent sources, certainly enough to source the named professorship criterion of WP:PROF. And to respond to previous comments about how "respectable" the chair is: I think the controversy over the chair makes it more notable, not less. And our personal opinions about respectability should be very far from how we decide notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This may be prima facie notability - or it may not - but please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. With the sources to hand, and adding the second source you give (no way the first passes WP:RS), this article should be about two paragraphs if it survives - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what User:David Eppstein writes above, Etzel Cardeña is – for good or bad – a piece of Swedish modern research history. He – and his chair, but he as a person was not irrelevant – it was controversial already in 2005, of course, but wasn't just a piece of news back then. It was the focus of a nation-wide debate in 2012. It started, if I remember correctly, with Pseudovetenskap sprids okritiskt in Svenska Dagbladet and continued in a good number of newspapers. He's been the focus of a number of portraits in respectable newspapers, like the longish "Tio år i gränslandet" in Sydsvenskan (the major newspaper in southern Sweden). I can't find the article online, but it's available through w:sv:Mediearkivet. Another example, a portrait in w:sv:Forskning & Framsteg, one of the major (respectable) Swedish popular science newspapers. /Julle (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can get this stuff into the article, I'll be delighted to change my !vote - sounds like he'd pass WP:FRINGEBLP - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is not for cleanup. And notability is based on the information that can be found about the subject, not on the current state of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if prima facie notability exists - BLPs must have the RSes actually present - you keep pretending you haven't had this pointed out to you - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and Julle, though I'm not sure if Eppstein is right about Cardena passing WP:PROF#C8, given that the Journal of Parapsychology seems to be considered a fringe publication in most of academia. But this is irrelevant considering the reliable sources noted by Julle, the high citation counts and endowed chair noted by Eppstein, and his status as a fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science, [18] all of which allow him to pass WP:PROF easily. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:PROF#C5. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mindless evoking of checklist is no way to run an encyclopedia. The WP:PROF -- like all notability guidelines -- are intended as a shorthand, not religious dogma. --Calton | Talk 15:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep. No evidence of RS that demonstrates notability for a large amount of the content in the article, though some of it is mentioned in some fringe publications. However, the individual themselves is apparently notable even though the article does requires further citation. @David Eppstein: To be clear I don't support the concept of " an editor has prove reliable sources don't exist before removing currently unsourced content" per WP:BLPREMOVE. Proving something doesn't exist is an impossible task, insead it is standard practice to remove unsourced content until such a time as RS can be (and has been) provided in text; an admin should know that. Endercase (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You removed content that has been discussed as sourced in this AfD; in particular his named professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wolfe (priest)

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

No apparent notability Kevin McE (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove Bashereyre (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one reference to a clerical directory is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dean of a cathedral is notable by office, not achievementsBashereyre (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that established? Is there a discussion thread or WP:NOTABILITY policy commitment to that effect? The role of dean in some major cathedrals might be, but on what grounds are individual holders of the post? Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if its not been established, let's start one. Would you know where we do this?Bashereyre (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, if it has not been established, why are you asserting it as fact? Because if Wolfe does not meet the expectations at WP:BASIC, then a general principle re the status of dean should preclude creation of the article. WP:CLERGY suggests that it might be assumed that Bishops reach that threshold, but not lower ranks. There have been numerous relevant discussions within Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), and in none of them is it even proposed that deans or archdeacons should be assumed notable. You would need to get a consensus, I would suggest, at wp:Notability (people), but I consider it very unlikely. Kevin McE (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the relistingBashereyre (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Johnpacklambert, there doesn't appear to be enough reliable/independent/sigcov sources to suggest that the subject here meets WP:GNG. The suggestion that "a dean is automatically notable" is not supported by any community-defined notability criteria. And, in fact, overtly falls short of WP:CLERGY and WP:POSITION. (The suggestion that "a dean is an important position, therefore this dean is automatically important/notable" does not stack up against WP:POSITION specifically). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Stanley

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

Failed candidate for Congress whose non politics career isn't notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that this article has lasted for 9 years is a travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this not-elected candidate to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2010#District 4, where there is already a sourced mention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no objection to the creation of a redirect afterward (but delete this first, because we don't want to hold on to its edit history.) Non-winning candidates for Congress do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — he would have to win the election and thereby hold the office, not just run and lose, to pass WP:NPOL as a politician, and absent that he has to be able to demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway. But the quality of sourcing here is not suggesting that he's got a plausible claim to passing our notability standards for businesspeople as a hot dog stand operator, either. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bearcat and E.M. Gregory, but prefer the delete then redirect approach. SportingFlyer talk 01:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 20:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Passamaneck

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

Non-notable professor (fails WP:NPROF). I could not find any additional sources. Eligible for BLPPROD, except that it had 2 dead external links that I removed. Brad v 18:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation counts (in Google scholar) are too low to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources about this person are enough for having the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Lacrosse Club

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

Unsourced since 2012 (apart from an external link to the official website) and I could not find sources to add that might meet the WP:GNG. Per the website, their nickname is the Bootleggers, but I wasn't able to find coverage of them under that name either. › Mortee _talk 18:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted, it is factual, and is in regards to an actual organization. No need to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianpo (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrianpo, I'm afraid being factual isn't enough. The WP:GNG give our guidelines about notability. Articles should be about notable subjects. Also, (see verifiability) any article needs references to show that the article is factual. This one doesn't, apart from an external link to the official website (see WP:primary). If you can find enough sources to add to the article to make it verifiable and to show that the club is notable, I'll be happy to rescind my deletion nomination. › Mortee _talk 20:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked around a bit, and I can't find good, reliable sources that significantly cover the topic. Doesn't appear to WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 20:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fajr 7

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

Fails WP:GNG. The whole article is based on a typo/Weasel Word AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no way is the military exercise notable (not a good sign when the creator states it's obscure), and the typo could only be notable in the oddest of circumstances (as in, the typo itself caused news). No significant coverage I could find. No evident redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Fails WP:DICTDEF and WP:GNG. Fail to see this as a useful disambig, though I guess perhaps there might be merit (depending on just how wide the Fajr-7 mistake was - and I don't see an indication it was wide - though it being a mistake seems to be un-sourced OR at the moment) for a redirect to Fajr 3.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable military exercise unlikely to be recalled outside Wikipedia. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. - GravityUp↑✉ 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gul Ahmed Group. So Why 15:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Ali Mohammad

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

Not notable businessman. Lacks reliable sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gul Ahmed Group because the subject is chairman of this popular clothing brand. While the subject is Pakistan's leading textile barons as per this which makes him a prominent Pakistani businessman as per this but in the absence of significant coverage in independent RS, redirection make sense instead of deletion. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article Gul Ahmed Group doesn't look notable and has just 2 citations. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Guess you need to carry out WP:BEFORE. The company easily passes WP:ORG. Undoubtedly, Pakistan's largest textile manufacturing company.. --Saqib (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:Promo, more or less an advert that would have been deleted as G11 if it had not already been at AfD. If it is made a redirect the article should be deleted first as promo, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorry, LuckyRacerNP, but "notability is well known in YouTube, Instagram etc." is not enough to meet WP:N; pretty much everybody can easily enlist a song "in internet". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Sherap

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article is about the youtuber who has enlisted his song in internet and his notability is well known in YouTube, Instagram etc.LuckyRacerNP (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've redirect the newly created article on his song Swag Kta Moh to Ming Sherap; I don't see how the song can be notable if he isn't. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some trivial coverage, fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for better consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is region-biased and seems to be more of a fluff piece. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Nwobi

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)

I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources provide nothing but a passing mention and most of them are not reliable. It reads like an advertisement for the subject and his companies. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP "unable to find significant coverage". LOL. Did you even look? A quick google search pulls up plenty of sources. Not to mention the article is well-cited Freetheangels (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny! read my nom above once again. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I'm very confused. This article is properly cited and the subject has many articles written about him online. He is definitely considered "notable". Leapsandbounds (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Leapsandbounds (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep After cleanup the article will likely be a stub. Unless there's major rebuilding Judging from a Google search, the subject seems notable enough as a Nigerian tech CEO. However, it will require a large amount of cleanup, as well as additional citations. The style isn't quite there for Wikipedia yet (mainly WP:NPOV), but it has been posted on Wikipedia:Cleanup and does have to potential to be a fair article. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Delete For sources; mostly unreliable. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Theoretically as a cleaned-up article, notability (or lack of) aside, it will likely be a stub. It'll either be a weak delete or stub from me, I'll look more into it. Thanks GSS. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosalina2427: WP:NOTINHERIT applies here. Being a CEO is not, of itself, sufficient to address the WP:BIO criteria. There's no automatic inherited notability as these same policies state the subject must be independently notable, and this article contains clear named mentions, which emphasize its PR bloating. Please reconsider your !vote above. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed some sources that I found unreliable, most of them were blog type websites with no about us page and seems to be run by a single individual (the list can be found here). GSS (talk|c|em) 04:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed more than "some". The article is practically poorly sourced now. You're unfairly making claims like "seems to be run by a single individual". Leapsandbounds (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UGC, user generated content is generally unacceptable, and the deleted sources were blogs. The only deleted source that is relatively verifiable is the first source from Proshare here: https://www.proshareng.com/news/People/Unilever-Nigeria-Plc-Appoints-Mr-Chika-Nwobi-as-Non-Executive-Director/36911. Correct me if I've overlooked anything with that source and it's actually not reliable. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosalina2427: So can www.proshareng.com be used? Also, what if one source contains most of the information in the Wikipedia article, is it allowed to cite one source multiple times? Leapsandbounds 09:52, 6 September 2018

@Leapsandbounds: No, proshareng.com is not a reliable source, see their about us page. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Okay. I will find a better one. Leapsandbounds 10:10, 6 September 2018

@GSS: What is wrong with WWW.MIPAD.ORG? It's a legitimate award supported by the UN General Assembly. Leapsandbounds 10:14, 6 September 2018

Well at the end of that blog post it says We are proud of his achievement and we name him Most Influential 100 Class of Business and Entrepreneurship category but in the actual list his name is not mentioned so do you have a reliable source for this claim? Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Yeah I was wondering why his name wasn't on the official list. I see how the statement could be problematic, but since their the ones giving the award, isn't it okay for them to approve of his achievements? I will try to find something else. Leapsandbounds 13:54, 6 September 2018

@GSS: How about http://disrupt-africa.com/about/? It's a well-known news site on the continent. I think you deleted it previously. Leapsandbounds 16:00, 6 September 2018

This is a blog type website and I can't see anything about their editorial or fact-checking procedures, editorial staff, etc. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: VERY, Unsourcred, the ones that were delated were from blogs with no way to verify that they are reliable. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article just needs cleaning up. A few minutes searching online turns up lots of usable biographical material. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC) — Lovelylinda1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Lovelylinda1980: Seriously? Are you aware of our WP:BLP policy? GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version of the article has 10 sources:

Company directory on Bloomberg: this is outside Bloomberg's editorial control ("Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content") and per past RSN discussions, this is likely SPS by the company. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
AIMGroup: trivial mention in an industry publication. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
CDNET: Another company directory. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
Article in Guardian.ng: doesn't even mention Chika Nwobi. Can't be used to establish notability for someone it doesn't discuss.
Executive directory on Bloomberg: again, outside Bloomberg's editorial control and likely SPS. (See previous discussions here and here, for example.) Not significant, reliable, or independent.
Executive direcotry on Crunchbase: user-submitted database. See RSN discussion here. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
Article on Punch: trivial mention in what's either a press release or transparently based on a press release. Not significant or independent, probably not reliable, either.
Article on Leadership.ng: doesn't even mention Chika Nwobi. Can't be used to establish notability for someone it doesn't discuss.
Article on Guardian.ng: trivial mention in what's either a press release or transparently based on a press release. Not significant or independent, probably not reliable, either.
Article on TribuneOnlineng.com: trivial mention in what's either a press release or transparently based on a press release. Not significant or independent, probably not reliable, either.

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and none of these sources establish that. Woodroar (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Woodroar's in-depth analysis is solid. There is no cited source that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO per review of available sources, which are mostly advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Yassin Al-Daradji

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:FILMMAKERJC7V-constructive zone 16:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Filmmaker is changes as director ... His short film is well known to the industry and it got valid sources like ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4] and more valid sourcing are available in the article. Srirammedfri (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Srirammedfri (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References

^ "Atfal Allah (Children Of God)". dubaifilmfest.com. Retrieved 2018-09-02.
^ "Children of God (2013)". zlinfest.cz. Retrieved 2018-09-02.
^ "CHILDREN OF GOD". giffonifilmfestival.it. Retrieved 2018-09-02.
^ "Ahmed Yassin". lfs.org.uk. Retrieved 2018-09-02.

the sources that you cite above and list below about Ahmed are PR pieces which are not the type of sources that show that the subject passes WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 04:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject fails general notability and all the tests associated with biographies. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is arguably the most notable male Iraqi director. His work and other informations are available in notable London Film School 117.193.192.199 (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — 117.193.192.199 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@117.193.192.199 Your arguments about being 'arguably the most notable Iraqi director' and being 'available in London Film school' fall under Wikipedia:ILIKEIT and WP:FARAWAY. Which are Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions . — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC7V7DC5768 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Biography on a young film-maker with a couple of shorts and a doc under his belt. WP:TOSOON, we do not yet have the accomplishments to pass [[WP:FILMMAKER]], let alone [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 01:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2M Group

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources. A Google search mainly brings up other companies with the same name and this article. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge &~~ delete: I added a source which verifies the basis of this campaign alliance but is insufficient to demonstrate its notability as an organisation. There is some media coverage triggered by reports issued by this group (e.g. Oct 2015) but not the in-depth coverage of the grouping which is needed for WP:ORG. It would be best to be noted in context at Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport#Opponents_of_expansion (which currently mentions only 1 of the 24 councils). AllyD (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Mention and refs now added to Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport removing the need for a merge. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Smurfs music. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Little Song of the Smurfs

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

Very unlikely to be notable: theme songs of television shows are seldom notable, there is no evidence of notability, there is no corresponding Japanese article, and it has been unreferenced since it was created in February 2008 (tagged since October 2016). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very minor, but that's no reason at all to delete. It's a key part of the Smurfological canon (I can't believe the things I have to write here sometimes). "theme songs of television shows are seldom notable" is a very dubious claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative search for スマーフのちっちゃなちっちゃなうた:
  Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  Comment: I have revisited this today, and I don't find there are reasons to think this 45 rpm single was "a key part of the Smurfological canon", are there sources to support the assertion? Sam Sailor 08:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. While it is not unsourced, an external link is also a source, I can't find additional sources to support WP:NSONGS, and I don't see a reasonable target for redirecting. Sam Sailor 22:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Amended, Sam Sailor 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as an {{R to related topic}} to The Smurfs music looks like a good idea. Sam Sailor 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability (as proven by Sam), Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Smurfs music. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to The Smurfs music - this probably is not notable enough to have its own article (as far as I know, it did not chart, and unlike "Smurf Song", did not get to Number Two in the U.K. singles charts) but it could be merged with the article on the smurf's music in general. Vorbee (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notable because its a theme for a popular television series. But there does not seem to be much of an article here. Nor is there any way to develop the article. Merge with The Smurfs music. Freetheangels (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete: I would agree that saying "Theme songs of television shows are seldom notable" is quite a big claim, but that's not to say that many don't warrant their own entry on Wikipedia, including this one. Freetheangels is correct, this article in no way can be developed further, I would say merge with The Smurfs music as a first choice but that's not to say that I think deletion is out of the question.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With this much notability we can Merge with and redirect to The Smurfs music. Rzvas (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect/merge. If it's not going to be mentioned by name and if there are no sources to merge, then what is the effect of redirection? It'll end up deleted at RfD. czar 18:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only "keep" opinion admits that there's no reliable independent sourcing, and nobody makes any other argument to keep. WP:V is a core policy. Sandstein 21:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed Empire

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

This article on a game has just passed the 12 year mark without any references. A standard BEFORE (Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com, JSTOR) does not unearth any sources. Does not pass the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, on the grounds that the change of name due to a legal dispute with Lucasfilm should make it notable. That said, I was unable to find any non-self-referential coverage of this (hence the 'weak').Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in point of clarification, we have no RS that prove such a dispute ever occurred. I would also suggest that, per WP:INHERITED, companies don't achieve notability simply by once getting a cease and desist letter from a notable company (unless, of course, it was widely covered, which isn't the case here). Chetsford (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I just said that.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I didn't think you expressed an issue with inheriting notability but I may have not read your comment closely enough. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [19] is a fan-review of the book. I don't see references to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulcan's Forge. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vulcan's Forge, or failing that merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The trademark dispute was minor and there was no coverage of it at the time, no court records extant, and no subsequent notice of it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahu Federman

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

Renominating article for deletion. The article was clearly written by the subject of the article. See, e.g., FN3 (a letter of recommendation for the subject) and FN5 (the result of a Westlaw search by the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1201:854b:f9fe:397f:454c:db0c (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. The IP had attempted the nomination by leaving their rationale at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Eliyahu Federman.[20] I have only provided technical assistance and have not opined on the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being written by the subject doesn't constitute a reason for deleting the article, just a reason to look at it more closely. K.Bog 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is well cited but should be re-written to establish notability maybe by someone other than the subjectFreetheangels (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO nor WP:AUTHOR. Being "Senior Vice President & Chief Communications Officer" of a nn company does not help. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olabisi Johnson

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are single line entries, facebook supported blogs, or fail to mention the article subject. "References" fail to meet the standards in WP:RS and fail to provide significant coverage.reddogsix (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly object to the deletion of this page. The politician is a notable one. A simple google search will tell you this. The references provided are mostly from the most popular Nigerian newspapers and from the Nigerian law report confirming most of what was reported. Emmantox (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @reddogsix - Since "Significant coverage is certainly not a brief mention or two in a (sic) article", how many mentions and how lengthy do they have to be to be considered significant by "Wikipedia's" standards. Lyteon01 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)— Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - @Lyteon01 - As a start, show me one that is more than a brief mention of the subject and in-depth about the subject - the Wikipedia article is supported by very brief mentions about the article subject. The subject's name in a list of people such as "...while members included Chief Olabisi Johnson," is not in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @reddogsix - You have now moved from the issue of notability and significant coverage to Conflict of Interest. Have you considered the possibility that I am just doing a lot of research on the subject and updating the article as the info becomes available? Have you considered the possibility that the subject is notable enough for all this info to be public knowledge within the subject's community and readily available without the editors having any close association with the subject? You proposed that the article should be improved upon yet you continue to pick new issues with each new improvement. Is this also "Wikipedia's standards"? Lyteon01 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)— Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Lyteon01- No one has changed the focus of ther AfD except you. Lyteon01 created the coi by indicating the staged photo was Lyteon01's own work - this indicates a high probability of coi. I also note you did not deny the coi.

Instead of ignoring the real issue, as I indicated above, point out one reference more than a brief mention of the subject and in-depth about the subject - the Wikipedia article is supported by very brief mentions about the article subject. The subject's name in a list of people such as "...while members included Chief Olabisi Johnson," is not in-depth, non-trivial support. Ignoring the issue of notability will not make it go away. reddogsix (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@reddogsix- Like I earlier pointed out to you, the subject is a public figure in a third world country where internet access is relatively recent and still very limited. Being a public figure, anybody can take a photo of him as I did. This does not in anyway indicate a close connection. Would you have preferred a photo from a source that could generate copyright issues for you to pick on? Demanding the kind of online presence that you term "significant coverage" from persons who have only recently gained exposure to the internet doesn't speak much to fair-play. I believe by coi, you refer to this article being a paid job. It is not; and I expect that by Wikipedia standards, that should be taken without prejudice and in good faith. If all the facts that have been placed before you are not sufficient in your opinion to leave this article be, please feel free to yank it off. Obviously, you have made up your mind and no amount of improvement to the article will satisfy you. Lyteon01 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)— Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Lyteon01 - The criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is quite clear and has been pointed out to you numerous times. Please see WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GNG. Just being a public figure is not one of the criteria. Unfortunately, there is no provision for newly minted figures to get a pass because their coverage is not adequate to support inclusion into Wikipedia. I agree it may be difficult to provide online support, but there are thousands and thousands of other articles for the region you point out that have the support needed to be included in Wikipedia - they are able to follow the criteria for inclusion of articles. It is not my intent to have the article removed; only to have it meet Wikipedia criteria. You are right about one thing, I have made up my mind; however, not about what you have indicated. The only thing I am sure of is, currently the article fails to meet Wikipedia criteria. You have a chance to rectify that situation by adding the support needed to insure its long-term addition to Wikipedia. Best of luck. reddogsix (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @reddogsix obviously this article was posted on Wikipedia 2 weeks before the news item was published in The Tribune Newspaper. Tribune obviously copied the File:OLABISI JOHNSON.jpg from Wikipedia without requesting permission from the copyright owner: me. Since material published on Wikipedia are not covered by Nigerian copyright laws, by publishing the said picture on Wikipedia, I have since waived the rights to this image. I request the immediate undeletion of the said image on these grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) — Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - @Lyteon01 - You have not shown you are the owner of the image. The image may have been published elsewhere before you submitted it to commons - before you write me back and say I am accusing you of this, I am only telling you what is the weakness in your argument. There is a very simple way to establish ownership, all you need to do is follow the instructions in WP:DCM. Once you have established yourself as the owner you can either contact an Admin or resubmit the image in commons. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am reluctant to close this as no consensus, because the nomination makes a reasonable case for deletion, and there has essentially been no informed discussion about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is hard to follow to get a good sense of the notability claim, especially because our existing material doesn't seem to address the duties of the position of Chairman of the Ondo West Local Government. Based on what my understanding of the subject, it appears that the subject was the chair of a local administrative division of Ondo State (which is distinct from service as the equivalent of mayor of Ondo City) and would not meet WP:NPOL. The subject is currently running for the Nigerian Senate. While a redirect to the appropriate election page or list of party candidates would be in order, there does not appear to be a valid redirect target. If the subject wins his election, the page can be recreated. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-politically, there is nothing like Ondo City, Ondo West is a subclass of Ondo State, not Ondo City. Same way, there is nothing like Ibadan, Benin, etc. These major cities have the same traditional ruler, and have had constitutional government in the past but as at today, Nigeria does not practice monarchy and they've been disintegrated, although monarch are still highly respected according to the constitution. But that being said, anything lower than a ruler for a state fails WP:NPOL, so him being the head of the local government doesn't make him notable. In addition to that, most LGA chairmen in Nigeria are usually appointed by the state government, not democratically. I haven't looked at GNG and other claims in the article. My comment is just to address his position as LGA chairman and WP:NPOL. HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unclear about how local government functions in Nigeria, but it appears we reach the same conclusion, that the chair of a local administrative division would not meet WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne Hawke

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only finding routine sources, nothing to support GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He has some coverage that is both national and local: [21], [22], [23], [24]. Nikki♥311 21:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I'd support a potential redirect to any of his associated subjects. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or show notability as a pro wrestler. Papaursa (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the end, the argument that NMUSIC is only an indicator of possible notability and GNG is not met with no significant coverage was more persuasive. So Why 15:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Davis

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . ~~All of the sources are self-published~~ I should have written that the sourced do not discuss the subject in detail. Only passing mentions. I see no source to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are not self-published. They are from 3rd party, independent magazine reviews, articles and music industry sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I should have written that the sourced do not discuss the subject in detail. Only passing mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - They substantiate the body of compositions as a songwriter whose works are award winning and have sold over 1,000,000 units (WOW Worship Blue) and 500,000 units (Top 25 Praise Songs) which meets the criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's clear, but a large body of works is not a criteria for inclusion. And the albums have sold well, but we need sources to support that your contributions on those compilation albums was the reason they sold well. Since your solo albums have not achieved success or notability, it follows that it's likely the act of being a compilation album that helped them to sell well. So unless you or your works have directly won an award, there is no notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe your reasoning is factual. To say a song on a compilation does not contribute to the sales of the compilation does not make sense. The reason why you include songs is to include the songs that will gain the most sales. WOW Worship is best of compilation selecting from the top 100 songs performed in churches at that time. Holland Davis did win several awards. He was awarded an ASCAP award for most played song in 2006 for Let It Rise. He was awarded one platinum and two gold records for WOW Worship and Top 25 Praise Songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't the simple logic I presented because it does make sense. For instance, in country music in particular, a single hit song will not usually increase sales for an album. There are instances where a musician in that category will have multiple singles and the album itself does not sell. However if those same hit singles are released on a compilation album along with other hits, then the compilation will sell. It's the fact that it's a collection of good songs that make compilation sell, not the presence of any one song. If you can show a source that states that the presence of your song boosted sales by even 1%, you would have a clear point. I suspect that if your song was removed from those compilations and another song from a different worship musician had been included, the album would have not have sold significantly better or worse. I would argue that "Good, Good Father" is a more notable song than "let It Arise" and neither Pat Barrett nor Anthony Brown have articles (althoughg Housefires does, based on the weight of their third album). And I'm curious why you're referring to yourself in the third person. The award was not for most played song in 2006, but one of the most performed Christian songs of the year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot compare Good Good Father with Let It Rise (it is not Let It Arise... maybe that's the issue, you've confused the song with a different song)... Good Good Father is recently released and still building notability. Let It Rise, achieved notability in the 90's as a top 100 CCLI song (which earned the song a place on the multi-platinum selling WOW Worship Blue) which is based on usage in churches and a Top 25 charting position with Big Daddy Weave again in the 2000's as well as a #2 position on the gospel charts by William Murphy. Can you name another worship song that has achieved Top 25 placements on Billboard in 2 different genres at the same time? As well as achieving multi-platinum status on a compilation with notability spanning 2 decades? It appears the song meets the criteria for notariety... inclusion on charts, winning multi-platinum status. It appears the songwriter has been credited as writing the song that has been recorded by notable groups. It appears to meet the notability requirements on several points. All it needs to do is meet one to be deemed notable. You are correct it was the the 25 most performed Christian songs of the year is the official category title. It was for the most plays on radio (which means it charted in the top 25) which again proves the notability of the song and the writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.22.3 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: About the composition,
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
[...]
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

^{— WP:COMPOSER}
"Let It Rise" does not appear to be notable, though. Per WP:NSONG, emphasis mine:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.

Also, from the "subject" footnote of that guideline:

The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

This does not appear to be the case, no matter how best-selling the album was. The whole "Awards" section might be inadequate praise, as these awards have never been awarded to the article subject themselves. About Holland Davis, I can not find independent, significant coverage that addresses him directly and in detail, per WP:GNG. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCAP Award was awarded to Holland Davis as the writer of Let It Rise which was one of the most performed songs of 2006. it both establishes the notability of the song and the songwriter as ASCAP is a song based PRO. If it helps establish the case, I can list a number of records who have recorded Let It Rise from non-trivial works? It's easy to establish the value of the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as charting... Let It Rise appeared on the Billboard Hot Christian Adult Contemporary Chart 11/6/2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)

Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hollanddavis: The ASCAP Award was awarded to Holland Davis, as person? Not just mentioning the song? I can not find that at this link, and the reference link in the "Awards" section is broken. Please provide a reliable source for this statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When quoting guidelines, and when copying text from any page, please mention where you have taken it from, where the quotation begins, and where the quotation ends. Please fix that above. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that a user called User:hollanddavis is posting here, and has been very active and editing the page. Even if the subject is notable, there appears to be a serious conflict of interest which should be addressed. If User:hollanddavis believes the page should stay, then he needs to establish which aspects of WP:NMUSIC are satisfied. Ross-c (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCAP listing the mention of the song and the writer is who the award went to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definite WP:COI and if this is kept the artist should not directly edit it but instead make suggestions on the talk page. However, he does seem to pass WP:NMUSIC with charting hit singles on billboard, and he has coverage in christian music reliable sources such as CrossRhythmns, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: WP:NMUSIC lists reasons why a musician may be notable. They are not automatically defined, not even necessarily "likely" to be notable if one of the examples listed there applies. Also, could you please specify which part of WP:NMUSIC you are referring to? The "reliable source" at CrossRhythms (link) appears to be an interview where the musician talks about themselves, which is explicitly not included by WP:NMUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, point 1. The "charting" in Christian music does not appear to be the same as appearing on "any country's national music chart" per point 2. The musician also does not appear to have "won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." per point 8. The word "major" is important here. I have not seen anything "major" in that regard yet. Please also note that "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on [...] any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject.", per WP:NMUSIC as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The album reviews at Cross Rythm are reliable intellectually independent sources that count towards WP:GNG, meeting one of the criteria on WP:NMUSIC means exactly that a musician is likely to be notable and the Billboard christian music charts are national charts as opposed to state or local and are widely quoted in christian music reliable sources so criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC is clearly passed,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case where WP:MUSICBIO is met (Billboard's "Hot Christian Songs"and "Hot Gospel Songs" charts are sufficient for point #2), but WP:GNG is not (bearing in mind that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", the article has a total of one independent reliable source, and I haven't been able to find any sources not cited in the article). Given that MUSICBIO is a guideline clarifying what "may be notable", and that we can't write an article (especially one about a living person) without reliable sources, GNG has to take priority. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 16:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Chale Aaye

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

This tele-film does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:NFILM and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 16:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as it is star studded film and has based on social issue of joint family systems and their problems which is common in Pakistan.Film also had good reception and has million of views on YouTube.Lillyput4455 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Not a policy based argument to keep the page. --Saqib (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lack of convincing argument by the creator. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this sources https://nation.com.pk/25-Jun-2017/mehreen-jabbar-mohammad-ahmad-and-marina-khan-the-m-trio-reunite-on-eid, https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/332337-mehreen-jabbar-returns-to-small-screen-with-two-eid-telefilms. The telefilm has received significent coverage in this RS. 39.44.38.65 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is sock of Pakistanpedia (talk · contribs)

unproven allegation Atlantic306 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has received coverage in Pakistani reliable sources such as the Nation and The News as linked above, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but name checking, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. --Saqib (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- more than namechecking, several paragraphs in each of the sources listed above, the second being a review including critical analysis Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A tele-film. 2 refs in the article 1 doesn't mention it, the other not in depth. News returning nothing substantial i can see. Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ as film meet wikipedia guidelines for WP:television and has reliable sources from international newspapers like Nation.Com and The News.Lillyput4455 (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure I see that much of an issue here now that some reliable sources have been added to the article. Meets WP: GNG well enough to pass, barely though. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Morning

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

Even on History of CNN (1980–2003), this show doesn't have a single mention except for one bullet point in the "Variety shows" section. It also lacks references and therefore doesn't demonstrate notability. Also, it was created 13 years ago but is only one sentence long. Should it be redirected to there or to another larger article perhaps? – numbermaniac 12:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (to History of CNN (1980–2003)?...). I've found one incidental mention of this show in LA Times – [25] – and a couple more in Variety – [26], [27]. But this is only enough to establish that the show existed, not enough to show that it was notable in WP:GNG terms. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point to redirect. We have 'it aired on CNN', and we need much more for even a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars

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

Unsourced list of guest stars on television program. Lists mostly single appearances of characters. Notes list what actor portraying character is later known for, unrelated to appearance on The Andy Griffith Show.

There's no debate that actors with wikilinks meet WP:N and that The Andy Griffith Show was a popular television show. But there are no sources about the topic of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars treated as a whole, and list article fails WP:TVCAST and WP:LISTCRUFT. The more significant guest/recurring stars are listed in List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. AldezD (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. . Vorbee (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's boilerplate nomination is incorrect about the content; only a mere few entries are unsourced. The rest list specific episodes. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Sourcing isn't the core issue. This content fails fails WP:TVCAST and WP:LISTCRUFT. A list of single episode guest stars of a television show is not content that meets criteria guidelines. AldezD (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - LISTCRUFT is essentially an "I don't like this list and want an acronym to cite" essay, so that's really uninteresting to me. If you're using it as a proxy for an actual consensus-supported guideline or policy, you should just cite that policy. And could you be specific regarding what part of WP:TVCAST you are applying, and in what way that MOS guideline establishes relevant inclusion criteria that this list fails? postdlf (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed". "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a 'recurring' role." These are not recurring characters. They are one-episode characters, and do not belong in a separate article list. A list of guest stars does not meet WP:N. AldezD (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - None of that says "never list guest stars", nor "only main and recurring roles may be listed". Further, this list is limited to guest stars who have their own articles. Editors may ultimately decide that this is an unnecessary level of detail for this particular show, or that having guest starred in this series may not be significant enough as a basis for an index of notable actors, but your legalistic approach, and your copied and pasted rationales (apparently applied based on nothing more than the type of list rather than a case-by-case evaluation of the content per WP:BEFORE) is completely off-base here.
        You claim above that there are "no sources about the topic of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars treated as a whole", but are you basing this purely based on the state of the article, or have you actually consulted any of the many books about this series to see if they discuss and/or list significant guest stars? postdlf (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a fairly prominent TV show, with several books about it. Those books discuss guest stars in the context of episode guides, etc. Articles such as List of The Simpsons guest stars (seasons 1–20) (or others in Category:Lists of guest appearances in television) suggest this is not a WP:NOT violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "The Andy Griffith Show guest stars" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1996). Aunt Bee's Delightful Desserts. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. pp. ix–x. ISBN 978-1-55853-402-5. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The book provides a list of guest stars:
  1. Jackie Joseph—Ramona Ankrum
  2. Frank Sutton—Sgt. Carter
  3. Charles P. Thompson—Asa Breeney
  4. Enid Markey—Mrs. Mendelbright
  5. Will Wright, Tol Avery, and Jason Johnson—Ben Weaver
  6. Olan Soule—John Masters
  7. Josie Lloyd—Lydia Crosswaith
  8. Barbara Perry—Flossie, Mary Lee, Lavinia, and Doris Williams
  9. Norman Leavitt (it:Norman Leavitt), Trevor Bardette, and Cliff Norton—Wally
  10. Jane Dulo—Escaped convict Sally
  11. Barbara Eden—Ellen Brown
  12. Mary Grace Canfield—Mary Grace Gossage
  13. Joyce Van Patten—Laura Hollander
  14. Robert Cornthwaite—Inspector Somerset
  15. Alan Oppenheimer—Mr. Ruskin, the Interpreter
  16. R. G. Armstrong—Farmer Flint
  17. Elaine Joyce—Mavis Neff
  18. The Country Boys (Roland White, LeRoy McNees, Clarence White, Eric White, and Billy Ray Latham)—Local musicians
  19. Joel Redlin—Ferdie
  20. Alvy Moore—Kitchenwares salesman
  21. Dave Ketchum—Fred Michaels, Harry Walker
  22. George Spence—Frank the fiancé
  23. Brad (Joe Bolleter) Olson—Esquire Club member John Danby
2. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. The Andy Griffith Show Book. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 149–170. ISBN 0-312-26287-6. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The book notes:
  
  There are 249 episodes (159 in black and white; 90 in color) of "The Andy Griffith Show." The following is a list, with brief plot summaries, of all the episodes. The order in which the episodes are listed is the order in which they were filmed and also the order in which they are most commonly aired in syndication. (The order in which the episodes were originally broadcast is slightly different.) Guest stars and prominent actors are also listed, along with the writers of the episodes.
  The book notes this information about guest stars:
  1. In "Episode 8: A Feud Is a Feud", Arthur Hunnicutt and Chubby Johnson are guest stars.
  2. In "Episode 36: Barney on the Rebound", Jackie Coogan is a guest star.
  3. In "Episode 70: The Cow Thief", Malcolm Atterbury and Ralph Bell are guest stars.
  4. In "Episode 74: Convicts-at-Large", Reta Shaw, Jane Dulo, and Jean Carson are guest stars.
  5. In "Episode 107: Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.", Frank Sutton is the guest star.
  6. In "Episode 144: Goober Takes a Car Apart", Larry Hovis is the guest star.
  7. In "Episode 167: Taylors in Hollywood", Gavin MacLeod and Hayden Rorke are the guest stars.
  8. In "Episode 187: The Foster Lady", Ronnie Schell and Robert Emhardt are the guest stars.
  9. In "Episode 208: The Statue", Dal McKennon is the guest star.
  10. In "Episode 225: Opie Steps Up in Class", Joyce Van Patten is the guest star.
  11. In "Episode 245: Emmett's Anniversary", Ronnie Schell is the guest star.
3. Robinson, Dale; Fernandes, David (1996). The Definitive Andy Griffith Show Reference: Episode-by-Episode, with Cast and Production Biographies and a Guide to Collectibles. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-2068-5. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The book discusses each episode in the series and the cast members (including guest cast) involved in each episode.
4. Hall, Lee (1999-05-31). "Mayburied: 'Griffith' Is Out at TBS". Electronic Media. Crain Communications.
  The article notes:
  
  Guest stars included Jackie Coogan (Uncle Fester, "The Addams Family"); Buddy Ebsen ("Beverly Hillbillies" and "Barnaby Jones"); Alan Hale Jr. (the skipper on "Gilligan's Island"); Bill Bixby ("The Incredible Hulk" and "My Favorite Martian"), Don Rickles; Bob Denver ("Gilligan's Island"); Teri Garr; Jamie Farr ("MASH"); Howard Hesseman ("WKRP in Cincinnati"); Rob Reiner ("All in the Family"); and Jack Nicholson.
5. Butler, Susan (2002-01-18). "Selected titles celebrate all things Mayberry". The Daily Reflector. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The article notes:
  
  The small, fictional town of Mayberry, N.C., lives on in the Verona Joyner Langford North Carolina Collection at Joyner Library. The television series that was set in this picturesque town, "The Andy Griffith Show," debuted on Oct. 3, 1960, and ran for eight seasons. Several books in the collection give detailed summaries of all 249 episodes that aired, along with short biographies of the cast members and various guest stars who passed through Mayberry, including Jack Nicholson, Bill Bixby, and Barbara Eden.
  The article discusses the books The Andy Griffith Show Book by Ken Beck and Jim Clark, The Definitive Andy Griffith Show Reference by Dale Robinson and David Fernandes, and Mayberry 101: Behind The Scenes of a TV Classic by Neal Brower.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic of the list has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above so that it passes WP:NLIST and as the topic is discussed in reliable sources it is not listcruft as Wikipedia determines it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rok Sako To Rok Lo (TV film)

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

This tele-film does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:NFILM and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is being one of the popular television films of Eid ul Adha 2018.

Film stars famous actor Shahzad Shaikh who is son of legendary International actor Javed Shaikh.Lillyput4455 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Not a policy based argument to keep the page. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not necessary to create an article about a movie only because it is being heard about. Rzvas (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Jame

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

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

Iranian singer who fails WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing found in Persian language. In this ref, the article claims that he was nominated for an award (which is not a very important award in Iran) while this source does not mention his name. Farhikht (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 15:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 15:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest importance. fails WP:MUSICBIO. Freetheangels (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this stage. I can be convinced even if non-English sources have been provided. Capitals00 (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hojat Rahimi

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

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

Afghan singer who fails WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing found in Persian language. Farhikht (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these are usually clear cut but I can't decide after looking at the refs. Its marginal. Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Brass Mug

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

While they've had some impressive and notable acts, I see no evidence that this venue is any more notable than the hundreds of thousands of acts that host those same names. The reference to it being the "CBGB of Tampa" is from a small local blog/paper.1 CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local bar that has ticketed events; no sign of coverage beyond the WP:MILL announcements/promotions of those events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom and power~enwiki as well as the fact that the wording and overall tone seems to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING.Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Clear consensus to not keep. Less clear if it should be deleted outright or merged, but several of the people arguing to delete also indicate a selective merge would be acceptable, so going with that. This should be a selective merge, only moving the most significant and well-sourced material, with regard to WP:UNDUE. I encourage whoever does the merge to read the full discussion here and use that for guidance. Leave a redirect.

A minor complication is that this term has also been used with respect to Libya. If we've got an existing article that discusses the term in that context (or one is written in the future), feel free to turn the redirect into a WP:DAB page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian bombing

TRUTH = PROPAGANDA? CENSORSHIP = TRUTH? Wikipedia = BATTLEFIELD?!

Not only did Václav Havel assign "humanism" to the ILLEGAL bombing of Yugoslavia, targeted predominantly against civilian targets (hospitals, bridges, admninistrative buildings etc.) - which legally is defined as TERRORISM (see TERRORISM DEFINITION) -, but his father Václav Maria and gay uncle Miloš also made propaganda films for Adolf Hitler, NSDAP and the Third Reich during the WW2 in their Barrandov Film Studios. During the so called "communist dictatorship" the "dissident" Václav Havel owned and drove multiple western - imported luxury cars, including Mercedes-Benz (see Václav Havel's private automobiles), which none of the millions of the Communist Party members, the highest ranked not excluding, could ever afford and would ever dare. It is obvious that not the authors of this article, but the promoters of its deletion are PROPAGANDA AGENTS. Václav Havel was a FREEMASON (see VACLAV HAVEL FREEMASON) - so who are the deletion promoters?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.87.32.16 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Significance? Looks more like anti-NATO Putinist-style propaganda rather than a proper article Openlydialectic (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 15:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 15:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:TNT (Blow it up and start over) may be applicable here. I can't say whether or not this should be deleted, renamed, merged or kept, but this seems to be mostly notable, especially due to its inclusion in The New York Times. If it is deleted due to the propaganda aspect, it should probably be recreated, as long as there isn't any bias. Redditaddict6 9 15:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well what about whataboutism? I see more references to this as a euphemism in the Libya/Syria conflicts than the Serbia one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (or alternatively NATO bombing of Yugoslavia). This a POVFORK, but there is merit to present the Russian view there.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Undecided - I will come back soon to this. It is true that this term has been more frequently used to report the incidents of Middle Eastern and North African civil wars. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment below. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; used in this context, so a mention is warranted, but not as a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This subject also covers bombing in Libya.[28] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleanup required, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Nom hasn't provided any real policy-based reasoning for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no indication that this term has any lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. This is a minor part of the conversation about the legitimacy of that war/bombing campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete the article, and copy whatever relevant (if any) to Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. --Jay (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the subject is evidently not independently notable, if at all. Despite the convoluted prose of the nomination itself, as above, the article indeed does not merit a place in Wikipedia and should, at best, be confined to a Merge of whatever can be sourced to "Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia." -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:G5. Feel free to create a redirect. So Why 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shehrbano Taseer

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

Not satisfying WP:GNG. Lacks details and coverage from independent sources. A large part of the article mentions about her brother and husband, which doesn't make her notable. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The creator of this page is blocked for being a sockpuppet. A number of other BLPs created by that user were also deleted. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Salman Taseer. WhileBeing daughter of a famous politician (Salman Taseer) or sister of a notable brothers is not in itself grounds for notability because Notability is not inherited. so the question is whether she meets WP:JOURNALIST. Journalists are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:JOURNALIST. But that does not appear to be the case here. She also lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources so fails to meet basic GNG as well. But she is often in the press (an interview with Newline) and has received a Human Rights Award as per this news story. I would say better redirect than delete. --Saqib (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you immediately changed your vote when you realised that the article has been nominated by the user whose edits you are 'following'. Interesting. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have we had issues in the past? Give me some time to probe. By the way I've stated pretty good reason why we should redirect instead of delete. --Saqib (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, Interesting ! I honestly see no reason to redirect. Saqib is there any justification ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Why LoL? The subject meets borderline WP:N. Other than getting a a Human Rights Award as per this news story. She also among the four Pakistanis who made it to WEF's 2013 Young Global Leaders list as per this story. As per this RS, she is the official spokesperson of her family (Category:Taseer family) and was interviewed by NDTV, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, NPR, BBC Hard Talk, BBC Radio, CNN and Voice of America. In the absence of Wikipedia page on her family, redirection to her father's page make sense. And if that's not sufficient for you, she has assistant-directed a couple of popular TV series as per this IMDb entry. Redirects are cheap! --Saqib (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib LoL was over the cheeky usage of the word 'interesting' nothing more. no offence meant. I can strike if it disturbs you.

Coming to the topic, Per policy, an article created by WP:SOCK is a candidate for WP:CSDG5 seeWikipedia:Dealing_with_sock_puppets#Deleting_articles_or_article_edits.

Human Rights First NGOs' (is barely or non notable NGO) and award is clearly not a notable award. does not prove notability.

WEF is just an NGO, albeit a notable one, but this YGL is given every year to 199 young leaders from 70 countries, again non notable.

~~Newsline is neither a reliable source, nor~~ her being the official spokesperson of her family does not make her notable.

She was interviewed by International media de to her fathers killing not for her work. Does not prove notability.

As. director or director of couple of TV serials doesn't provide notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoL. Interesting! You said Newsline is neither a reliable source. It is Pakistan's most influential political monthly as per NYT and it has its own Wikipedia entry Newsline (magazine). I'm also unconvinced with your comments about the Human Rights First and WEF. Both org are notable at least by WP standards and that's enough for us. --Saqib (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I struck off above. Newsline link u gave was not even opening that time. Anyway the debate is the Notability of the subject not the paper, so lets be on the topic. Please read WP:NOTINHERITED awards by any NGO that has an article does not automatically become Notable. each award has to pass its own notability tests. these awards fail that. if you have an argument on how and why these awards are notable, then I would like to see. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I'm not arguing to keep this BLP. I'm just trying to assert that based on the available coverage in RS, the subject meets the WP:N by borderline so a redirect won't hurt. --Saqib (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV WP:NOTINHERITED, no notable action done by the subject so far. Per policy, an article created by WP:SOCK in violation of block is a candidate for Speedy Delete per WP:CSDG5 see here--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and the creation of a banned sock so it qualifies as G5 and is also promotional, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gambinos (2018)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying either WP:NFF or WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--The film is scheduled to release at some unconfirmed date and the social-media profile aware(s) us that shooting began on 6th September but I fail to find any evidence of any reputable media-house noting it.∯WBG^converse 13:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, toosoon, crystal, tagged coi. Szzuk (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wielsch

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

Nil notability outside California.

Extremely local coverage in light of his imprisonment. WP:BLP1E fits precisely.

Also, the concerns of BLP violation (as he is a lesser-known figure and the article is compelled to paint him in an entirely negative light) applies well-enough. ∯WBG^converse 14:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: local coverage with no depth or |persistence. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and especially per BLP Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or Merge~~ Redirect to ~~Dirty DUI scandal~~ Chris Butler (private investigator) There is a detailed discussion of the crime in Hamid R. Ekbia (2015). "Heteronomous Humans and Autonomous Agents: Toward Artificial Relational Intelligence". Beyond Artificial Intelligence. Topics in Intelligent Engineering and Informatics. 9. Springer: 66–77. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09668-1_5. ISBN 978-3-319-09667-4., which indicates more than 'local' interest, along with news articles in 2011, 2012 and 2013. There is also considerable of newspaper coverage in various local and regional newspapers, mostly Oakland Tribune and Contra Costa Times but a couple hit the wires as well, which show up in ProQuest. According to one article Karl Fischer (16 February 2012). "Two national TV shows to feature East Bay "Dirty DUI" scandal". Oakland Tribune. the scandal drew enough attention to be featured on two national TV shows, although the shows themselves may not be RS.
Although there seems to be enough material to support an article it may be preferable from a BLP perspective to create an article which discusses the entirety of the scandal and then redirect this to that article. Regardless, there is enough here for deletion to not be the answer. Jbh ^Talk 16:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 00:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jbhunley, you have either not read the part of the book, in it's entirety or you are over-exaggerating the coverage.This uses the example of the crime to merely provide an interesting introduction to the broader theme of the chapter.Nothing else of any merit (it again mentions a comment by the author, on the crime at the very ending:-)).I have the book and can email you, per your wish.

It's obviously expected that the crime will be covered in Californian/Bay-specific version of news-websites or dailies.And, news by transcript-services which regurgitate Press releases by Dept. of Justice??....... ∯WBG^converse 16:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I checked the book source and was very unimpressed Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True. All I could see was the two page introduction although I do think that the plain fact that it was seen as unique/significant enough to server as 'an interesting introduction' shows that the matter has reached beyond the bubble of being merely a local event. Jbh ^Talk 16:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Merge with Chris_Butler_(private_investigator), where there's ton of information (really, probably too much per NOTNEWS) on the dirty DUI thing, to create an article on the scandal? I'm not comfortable with the article staying like this, howeverGalobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection the creation of Dirty DUI scandal and redirecting this Norman Wielsch to that. Jbh ^Talk 16:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anecdotal usage in a book or journal source should not qualify as grounds for a BLP. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in that article was far from trivial or 'in passing'. It consists of ~150-170 words detailing the crime. The point though, as I said above, is that the mere fact that the author of the paper saw this particular crime by this particular person to be significant enough to introduce and illustrate their point makes the material of more than 'local' interest. The topic being of only local interest is one of the reasons given for deletion and the article is presented as refutation of that. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope.I can send you several chapters of multiple books that draws upon completely-non-notable-events (which might be fringe enough), just to give a perfect introduction to the heavy dosage of jargon that will follow....... ∯WBG^converse 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best, NOTNEWS. At worst, this is nothing but an attack bio. Never should have been created in the first place. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook WP:BLPCRIME / WP:NOTNEWS. Arrests and convictions are routine things to turn up in the news, but I don't think we should write articles about them until we have sustained national news coverage over a significant timeframe. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails any conceivable bar for notability. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Fails Significant coverage over the years. only mentioned for his arrest.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E as well as several other reasons given above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Coverage is not sufficient to enable us to write an account of this person's life, which is in any case not of encyclopaedic interest. His name could be added to a List of convicted policemen (if we have one). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure why this is on the geography list, but fails WP:BLP1E pretty clearly, not easily solved by a redirect. SportingFlyer talk 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG ,so it's a delete for me. JC7V-constructive zone 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per WP:BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Butler (private investigator)#Arrest. Wielsch gets some standalone mentions as a cop gone bad in national outlets, e.g. [29], and he was involved (in a secondary yet significant role) in a series of crimes that meets NCRIME (beyond copious media - local and non-local for the wider Butler operation, see this academic source), that is better covered in the redirect target. The name itself is a plausible search term.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chris Butler (private investigator). Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Butler (private investigator)#Arrest, where it's already covered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now. If more info available in the future, recreate.BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per all other delete votes here. Emily Khine (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Max Keiser. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Herbert

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

I'm seeing nothing outside some news-pieces written/created by her and some near-negligible/non-existent trivial coverage.Nothing resembling significant coverage in any source of repute.Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPN.Crypto-currency-spam.... ∯WBG^converse 14:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Max Keiser. A quick look at sources suggests that she is known primarily through working with him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Merge or Redirect? Co-hosting the shows, (which is the sole notable&sourced-issue at the article) is already mentioned at Max Keiser. ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of the article we can merge; some of the current prose is unsourced or is cited to non-specific passing mentions, but there ought to be a sentence or two we can grab, rather than just a straight redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine enough:-) Whilst I don't see anything, let's see if some other info can be proved to be significant-enough and well-sourced. ∯WBG^converse 10:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or "merge" or redirect as above or to Keiser Report) - RT UK 'supporting personality', has her own cryptocurrency, sorta a producer of an adult cartoon that barely made it off the drawing board in 2005. Occasional self-publicity of the same. Note that there's lots of non-notable articles and general padding of RT material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might I know, why? WP:JUSTAVOTE?? ∯WBG^converse 04:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [30]. Also, my favorite episode of the Keiser Report is E1117. Try to count the number of times they say "they are losing money on every barrel they pump" wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo, that piece mentions Stacy twice (as a co-producer of the show).And, in the most trivial-est of all manners, possible.I appreciate that you have a liking for Keiser Report but that's hardly a basis for a weak keep!! ∯WBG^converse 04:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: that's not exactly true. From the source:
Keiser was based in Villefranche-sur-Mer, near Nice, when he met Herbert, who is eight years his junior, in 2003.
Herbert's apparently subordinate role as co-presenter of The Keiser Report, in which her main task is to prompt, and then revel in her partner's hyperbole, belies her acute instincts as a producer and editor. Before collaborating with Keiser, Herbert, the daughter of a NYPD officer who died in tragic circumstances when she was six, began her career working with Michael Phillips (who co-produced Taxi Driver and The Sting). She was later associate producer on the acclaimed but highly controversial animated 2005 series Popetown. A cartoon sitcom featuring the voices of Mackenzie Crook, Ruby Wax, Matt Lucas, Jerry Hall and Ben Miller, it was once described as Father Ted meets South Park. Originally commissioned for BBC Three, Popetown was dropped from its schedule after protests from the Catholic Church, though it is available on DVD.
Herbert and Keiser moved to London a year ago. wumbolo ^^^ 08:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... ∯WBG^converse 10:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keiser Report; not independently notable and a separate article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 20:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Marino

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

I'm seeing nothing outside typical trivial coverage in local-news-pieces.Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPN. ∯WBG^converse 14:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)and WP:NACTOR 10:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a role in a TV show does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) KCVelaga (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anasuya Sengupta

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

A trivial case of BLP1E, wherein all mentions in reliable media-units mention her in the context of one of the lines of her poem being recited by Clinton.

What else?! (Random interviews don't add any to notability.)

I see that the creator does seem to possess an extreme adulation for wikimedia-personalities.∯WBG^converse 14:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Winged Blades of Godric. I take umbrage at your scurrilous comment about "extreme adulation" – and it is a cheap shot to link to an ANI. Please redact this off-topic comment. I consider it to be a personal attack. Thank you. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well referenced article about a person and a poem which had an effect on international relations and a book by Hillary Clinton. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, WP:BLP1E? And, we're meeting after a long time:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are a memorable editor. The one event is a pretty good one, and she has done other things, including a stint as a Wikimedia official. Wikipedia is now set-in-stone enough in society that people who've worked there, or made major accomplishments here, should be as notable as any other participants of a unique knowledge force. The sources and references are strong. I don't get the reasoning of one-event guidelines, although I haven't memorized it. Seems many people are justifiably notable for one event, and then we have major league baseball, where if a person under a major-league contract walks on the field for one inning and then is never heard of or never does anything notable again they are automatically considered notable and article-worthy. Being the catalyst for Hillary Clinton, in events aimed to shift the public's perception and actions towards women in society, "ain't nuttin to sneeze at". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage and beyond BLP1E too. The subject has received International media including BBC^[1] and NYT coverage for her Poem used and recited by Clinton.^[2] Other than that, Coverage in BBC for her work in Wikimedia^[3] she has been covered for her social work in support of women and her NGO.^[4]^[5] Has been a speaker at summits Mozilla and MIT.^[6]^[7]^[8]--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Beary, Habib (June 27, 2003). "Indian's silence speaks to Hillary". BBC News. Archived from the original on June 10, 2004. Retrieved November 26, 2017.
^ Chakravarthy, Smitha (August 7, 2003). "The Hindu : A poem that moved a Clinton". The Hindu. Archived from the original on January 17, 2004. Retrieved November 26, 2017.
^ "Who edits Wikipedia?, Newshour - BBC World Service". BBC.
^ "Anasuya Sengupta - SheSource Expert - Women's Media Center". www.womensmediacenter.com.
^ "Anasuya Sengupta Wants to Diversify Wikipedia - The Teal Mango". 1 August 2018.
^ Mozilla (27 February 2018). "How to Build an Internet With Us, Not For Us - Anasuya Sengupta and Siko Bouterse at MozFest" – via YouTube.
^ "Grand Challenges Summit keynote: Anasuya Sengupta by MIT Webcast".
^ MITLibraries (25 June 2018). "Grand Challenges Keynote: Anasuya Sengupta" – via YouTube.

Keep I struggled to find good sources, but I've identified a few and expanded the article a bit. I'm confident that improvement, not deletion, is the answer here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a case of borderline-notability for a person affiliated with the Foundation. It is definitely not a WP:BLP1E. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no strong claim to notability and the article itself with mentions of Wikipedia connections adds up to navel gazing on Wikipedia's part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of coverage in this article dealing with Wikipedia amounts to one small sentence. Most of the article has nothing to do with it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once you negate that, it shifts to a BLP1E case or so I believe.I'll try to provide a detailed analysis of available sourcing, though... ∯WBG^converse 11:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sourcing and I've found reviews of more of her work. Passes GNG and probably CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has received significant coverage in recent years and thus meets the criteria set forth in WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning 06:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube channels

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

The list of top channels fails WP:LISTN. The "Historical progression" section may be merged to YouTube. wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has enough sources discussing the most-viewed YouTube channels to establish the notability of the topic. The "Historical progression" section parallels the "Historical progression" sections on List of most-subscribed YouTube channels and List of most-viewed YouTube videos. Also, the YouTube article makes no mention of the most-subscribed channels or most-viewed videos either. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But these "sources" are unreliable. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is proposing merger and that's not done by deletioon -- see WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not seriously propose a merger. This article is very poorly written and the topic would only deserve a couple of sentences of mention on YouTube, which would be written anew. wumbolo ^^^ 06:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think it's notable enough to have it's own article. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several sources are listed that discuss the most-viewed YouTube channels as a subject, which covers WP:LISTN. The main article YouTube is plenty long enough that I think this should be kept stand-alone rather than merging. › Mortee _talk 17:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These listed sources aren't reliable. Which ones are you referring to specifically? wumbolo ^^^ 18:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines per WP:TVSERIES because it was aired on a channel which fails WP:BROADCAST. This also fails WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as it is adaption of famous American television sitcom Good Luck Charlie and Pakistani adaption has itself million of viewers. Since show is new launch so I haven't added reliable sources. I will try to add citiations.Lillyput4455 (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a nationally broadcast television series this passes WP:TVSERIES and should have sig coverage, will search later, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was aired on a channel which fails WP:BROADCAST. --Saqib (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- why? its nationally broadcasting, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a nationally broadcast channel. --Saqib (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: discussion ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 08:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as the series is making its root strong on WP:television and has viewership records on YouTube too. Series also meet guidelines for wikipedia WP:TVSERIES and broadcasts on national television. Lillyput4455 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote keep twice. --Saqib (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has absolutely zero coverage AND sources making it not notable. WP:TVSERIES also says that despite the case that this one is a broadcast show in it's country In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone so it actually manages to fail that one. As I already said, due to no coverage, it fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Jovanmilic97 you're right but as the show has launched a month ago so not enough sources are available if I found any other than I will try to add it to it. Thanks!Lillyput4455 (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Oaks Country Club

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

Not notable golf course. Hosting a second-tier pro event isn't enough. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:57, 26 August 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? 14:58, 26 August 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? 14:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable golf course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was hoping to save this one based on the WP:GNG with sources, considering it once hosted a professional event, but I can't find any that aren't routine golf directory/wedding/real estate listings. SportingFlyer talk 01:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Arrupe Training Center for Leaders and Educators

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

Promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have a final opinion because I haven't heard what others have had to say yet, but as a response to the Nom, I, after reading the article don't see it a promo. I also did a google search and found quite a few sites discussing the topic therefore I ask, in what way does it violate WP:GNG. (If I am missing something politely let me know). Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At first, I noticed a red flag: This Polish NGO does not have a Polish Wikipedia page yet. Checking the sources, I am not seeing any in-depth coverage, it's either self-published/press releases or mentions in passing. Hence my initial inclination was delete, but doing a search in Polish I saw a few description sentences ('founded in...' etc.) in Leszek Molendowski (January 2009). Dzieje ojców jezuitów i szkolnictwa jezuickiego w Gdyni. Wydawn. "Avalon". ISBN 978-83-60448-80-9. but snippet view is preventing me from detailed analysis. It does have an entry in Małgorzata Sokołowska (2006). Encyklopedia Gdyni. Verbi Causa. ISBN 978-83-921571-8-2., a regional encyclopedia, through again, a snippet view prevents a more detailed comment. That said, if an organization has an entry in another encyclopedia (even if very regional), I think it is good enough to get a page in Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious CHRIS

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC as his single only charted on iTunes. Some coverage, but mostly local in scope. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:NMUSIC is clearly not met, and the article is written by several WP:SPAs. The Chronicle Live reference is decent but is more of a "local interest" piece and suggests this is WP:TOOSOON. [31] and [32] are also marginal. There are also a lot of very bad refs; press releases and trivial mentions. You could make a case that GNG is met, but with the promotional aspect I think it's best to delete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In-depth and independent coverage in reliable sources like Chroniclelive UK [33], Daily Mercury AU[34], Northern Star AU [35] and many more are enough to pass GNG 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list' and MUSICBIO is optional in case if GNG is not met so this should not be deleted. If anyone found some bad sources that can be removed but that doesn't mean it should be deleted as per alternatives to deletion policy. Best Jesspeulen (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Jesspeulen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I didn't flag this as having failed GNG. Furthermore, you're misunderstanding the alternatives to deletion. That is for when a page may be suitably merged, redirected, disambiguated, or sent to draft. Those don't apply here. The issue with the page is not that it does not meet GNG, but that it does not meet the higher standard of WP:NMUSIC. The coverage is not significant enough to pass the music notability criteria, particularly with the article that is an interview, which consensus demonstrates that interview articles should generally not be used to gauge notability, especially of arts subjects. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Easily passes GNG. There are many newspaper articles about him. Pbfbpb (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC) — Pbfbpb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic - has only just registered and this is their first edit, already with knowledge of GNG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Keep - In my opinion it just about passes WP:GNG and passes WP:NMUSIC #1. Fit India 08:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are just indiscriminate local puff pieces, nothing significant. Sold 150 copies is telling. Maybe just too soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy - move to userspace. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Jackson Medal and Prize

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

no third party sources to show notability of the award, as an award. Sources exists that might indicate possible notability for the individual given the prize, but that would not make the prixe notable. The prize is too new for there to be an established tradition or expectation that anyone receiving the prize is presumably notable. The IOP gives both major and minor prizes--the major ones given by this famous professional organization do shown notability, but not all of the minor ones. The future may show differently, but at this time, its not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is very early days. The prize has only just been awarded for the first time, but given the coverage of the awardee I would not be surprised if secondary sources trickle through. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of further input either for or against I am considering moving it to Draft. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "To be fair, it is very early days. The prize has only just been awarded for the first time..", so it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, might a redirect be appropriate to the Legacy section of Daphne Jackson (already mentioned there), with a little bit of expansion? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a possibility. I have draftified for now. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A different editor has now moved the draft back to main space. As the creator of the page I would prefer that it moved to draft than deleted. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@T0mpr1c3: That's because you can't unilateraly decide what happens here. You can vote, but the consensus on what to do will be judged by a third-party. I would support either draftifying it or moving it to a subpage of your userpage (i.e. userfying). wumbolo ^^^ 08:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be fine by me. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: would you agree to userfying? wumbolo ^^^ 14:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I would agree-- I would suggest userification rather than moving to draft, becauseit will be anohter year until the 2nd award. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The argument that notability is somehow restricted to certain countries is not based in policy and nobody disputed that such coverage exists. So Why 15:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2NB

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Referenced chart does not show the songs of this band. » Shadowowl | talk 16:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just a look at the Korean WP article and there is in-depth coverage of this band showing passing WP:NMUSIC. [36][37]--Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to show any notability. Even if this artist has notability in Korea, I don't think it has any place in the English-language WP.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Tuzapicabit.Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. In-depth coverage in reliable sources does exist, enough to pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Sources don't need to be in English in order to help establish notability.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FETO Records

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

Unsourced and lacking notability. ~SML • TP 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) KCVelaga (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaf Kanwal

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

This BLP was a redirection before User:RidaJunejo (now blocked for socking) recreated it. Fails WP:NACTOR. Only one film role which is not significant and received only one award which is not in itself grounds for WP:N. Actress lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can be now safely deleted under G5. --Saqib (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is well-sourced, actress won an award in 2017 and has a significant role in a new TV series this year. Previously-redirected version from 2016 was indeed weak.[38] Current article is miles above that. — JFG ^talk 14:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JFG. I'd say this scrapes through GNG. Also, I'm not sure if G5 would apply here - it was originally created by User:Artchino, who didn't created it in violation of a block or ban, and at the time it actually wasn't a redirect. Special:PermaLink/674696816--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she passes WP:Notability_(people)#Entertainers for her role in Balu Mahi and her modeling career where she won a 2017 Hum Style Award. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete I've ended this a bit early due to issues with undisclosed paid editors, but fundamentally the issue came down to two arguments. On the one side it was argued that there was coverage of the subject in multiple sources (JC7V, Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lover), while on the other it was argued that none of the sources met the requirements for GNG (Papaursa, Sandals1, K.e.coffman, SportingFlyer). In the end, I felt that the concerns raised on the delete side, that the article failed to pass the bar of GNG, were stronger. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Steinfort

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

Notability of this person is not inherited by working for notable organisations. The level of independent coverage about him is insufficient to meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what a terrible article. Former AFL first round draft pick for Richmond, but was a total draft bust and never played an AFL game. Possible coverage including here, which is WP:ROUTINE, but exists: [39] The Athletic article is good for WP:GNG but the rest appears to be non-NPOV fluff. Watching this but if I don't respond again, read this as a delete vote. SportingFlyer talk 12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my comment above, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 11:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bit weak but passes WP:GNG and scrapes WP:NAUTHOR, per cite 19, and contribution to additional collective works. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page doesn't clearly meet the notability guidelines for persons WP:GNG. I checked the available sources before speedy deletion. The creator of the article also appears to be a Spam/advertising-only account, likely covert advertising and failure to disclose paid contributions. Bradgd (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that the page needs to be tidied, properly cited and edited for tone; there are plenty of sources available, therefore this page has the potential to be a good addition to the encyclopaedia providing the issues are fixed and all traces of paid editing are removed. Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lover^t@lk 14:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Added source to show he never played in the AFL for Richmond, despite the article's original claim of playing for them for five years. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Coverage is routine sports reporting based on being hired by various teams. Writing an article does not mean he meets WP:NAUTHOR. If the keep voters can show the significant independent coverage they claim exists, I'm willing to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steinfort was covered significantly by Herald SunSteinfort back at Mazenod | Herald Sun Adelaide staff member to accompany Crows on end-of-season trip to Thailand | Herald Sun, THE ATHLETICHow a dying coach in Australia nudged Paddy Steinfort onto a winding road to the Blue Jays – The Athletic, The AdvertiserThe day Phil Walsh eulogised his mate Dean Bailey as told by Paddy Steinfort, SPORTSNETBlue Jays' Roberto Osuna feeling 'anxious and weird' - Sportsnet.ca. I'd say he clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:NAFL, WP:SPORTCRIT through significant, non-routine coverage. Kevroby (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think he is notable as an author (his only book is held by just 36 libraries according to WorldCat Identities) but definitely notable as a sportsperson winning the Larke Medal, playing for various teams and being a coach. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Larke medal is for the under-18 championships and junior awards don't usual confer notability nor does playing for several minor league teams. He was never a head coach just an assistant for different teams so he fails to meet WP:NAFL or any other SNG. That means he needs to meet WP:GNG to be notable and, as I said above, I'm waiting for someone to show me the necessary coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources showing this subject meets WP:GNG, won a Larke Medal and some significnace from being an author (though probably not meeting WP:Author) so its a pass.JC7V-constructive zone 22:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For one last time, someone please point two or three of the "many sources showing this subject meets WP:GNG" so that I can see the significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. People keep claiming he meets WP:GNG, but no one has been willing to show me the sources--even though I've said I'm willing to change my vote if presented with actual evidence instead of general vague statements. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one source, its taking everything and every source together (Larkin award, wrote a book that is somewhat significant, wrote guest articles for Psychology Today, works with pro sports teams, was drafted by an AFL squad (I know he didn't play for them). I feel based on everything together he barely meets WP:GNG. I feel his inclusion (without the fluff) would be a Net Positive. JC7V-constructive zone 01:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it seems like you're claiming he's notable because he did lots of different things, although he didn't do any of them well enough to be notable in that field. In addition, you're claiming that lots of routine coverage combined is enough to meet WP:GNG although you can't find individual sources that provide the significant independent non-routine coverage required by that standard. For some reason, I'm reminded of one of my old coaches who said, "If you want to win the high jump you find one person who can jump 7 feet, not 7 people who can jump 1 foot." Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let's agree to disagree. Thank you for your input and for your vote. JC7V-constructive zone 04:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any notability standards and I don't believe the sources mentioned are enough to meet the GNG. Success as a junior doesn't usually count for sports notability. Sandals1 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; not notable as either "author, performance coach or leadership consultant". Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Highly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 20:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say Steinfort is notable while the page itself was poorly written, primarily in the type of references used, which I think would seem tricky when assessing the notability of the subject. I have taken out most of the fluff, reduced promotional tone, removed self-published articles and profiles. Kevroby (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 20:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air Ticket

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

Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. This is based almost entirely on primary sources (like their own website, ticket sales sites and CDBaby) that cannot support notability at all, with the only evidence of media coverage being a short blurb in their hometown local weekly on the occasion of their playing a show at the local youth centre. All of which means that nothing here passes NMUSIC, and the sourcing isn't strong enough to get them over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC per nom. Article comes across as promotional in nature as well due to the fact that the only sources involved seem to be primary in nature (again, per nom).--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fairly bizarre article. The entire biography seems to set up the band's formation and then ends before the release of their debut album, only from the infobox do we see that the band didn't last much longer than that. Clearly not notable.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMPERIAL-Newton Corp

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

I do not see anything notable about this company. The article is an advert for the company that was created by an employee of the company. This was a contested PROD by the creator. ~ GB fan 13:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert for unnotable metalbasher. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve - Not an advert, not created by employee. Mentioned in other categories by public, and notable for multiple reasons including manufacture of largest impact sockets in world, more than 480,000 sizes and shapes no other brand makes, as well as introduction of new lengths and drive sizes never previously created before by any brand. Notability must consist of more than advertising budget and stock listing? There are many similar companies listed here which are not unique but merely semi-recognizable names, as opposed to being notable for doing something unique within an industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDog111 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It does read like an advertisement and while you say you didn't create it the account that created is the same account you are editing from right now. You say this account was given to you. You have been told that is not allowed and you continue to edit from this account. Other companies having articles means absolutely nothing about this article. The only thing that matters is if reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the company. ~ GB fan 22:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please note I did not continue to edit from the account, the edit was done expeditiously to try and correct things, prior to your comment above, and prior to creating this new account used here. I could not find a way to delete or cancel the account in question, if you know how please tell me. The newly edited content is factual and depicts why the company is notable. There is no promotion or call to action, nor solicitation of any kind. If you feel it can be reduced further to contain only fact while retaining the notability, please describe your objection or edit it accordingly we have no objection to any edits of any kind. We are simply interested in preserving a page that was created about us. disclosure: I work for the company.--Wiki5711 (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sourcing exists for WP:NCORP and WP:NOTPROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus the Worker Agro-industrial Training Center

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

fails WP:GNG, promo, largely based on related websites (including the own and Facebook). The Banner talk 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - seems to be a clear-cut case of WP:G11, so it would be reasonable to tag it as such in case an admin agrees with my conclusion after reading the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more Jesuit agenda-driven promotional spam that fails GNG. SOurces given are peripheral glancing mentions, used to synthesize a promotional view of the subject that attempts an end-run around the traditional wiki practice of using in-depth sources in independent reliable publications.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. several very good sources, so the promotionalism can be fixed. Within our usual expectations for articles on charities-. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons given just above. Jzsj (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jzsj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per DGG, as always. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect (the "merger" argument sounds more like a redirect argument to me) at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanka Beckles

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

Candidate for election to state legislature. One of 2 candidates running on her Party's ticket (it works like that in California,) she garnered a flurry of attention by placing second in the Primary election that selected 2 nominees. Little or no pre-campaign notability, although there is some coverage of prior campaigns, and she was a member city council and vice-mayor of a city of ~100,000 pop. Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election is a potential target for a REDIRECT. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 2 September 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 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The election isn't until November. The brief flurry of post-election coverage is WP:BLP1E. I can see an excellent argument for moving this to somebody's user space. But I am wary of setting a precedent for keeping candidate articles based on an argument that boils down to : it's OK to start/keep an article about a candidate as long as you are sure that they will win....E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are almost never notable, no reason to make an exception here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, so the fact that a candidate is considered likely to win the election is not a notability claim in and of itself — our notability criteria are based on what's already true today, not what new things that aren't already true today might become true in the future. And since every candidate in every election always generates some coverage in their district's local media during the campaign, the fact that said coverage exists is not an automatic WP:GNG pass in and of itself either. If she does win the election in November, then the article can be recreated as her notability claim will have changed to one that guarantees a Wikipedia article — but simply being a candidate as of today is not enough. (And no, Richmond CA is not a large enough city to confer automatic notability on its city councillors, either.) Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 18:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election#California as useful search term. While not covered outside of local sources now, we have a parent article set up to collect this bio's sourced contents. czar 20:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie Vineyard

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

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}}.

This article is essentially a repost of an AfD deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinnie vineyard) with the addition of a current run for Govenor which also does not infer notability. The reason for the earlier AfD still holds. The Db-repost tag was deleted and reinstated a couple of times.

Paraphrased from the original AfD OK, so there are multiple possible claims to notability, but I found none of them hold the water. A third-party unsuccessful political candidate to a state parliament is hardly worth mentioning; same for a DJ at local radio stations. The wrestling career falls short of WP:WRESTLING. PRehse (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a non-winning fringe party candidate in a gubernatorial election is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, and nothing else here represents a notability or sourceability improvement over the prior version. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. The other aspects of his professional career don't appear notable either in their fields. Teemu08 (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 18:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. A non0notable candidate with a varied but non-notable pre-candidacy career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Before renominating, consider redirecting/merging to Pennsylvania House of Representatives election, 2018. So Why 15:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Lee

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

Summer Lee is a previously non-notable individual currently running for the state legislature. She has received ROUTINE coverage. Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election is a potential target for a REDIRECT. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 2 September 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 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since the article states she faces no opposition in the November election and will become a state senator, won't she meet notability criteria then (WP:NPOL)? It might be better to keep it now rather than to just have it legitimately recreated in 2 months. Peacock (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to set a precedent along the lines, of: it's OK to start an article about a candidate as long as you are sure that they will win.... Article's creator and sole editor User:Sfeldman can agree or request that this be moved to user space (and/or other unelected candidates articles they have started article about.) They can, of course, be moved back to main space when/if candidates win.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the coverage is not so detailed that I want to ignore the standard practice for state legislature candidates. There's also no reason to delete this, per PCock. Moving to draft until November seems the best option, though a keep (partially invoking IAR) would also be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. With no opposition, she will become clearly notable in a short period of time. I don't think that a very short-term deletion on a technicality is consistent with Wikipedia's mission. Teemu08 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for office are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As near as I can tell, Pennsylvania does not simply acclaim uncontested candidates to office the moment the primaries are over — the state follows a process whereby she still has to actually get actual votes from actual voters on general election day before she's actually declared as the rep-elect. As much of a meaningless formality as this may seem, it's not — with two months still to go before election day and another month after that before the newly elected legislators actually have their status bumped up from rep-elect to incumbent officeholder, it remains entirely possible in the meantime that an "uncontested" candidate could withdraw their candidacy for personal or professional or scandal reasons, or die in a car accident, and thus not actually become the actual rep. (And for that matter, while I don't know if Pennsylvania is one of them or not, there are some jurisdictions where even an unopposed candidate still has to beat an explicit "none of the above" option on election day to actually win the election.) So her running unopposed is not, in and of itself, a reason to waive WP:NPOL — even if the election itself looks like a formality, there still do remain ways in which she could fail to actually become the incumbent representative. She still has to go into general election day as a person who actually gets voted for by the voters of her district, and power-enwiki is correct that the coverage shown so far is not so compelling as to exempt her from being treated the same way as everybody else who has to get voted for by the voters of their districts first — and furthermore, there appear to be at least six other districts across the state where a non-incumbent Democratic or Republican candidate is also running unopposed, without any of those other candidates besides Lee and Innamorato having been deemed automatically article-worthy by any Wikipedia editor yet. So it's "inevitable" enough that we should permit this to be held in draftspace, while making sure to clarify that draftspacing it is not otherwise setting a precedent to allow routine draftification of just any article about just any candidate — but it's not "inevitable" enough to grant her a mainspace exemption from NPOL yet, because as of today there are still ways in which she could not actually become a state legislator in December. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is still possible that a write-in candidate can win the election. As it stands this can be recreated when the election has passed, assuming she wins. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full-length profiles written independently by journalists in the New Yorker, New Pittsburgh Courier, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Root satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NPOL (criterion 2). WP:COMMONOUTCOMES#Candidates cannot overrule these guidelines; see WP:CONLIMITED.

If editors want to create a new standard holding that politicians are only allowed to have articles after taking office, they need to gather consensus to rewrite these notability guidelines in a centralized discussion. FourViolas (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and if not that easily passes NPOL, per FourViolas. Depth and breadth of national and local press mentions. JesseRafe (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Before renominating, consider merging to Pennsylvania House of Representatives election, 2018 So Why 15:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Innamorato

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

Candidate for state legislative seat with no claim to notability before this campaign. Campaign coverage is mostly local, with some national mentions as one of a group of Democratic Socialists of America candidates running this year Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election is a potential target for a REDIRECT.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her primary win was major news in Pennsylvania and was also covered nationally by the New Yorker, Washington Post, and NPR, among others. The article does not make this clear, but she is unopposed in the general election and therefore the presumptive representative-elect for her district; statewide office holders are presumed notable per WP:POLITICIAN, including those who have not yet assumed office. The article could definitely use some work but she easily passes WP:GNG and is a clear keep for me. Camerafiend (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, the election isn't until November. That brief, minor flurry of post-election is WP:BLP1E. I can see an excellent argument for moving this to somebody's user space. But I am wary of setting a precedent for keeping candidate articles based on an argument that boils down to : it's OK to start/keep an article about a candidate as long as you are sure that they will win....E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that something unexpected might happen and she could end up not being elected (which might in itself be notable depending on the circumstances). If she quietly drops out of the race and we never hear from her again, then yes, this can and should be deleted as BLP1E. But barring an unforeseen event, she will formally win office in two months and I don't really see the harm in letting the article exist in the meantime. (That said, it looks like others are leaning toward draftifying and that seems like an acceptable compromise to me.) Camerafiend (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the coverage is not so detailed that I want to ignore the standard practice for state legislature candidates. There's also no reason to delete this. Moving to draft until November seems the best option, though a keep (partially invoking IAR) would also be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are not notable. Wikipedia is not news, so we do not have the fleeting news reasons to cover such people that the NYT and other newspapers have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As near as I can tell, Pennsylvania does not simply acclaim uncontested candidates to office the moment the primaries are over — the state follows a process whereby she still has to actually get actual votes from actual voters on general election day before she's actually declared as the rep-elect. As much of a meaningless formality as this may seem, it's not — with two months still to go before election day and another month after that before the newly elected legislators actually have their status bumped up from rep-elect to incumbent officeholder, it remains entirely possible in the meantime that an "uncontested" candidate could withdraw their candidacy for personal or professional or scandal reasons, or die in a car accident, and thus not actually become the actual rep. (And for that matter, while I don't know if Pennsylvania is one of them or not, there are some jurisdictions where even an unopposed candidate still has to beat an explicit "none of the above" option on election day to actually win the election.) So her running unopposed is not, in and of itself, a reason to waive WP:NPOL — even if the election itself looks like a formality, there still do remain ways in which she could fail to actually become the incumbent representative. She still has to go into general election day as a person who actually gets voted for by the voters of her district, and power-enwiki is correct that the coverage shown so far is not so compelling as to exempt her from being treated the same way as everybody else who has to get voted for by the voters of their districts first — and furthermore, there appear to be at least six other districts across the state where a non-incumbent Democratic or Republican candidate is also running unopposed, without any of those other candidates besides Lee and Innamorato having been deemed automatically article-worthy by any Wikipedia editor yet. So it's "inevitable" enough that we should permit this to be held in draftspace, while making sure to clarify that draftspacing it is not otherwise setting a precedent to allow routine draftification of just any article about just any candidate — but it's not "inevitable" enough to grant her a mainspace exemption from NPOL yet, because as of today there are still ways in which she could not actually become a state legislator in December. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice of recreation once November rolls around - we cannot presume she will win, even if she is running unopposed. I would consider this to be a similar case to a young footballer who hasn't yet appeared for the first team, but is likely to shortly - it's simply just WP:TOOSOON. I'd vote to draftify, but I think a redirection to whatever state legislative election page we can find is a better option, since there's not much to the article - the link to her campaign website violates WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer talk 02:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no need to WP:IAR, because there is no policy or guideline against keeping articles on unelected candidates. WP:NPOL explicitly says that Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". It's uncontested that she passes GNG, and her high probability of assuming office is a further reason to keep the article. FourViolas (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced it does meet GNG; the coverage is largely local and about one event (her primary victory). A profile in Elle magazine probably doesn't help, and a NYTimes article only has trivial mentions of her (in the context of that one event). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is more than significant coverage in reliable (local and regional) news sources independent of the candidate (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh City Paper); that's all that is necessary to pass GNG. Beyond this, shorter discussions in nationwide sources (NYT, Economist, New Yorker demonstrate broad interest, and per WP:BASIC they could be combined to establish notability even if no regional sources were considered. There is coverage of Innamorato throughout her campaign, not just of the event of winning the primary; see the first article I just linked. FourViolas (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she passes WP:GNG either. Almost all political candidates will receive coverage of their political campaigns. There's nothing in my search showing this campaign will be particularly notable if she were to lose the upcoming election - it all seems promotional or routine. SportingFlyer talk 18:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says nothing about whether an article subject is a "particularly notable" example of the category it belongs to—this is a perpetual misperception of people unfamiliar with WP:N and misled by the ordinary usage of "notability". The fact that politicians whose campaigns are of interest to the public regularly receive coverage is hardly a reason to ignore the coverage when it exists; see WP:NOTROUTINE#Politics. WP:ROUTINE is supposed to apply to things like wedding announcements and crime logs; it would apply if the only coverage to be found merely stated that she declared her candidacy and received x% of the vote, which is clearly not the case here. FourViolas (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but just because someone is in the news for a short period of time doesn't automatically qualify them for an article. Consensus shows unelected candidates are frequently redirected/draftifyed in order to avoid several "what Wikipedia is not" concerns. I don't see why this candidate would be any different. (She's likely to win and I'm arguing for consistency's sake.) SportingFlyer talk 21:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a local consensus to this effect, we need to have a centralized RfC about it, because it directly contradicts the text of both WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL, and we work by the PAG: see WP:CONLIMITED. Personally, I think it's very valuable to give voters a convenient summary of what secondary sources have to say about the people asking for their vote, and accordingly I think articles on candidates should be kept whenever there is enough coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (addressing WP:NOTPROMO) to say more than a sentence or two about them. FourViolas (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an RfC on recognizing the notability of major party candidates for the U.S. Senate, for Governor in, say, the 10 largest states by pop., and possibly the U.S. Congress might be worth doing (after Election Day.) But keeping candidates for a seat in a state legislature goes too far. I did look at press coverage before nomination, but this is not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez level coverage, not even close.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you - the NPOL note distinctly says, "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." If those sources exist, they are not on her article at the moment. If you look at the Politicians articles for deletion page, we frequently delete failed candidates. Once you're notable on Wikipedia, you're always notable, and simply running for office does not automatically make you notable - it makes you a part of the news cycle for a bit, unless you receive continuing significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 19:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the first two sources I linked, do you dispute that they are news feature articles, that they are written by journalists, or that they contain in-depth coverage of Innamorato?

And regardless, the point I'm making is that pending a RfC on the working consensus you claim, there's no policy or guideline justifying the routine deletion of failed candidates because they are only notable as failed candidates; WP:NTEMP cuts the opposite way, saying that once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. FourViolas (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FourViolas, have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Candidates?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I repeatedly wrote, there is no policy or guideline allowing editors to ignore BASIC, GNG, and NPOL in the case of unelected candidates. If this really is a consensus among people who watchlist politician AfDs, all the more reason to bring it to the broader community to be ratified. FourViolas (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as noted, there are a number of "what Wikipedia is not" which typically apply. WP:RECENT/WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10Y, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:PROMO all apply to unelected candidates - and NPOL specifically says unelected candidates are not presumptively notable. SportingFlyer talk 23:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not presumptively notable" is different from "presumptively not notable", and (as I wrote in my !vote) the guideline explicitly states that meeting GNG is a way for such candidates to be notable anyway.
NOTNEWS says that breaking news should not [...] treated differently from other information; a half-dozen in-depth articles in reliable sources about a candidate who ran for office in 1918 would certainly be enough to establish notability, so why not 2018?
NPOV requires fairly representing all reliably published views, and says nothing about notability (that only comes up in WP:FRINGE, which certainly doesn't apply presumptively to all unelected candidates!)
I don't know why you think NOTCRYSTAL is relevant, unless you're begging the question by assuming that actually holding office is the only way for a politician to become notable. NPOL is clear that the latter is not the case.
PROMO is certainly something to watch out for on the article for any active politician, incumbent or not. But unless the only available sources for a politician are partisan outlets of questionable independence, this is not a deletion rationale.

And once again, this is not the place for this discussion. Under the current notability guidelines, Innamorato is a clear keep. You're offering general reasons in favor of changing those policies in the case of unelected candidates; if you think these arguments will win over the community (despite the kinds of objections I just gave), we should start a RfC. Until then, the guidelines that currently exist take precedence. FourViolas (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, then - there's not much on her specifically (lots of it is about her in the larger context of the dem socialist wave), and what articles are appear local. Furthermore, this (and the small number of pure keep votes so far) is consistent with consensus: see recently Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Turner_(Texas_politician), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shawn_Moody_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Manchik, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Lee_(Tennessee_politician), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Renee_Hoyos, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_James_(Michigan_politician) and as a counterpoint see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Stauber, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danny_O'Connor_(Ohio_politician) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebekah_Kennedy for an unelected candidate who failed the real-life ten-year test. SportingFlyer talk 00:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's a consensus among currently active watchers of politicians-related AfDs; I think that was already clear. But per OSE and CONLIMITED, that consensus does not overrule the notability guidelines (which do not require non-local sources for politicians, just reliable independent in-depth ones like this). FourViolas (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Like I said below, there is still the theoretical possibility that a write-in candidate wins the race. Until then, I think a draft is the best option. This is just a PA Rep race, not a national one. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and if not that easily passes NPOL, per Camerafiend and FourViolas. Depth and breadth of national press mentions. JesseRafe (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King of the Hill (season 4). Vanamonde (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bills are Made to Be Broken

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

I made a Google search with a sole intention of improving this article but I could not find reliable sources that would guarantee WP:Notability. It is a season program of a notable set. I made some slight changes to it nonetheless but still feel it doesn't meet inclusion. I thus thought of letting it go through an AfD rather than a direct QD. Regards SkillsM674 (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. As explained at Wikipedia:Television episodes, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." Without secondary sources, this episode should not have an article of its own. However, if the article creator thinks they can find sources to justify keeping the article, then as an alternative the article can be userfied. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90: would you consider striking your comment so this AfD can be G5'd? wumbolo ^^^ 09:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King of the Hill (season 4) per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Dooley

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

Fails the general notability guideline soundly. Possibly a WP:AUTOBIO. May meet the subject-specific guideline for academics under criterion 3, as a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Helen Hay Whitney Foundation and/or criterion 5, as an endowed chair at Southern Research Institute. However, I'm not sure whether the Whitney Foundation counts as "a major scholarly society for which Fellowship is a highly selective honor", nor whether the SRI counts as "a major institution of higher education and research". Tera TIX 10:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Bad nomination. Tera TIX 05:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF, with a GScholar h-index of 30, a total of more than three thousand citations there, one paper with 300+ cites and another five with 100+ cites: [40]. James500 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube License System

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

Unclear what article is about. Search reveals nothing with the specific name (fails WP:GNG). Reads like an advertisement and or guide. ~ Araratic | talk 06:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of users are not informed on the implications of use of Youtube. The article documents them in a referenced manner. bkb (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTMANUAL applies. Article is promotional and full of original research. wumbolo ^^^ 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources outside of primary ones are terrible. We already have YouTube copyright issues and YouTube#Community_policy. This isn't even worthy of a redirect. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been watching this AfD from the start hoping that something keep worthy would come along. But agree with the people above and in particular FenixFeather. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Gupta

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable businessman. Some revisions include information about other people of the same name. The current version doesn't; the refs are all interviews or non-independent bios. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in this article are either interviews or non-independent bios, so it fails WP:GNG. He evidently is involved in interesting stuff at work, but by no means does that make someone notable. The nominator also noted there have been major WP:BLP violations until recently, where another persons life was merged into this mans. If he was truly notable, would such a mistake have really happened? Newshunter12 (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is very promotional. wumbolo ^^^ 15:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ANYBIO / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Exhibition

AfDs for this article:

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure of the first discussion, in which nobody actually "voted" one way or the other at all. It is still not referenced well enough to clear our notability standards for annual events, as the only "reference" cited here is the event's own self-published history of itself, not a reliable source that's independent of the event organizers — so the existence of the book is not a WP:GNG pass all by itself in the absence of any other sourcing, and I have been unable to find any other solid sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I only found interviews, short articles and minor mentions. The Great Exhibition of the North also seems non-notable. wumbolo ^^^ 09:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some local coverage, such as [41] [42], but nothing good enough to justify a keep !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appears not to be verifiable due to one source only. Though the official site is listed, there's almost no independent coverage, so even if it is verifiable, it isn't notable per the general notability guideline. Redditaddict6 9 21:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storefront (company)

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts; see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The New York Times article would seem to be the best source, both reasonably substantial and independent. TechCrunch may also meet our criteria. However, I've been unable to find sources of any quality beyond those two already cited – most other independent sources are passing mentions only, as the nomination mentions. I'm leaning towards soft delete, with the article recreated iff there is more independent sourcing, but more comments will probably be for the best. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the two sources provided above satisfy WP:NCORP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Wumbolo: I think two sources is generally considered on the low side when it comes to WP:NCORP, especially for a recent company (as opposed to an older one where sources may be less available). What is your evaluation of the tone of the page? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While there are only two of them, they're both very good. wumbolo ^^^ 13:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: NYT is a passing mention in an article on a larger topic. TechCrunch is too indiscriminate to be sufficient for notability. See for example the entry for TechCrunch at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no references available that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Neither of the two mentioned above meet the criteria either. As per ORGIND, "Intellectual Independence" states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The NYT reference relies totally on the company and the founders - no independent opinion/analysys/fact checking/investigation/etc in the article, total churnalism. The TechCrunch reference also fails ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement (even says so in the article). There's always a ton of articles based on funding announcements and this is no exception - here are some more based on the same announcement and they all use the same story facts and quotations: VentureBeat, The NEXT Web, Startup Beat, VC News Daily, Reuters, WWD, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing - I looked at the NYT article and it really doesn't have much analysis, just quotes the company, and techcrunch is the epitome of churnalism. WP:NOTPROMO is also a perfectly valid WP:DEL-REASON Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yar Khan Mandokhail

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN due to no notable post held, never elected and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Being the Deputy General Secretary of a minor Political party in Pakistan is the only claim to notability which fails well short of the mark. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Kpg jhp jm 15:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find evidence that this individual meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomInfo

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the page should be deleted Please excuse my lack of knowledge on how to use WP, it can be a bit overwhelming for a beginner.

Article is about no name company, with nothing of note in its history.
Search results for ZoomInfo https://www.google.com/search?q=zoominfo:
- The business website
- Wikipedia article
- Misc business related entries (review sites, glassdoor, etc)
- PR spam that made it into news

Company does not seem to have done anything of note to warrant listing.

I discovered the company because they seem to have become adept at google spamming, which im guessing is the same as most of their visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacticomed (talk • contribs) 03:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment The company seem to be included in Semantic Web for Dummies. And it is mentioned in quite a few magazine articles. It also have a US patent. The company has won some kind of tech award as well. Therefore, it could pass the notability guidelines. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Patents are not independent and do not count toward notability at all; they are a paradigmatic example of WP:SPS. The "award" is another SPS - a press release - and also doesn't count toward notability at all. Please read WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGCRIT. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wiley doesn't seem like self published source. I read the author's blurb and he doesn't seem to have any connection with Zoominfo. Given I can't see the full book, I'm changing the keep to a comment. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wiley didn't publish the patent or the press release. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No but the product is covered by Wiley. However, I can't see the full book so I can't judge whether it's a main topic or a passing mention. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Tyw7, I like your original viewpoint at start, at first glance company seems to be ok to include, I only dug because of how I found the company. After digging into the sources listed for inclusion Ive found it to be PR generated, not organic, for the most part. The awards are mostly of no worth besides for PR firms. Pls see my comment below for Pavlor as well. " Hi Pavlor, I reviewed the previous sources of AfD keep, IMO they are address in my original comment, having worked the system before I feel there is a difference between actual news and awards vs those generated by PR firms. In my view none of the news items or awards are authentic or meaningful. For example research the awards given themselves, their history, you will see most have an enrollment fee and award everyone who enrolls. Seeing a news article about this is not uncommon, most get dropped but some filter through, its a numbers game. I apologize if I am not commenting in the correct format. Pls correct if my way of doing this is incorrect." Tacticomed (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)" I do not know if this will ping? (what is this, i only know it as a network echo) you? Does it if i copy paste style of comment? Tacticomed (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|tyw7}} {{ping|tyw7}} are all valid ways to ping me. I've linked to the article describing how to ping people. It's often used to notify users if someone replies to them. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by these books:

But taking a closer look, many of them seem to be passing mentions. None of the books are fully online though. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the sources mentioned in the previous AfD? Pavlor (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor, I reviewed the previous sources of AfD keep, IMO they are address in my original comment, having worked the system before I feel there is a difference between actual news and awards vs those generated by PR firms. In my view none of the news items or awards are authentic or meaningful. For example research the awards given themselves, their history, you will see most have an enrollment fee and award everyone who enrolls. Seeing a news article about this is not uncommon, most get dropped but some filter through, its a numbers game. I apologize if I am not commenting in the correct format. Pls correct if my way of doing this is incorrect. Tacticomed (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7 (talk · contribs) and Pavlor (talk · contribs), what are your thoughts about the sources provided below?
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure what to vote, but maybe a Merge or Redirect to LinkedIn (company owner) could work? Redditaddict6 9 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn does not own ZoomInfo, which is owned by Great Hill Partners, a private equity firm. The confusion might have stemmed from misreading the article's infobox which says "Subsidiaries: Bizo (sold to LinkedIn in 2014)".
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:NCORP. While there are some sources that go toward substantive information, notably the VentureBeat article, there is not much information about the company (more about the type of service that ZoomInfo provides, and even then, the sources are not necessarily independent or reliable). --Enos733 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage appears to be PR driven, fails ORGIND. Can't find any coverage on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hall, Starr; Rosenberg, Chadd (2009). Get Connected: The Social Networking Toolkit for Business. Madison, Wisconsin: Entrepreneur Press. pp. 119–125. ISBN 978-1-59918-358-9. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book notes:
  
  ZoomInfo (zoominfo.com)
  
  What Is It?
  
  Zoom Info is a vertical search engine focused on people, companies, and the relationships between them. The site is composed of jobseekers, companies seeking to hire, and businesses looking to sell and market to other businesses. ZoomInfo offers three main searches: People, Companies, and Jobs. They also offer three main services for Recruiting, Sales/Marketing Prospects, and Corporate Research.
  
  Site Stats
  
  Born: Founded as Eliyon Technologies in 2000
  Users: More than 37 million summaries of business profesionals and 3 million company profiles, with nearly 6.5 million unique monthly users.
  ...
  
  Highs what the site is good at and for …
  
  Simplifying the process of finding people by crawling the web, doing a semantic analysis of web pages, and extracting information to add to its profile database. Building a business by representing yourself or your company, or by creating a company profile. Accessing company information including a general description, annual revenue, and number of employees. Creating your own identity to increase your online exposure.
  
  Lows: What's difficult or missing from the site …
  
  ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results, as well as outdated information. Getting improved search results typically means signing up for the site's premium services.
  The book also discusses how ZoomInfo serves recruiters with ZoomInfo PowerSearch and how Power Search offers People Search, Company Search, Contact Information, Workflow Management, and E-mail Campaigns. It discusses how ZoomInfo can be used by "sales pros" and corporate research.
2. Pollock, Jeffrey T. (2009). Semantic Web For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 350–351. ISBN 978-0-470-39679-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book notes:
  
  ZoomInfo
  
  ZoomInfo is a people-finder and business information search engine with information on more than 45 million people and 5 million companies. ZoomInfo's semantic search engine continually crawls the Web, scouring millions of targeted company Web sites, news feeds, and other online sources to identify information on people, companies, products, services, and industries, as shown in Figure 15-5. ZoomInfo organizes this discovered information into easy-to-read profiles that can be queried by anybody.
  ZoomInfo technology represents one of the most sophisticated, automatic content-generation systems and has already secured five patents with two more patents pending. The ZoomInfo data is extracted and compiled for NLP, AI algorithms, and data integration programs.
  The ZoomInfo semantic search engine analyzes sentences to understand their meaning and to extract relevant information about companies and people, such as the industry a company is in and its products or services, or the company a person works for and her job title. It employs artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze Web site pages and to create a graph model of their contents. With these algorithms, ZoomInfo analyzes the type and content of a Web site based on how it's constructed. ZoomInfo is able to deduce that a apecific paragraph is a company description or that a specific address contains the location of a company's headquarters in order to extract the most accurate and relevant information.
  The book further notes that the company's headquarters is in "Waltham, MA, USA" and that the funding was "$7,000,000+ (privately held)".
3. Keenan, Thomas P. (2014). Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy. Berkeley: Greystone Books. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-77164-122-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book notes:
  
  When I first heard about Zoominfo, an online aggregator of information about people, I immediately went there and found myself. It showed my current professorial position, and even reminded me of some old projects that I had completley forgotten about. However, it also named me as a director of a Virginia-based Aerospace company and said that I taught at Bard College. Neither of these claims were true, so I claimed the profile in 2008 and corrected it.
  I decided it would be fund to see what information they had back then on the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen J. Harper. I was astounded to see him listed with the title "Campaign Director."
  Campaign Director is a long way from Prime Minister of Canada. Zoominfo was using old information, and Harper had not yet "claimed" his profile, which you do by providing Zoominfo with a credit card that matches your profile name. They do not charge the card, at least for their basic service, but they do use it for identity confirmation. I mentioned Harper's profile in some Canadian government circles and soon his profile was claimed and updated.
  Another under Mr. Harper's "Employment History" reveals how Zoominfo "thinks." Some news reporter, or blogger, apparently wrote about "Stephen Hardper, the somewhat reluctant leader of the Conservative" party and the site's "patented" technology dutifully used that as his official title. It gets even worse. I logged on once and found him listed as the "Odious Leader of the Conservative Party."
4. Goto, Shihoko (2005-12-05). "ZoomInfo mines deep for personal data". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  By promising to sift through the avalanche of information on the World Wide Web, ZoomInfo is hoping it has found a market niche as a data mine for those who want reliable information about specific companies and the executives behind them.
  Since it was launched in 2000 the Waltham, Mass.-based company boasts the largest index of corporate executives, with over 27 million people already with a profile, with 500,000 new people added to the database every month. In addition, the company updates 4.5 million profiles per month, with about 85 percent of all people listed based in the United States.
  ...
  Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that the company's prospects look limited unless it offers more to subscribers.
  "It's a one-trick pony, though it's a really good trick," said David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research focusing on cross-media programming and online revenue streams.
5. Grace, Francie (2005-03-21). "New Kid In Internet Search War". CBS News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  ZoomInfo's computers have compiled individual Web profiles of 25 million people, summarizing what the Web publicly says about each person. The service, launched Monday, allows Web surfers to search for their profile, then change it for free.
  ...
  ZoomInfo, formerly Eliyon Technologies, is a privately held company with about 60 employees. An existing pay service helps businesses and recruiters use the Internet to find and screen new employees at costs ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, depending the size of the company and usage. The company said its customers include 20 percent of the Fortune 500, including Google Inc., America Online and Microsoft Corp.
  ...
  Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert, said the new service seems like snooping, which could create a perception problem for ZoomInfo.
  ...
  Smith said he is skeptical ZoomInfo could truly differentiate between people when creating profiles. That could result in more inaccuracies - not fewer - floating about the Internet, he said.
6. Taylor, Paul (2008-04-24). "Two faces of people search". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  ZoomInfo is also an impressive service – it claims to be the premier business information search engine, with profiles on more than 37m people and 3.5m companies. Irrespective of whether someone has an account, it creates people profiles by assembling them from fragments of information gleaned from websites.
  But like most dedicated people search services, which often start building profiles with information from company databases and similar sources, ZoomInfo encourages users to create their own profile that they control and update.
  When someone else searches for you using ZoomInfo they will see this profile together with “web references” that the service has collected and collated. Inevitably, if – like me – you have a common name, some of these references will be to people who share it.
7. Cohn, David (2005-03-21). "How Not to Google Yourself". Wired. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  A Massachusetts startup is offering a service it says gives a measure of control over the personal data the internet disgorges, giving new meaning to a practice commonly termed "ego surfing" or "Googling yourself," the practice of typing your name into an internet search engine and seeing what pops up.
  Zoom Information's computers have compiled individual web profiles of 25 million people, summarizing what the web publicly says about each person. The company's ZoomInfo service allows web surfers to search for their profile, then change it for free.
  ZoomInfo can't erase information on the internet, or stop people searches on the web from turning up incorrect or unflattering data. But since search engines display the most relevant results first, a well-constructed ZoomInfo profile would theoretically be the first or among the first choices that appear in search results.
8. Nicole, Kristen (2007-11-05). "Didn't You Know Your Biographical Data on ZoomInfo Would Be Used for Ads?". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  ZoomInfo, the people search engine that gets its data from gathering biographical information on just about everyone, whether you know about it or not, is launching an advertising network. And in going along with the current trend of tempting fate when it comes to controversial activity with web surfer's cookies, ZoomInfo will be offering up these cookies to companies looking to provide more targeted ads.
  There are a couple of things to consider here: you'll need to first visit ZoomInfo in order for it to have your cookie. Additionally, you'll have to have a general presence on the web, whether this be for social networking, your own website, or any type of e-commerce activity. So when you purchase an item from a company's website, it could then work with ZoomInfo to compare "cookie notes" in order to provide more targeted ads to you, online, via email, and the next time you visit the company's website.
9. Cashimore, Pete (2005-12-06). "ZoomInfo People Search - Scary Stuff". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  I must admit, ZoomInfo concerns me slightly. Sure, it only aggregates public information, but the problem here is twofold. First, it's hard for people with evil intentions to gather up that data using conventional methods. (Although you could say Google already provides a lot of this functionality, and you'd be right - but even Googling someone takes a bit of effort.) Second, the information is often wrong - this is especially true in the cases where ZoomInfo muddles up two people with the same (or similar) names. So I think ZoomInfo should be viewed in the same light as Wikipedia - it's an interesting portal to information, but the accuracy of that information isn't guaranteed. Let's hope your future employer heeds that warning.
10. Kopytoff, Verne (2007-08-29). "People-search engines try to be more specific than Google". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  ZoomInfo, a people-search engine focused on the business world, is a relative industry veteran, founded in 2001.
  ...
  ZoomInfo is an anomaly in that it charges subscriptions for a souped-up version of its service that is aimed at recruiters and marketers.
  ...
  For now, traffic to people-search engines is relatively light. ZoomInfo reported 895,000 unique U.S. users in July, while Wink had 90,000, according to comScore Media Metrix.
11. Auchard, Eric (2007-04-01). "ZoomInfo expands into Web search for businesses". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  Zoom Information Inc., of Waltham, Massachusetts, said it will offer free access to in-depth information on millions of U.S. companies, tens of millions of people and job listings.
  The company’s system, which crawls the open Web to locate details of individual people and then constructs profiles using artificial intelligence techniques, gives job recruiters and other business users an alternative to proprietary databases.
  ...
  The company, which was founded in 2000, has so far made most of its money from paid services it provides to 1,600 corporate clients, including Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., Oracle Corp., PepsiCo and a fifth of the Fortune 500.
12. Stone, Brad (2005-03-20). "Plain Text: Forever Famous". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  I've just spent an enjoyable afternoon looking up personal information on friends and family on a new Web site called ZoomInfo.com.
  It's ironic. This winter, identity-theft scandals rocked ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw, firms that collect and publish information on private individuals. But today, a five-year-old Cambridge, Mass., startup called Eliyon Technologies will roll out a new Web site that ... collects and publishes information on private individuals.
  ...
  Today, Eliyon will make a basic version of the site available to the masses, for free, at ZoomInfo.com. CEO Jonathan Stern described how the technology works. Like other search engines, the company's automated software robots catalog the Web, page by page. But instead of indexing various words and subjects, then ranking each page by popularity or importance, Eliyon looks only for names and occupations.
13. Articles about Great Hill Partners' acquisition of ZoomInfo in 2017:
  1. Sawyers, Paul (2017-08-17). "B2B data platform ZoomInfo was acquired by private equity firm Great Hill Partners for $240 million". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    
    ZoomInfo, the subscription-based B2B platform that sells access to company data such as contact details, employment history, and other background information, was acquired earlier this week by Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners. But the company didn’t reveal how much it was acquired for — until now.
    A ZoomInfo spokesperson has confirmed to VentureBeat that it was acquired for $240 million, and it said that it will continue to operate as is, except under the wing of its new owners.
    ...
    Founded in 2000, Waltham, Massachusetts-based Zoominfo specializes in helping sales personnel identify and target qualified contacts through organizing and validating data. The platform also features user-contributed updates, while it crawls the web to extract mentions and details of companies and individuals in the news.
  2. Perlman, Matthew (2017-08-18). "Great Hill Partners Puts Up $240M For ZoomInfo". Law360. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    
    Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners has acquired business-to-business contact information provider ZoomInfo for $240 million, the company confirmed to Law360 on Friday.
    Zoom Information Inc., headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, announced the acquisition on Monday without disclosing the price. A representative for the company told Law360 on Friday that Great Hill had become the majority owner in the $240 million transaction, and that the move was intended to cash out early ZoomInfo investors, some of whom had been involved with CardScan Inc., the company it...
  3. Schultz, Ray (2017-05-15). "Great Hill Partners Acquires Zoominfo". MediaPost Communications. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    
    Zoom Information, Inc. (Zoominfo), a provider of B2B data, including email addresses, has been acquired by Great Hill Partners, a private equity company specializing in high-growth, mid-market companies. The terms were not disclosed.
  4. Bray, Hiawatha (2017-08-17). "ZoomInfo bought by private equity firm for $240m". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    
    Business contact database provider Zoom Information Inc.of Waltham has been acquired by Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners for $240 million in cash. ZoomInfo chief executive Yonatan Stern said he decided to sell the privately-held company, better known as ZoomInfo, because “it’s time for me to move on . . . . I’m not going to retire, but I want to move the center of my life to Israel,” where Stern has lived there since 2004. ZoomInfo employs about 200 people, most of them in Waltham. The company has a database containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of 200 million business people worldwide, including 80 million in the United States. Companies use the ZoomInfo database to precisely target their sales and marketing efforts.
14. Bradley, Helen (2007-10-01). "Up close and personal". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  Another tool for checking what there is out there is ZoomInfo, which is an aggregator that seeks information about people and collects it all in one place. You can search for your own name at ZoomInfo and create a profile about yourself linking it to the information that ZoomInfo finds about you. At www.ZoomInfo.com, click the People Search tab type your name and click Search. When the results appear, click your name to read what the program found.
  If any of this information relates to you, click the This Is Me link when that item is open and you can complete your profile if you first register on the site. If ZoomInfo finds multiple items relating to you, you can link them all together in your profile by selecting those that are you and click the This Is Me link. Click Accept to add the entry to your profile. It's a good idea to create a ZoomInfo ID as a central resource for information about you. It will be available to anyone looking for you on the web.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ZoomInfo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo participants: Crazycomputers (talk · contribs) and Arxiloxos (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist per the multitude of sources presented late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Cunard:, I reviewed some of your links.

1) Highly out of date and incorrect information, they get most everything the company offers wrong, see https://www.zoominfo.com/business/pricing for what they actually offer.
2) Unsubstantiated claims read from a PR firm press release, note no footnotes. The company is basically a data broker / warehouse, I know it doesn't sound as fancy but its the simple truth. They sell wholesale access to peoples personal data, and have recently started posting some information publicly to gin up their search rating, possibility testing selling on a consumer level.
3) A person used it and wrote about it in a book about privacy, feels like passing mention. If a book mentions a person buying a soda on his way to work should it be the basis for a listing of the corner deli that sells soda?
4) Actually pretty on point. Its a data warehousing company, and those are a dime a dozen these days. Why is this notable?
5) Article on them changing their marketing strat and publicly listed some of their database to gin up their site standing and indexing, this is why I found them, SEO is not noteworthy.
6) Legit, states generally what the company is and does.
7) See corner deli example earlier.
8) Legit article.
9) Legit article.
10) Legit article, a bit fluffy though.
11) PR spam that made it past Reuters editors.
12) Legit article, if a bit cheesy.
13) Business acquisition, part of a company history but not useful for notability.
14) Legit article.

Overall its mostly random tidbits or passing mentions if not outright gibberish and buzzzwords, again what has this company done that is notable? Can I list my corner deli as well? It feels like the entry belongs in a business index, not an encyclopedia. What has this company done that is notable? Have they made a major advancement in technology? Were they used in a pivotal historical event in a meaningful way? No.

(i include these as you pinged them in your original post, if this is wrong please let me know and I will not do so in the future. Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo participants: @Crazycomputers: and @Arxiloxos:.

Tacticomed (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting that five of the sources I provided are in your view "legit article[s]". Five legitimate sources means the company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. Sufficient sources over the years to support notability, and any remaining concerns about promotionalism in the text can be handled by the usual editing processes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that many of the Keep !voters above are unaware that the criteria for sources used for the purposes of establishing notability of companies/organizations is much stricter that sources used to establish the notability of other topics. One of the key parts of WP:ORGIND is "Intellectual Independence".

Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

So, "sufficient sources" is not a reason to Keep - this is not about the volume of reliable sources, but about the quality of the sources. It has also been pointed out previously at other AfDs that Cunard simply ignores the requirement for Intellectual Independence and often hides parts of the selected extracts that clearly points to the information coming from the company website or an interview or a company announcement. For example, this upi reference is based on an interview with the CEO and there is nothing that can be identified as being clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Similarly, this Wired reference or this mediapost reference.

While the closer doesn't exercise a "supervote", the closer should be able to see which policies/guidelines are being ignored by Keep !voters and come to a conclusion based on the arguements put forward. I suggest that Keep !voters post specific links to references that they believe are intellectually independent and otherwise meet the criteria for establishing notability below here. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three book sources I have further discussed below are not based on interviews.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as I don't see WP:CORP met here: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. (Emphasis mine.) The significance is what is lacking, IMO. I don't see a whole lot of (non-PR) content that goes much beyond "this is a company that exists." --Chris (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the sourcing is routine and / or WP:SPIP. Just a company going about its business; this is insufficient for encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three strong book sources about the subject:
1. Hall, Starr; Rosenberg, Chadd (2009). Get Connected: The Social Networking Toolkit for Business. Madison, Wisconsin: Entrepreneur Press. pp. 119–125. ISBN 978-1-59918-358-9. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  This book covers ZoomInfo on pages 119–125. That is seven pages of coverage about ZoomInfo in a book.
  It extensively discusses the company and its products and even includes negative coverage like "Lows: What's difficult or missing from the site …: ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results, as well as outdated information. Getting improved search results typically means signing up for the site's premium services."
2. Pollock, Jeffrey T. (2009). Semantic Web For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 350–351. ISBN 978-0-470-39679-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book covers ZoomInfo on pages 350–351. It provides detailed analysis about how the company's product works.
  It notes: "The ZoomInfo semantic search engine analyzes sentences to understand their meaning and to extract relevant information about companies and people, such as the industry a company is in and its products or services, or the company a person works for and her job title. It employs artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze Web site pages and to create a graph model of their contents."
3. Keenan, Thomas P. (2014). Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy. Berkeley: Greystone Books. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-77164-122-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  In a book titled Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy, author Thomas P. Keenan devotes six paragraphs of coverage about his experience using ZoomInfo. He notes that ZoomInfo had incorrect information about both himself and the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. He notes that people's personal information, including his own is "accumulated automatically and shared without your consent and knowledge" by ZoomInfo. He notes that ZoomInfo can be used to "play an interesting game of 'find my doppelgänger'".
A PR piece would not say "ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results". A PR agent would not want ZoomInfo to be criticized as inaccurate in a book titled Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy.
The previous two "delete" participants said that "the significance is what is lacking" and "the sourcing is routine". I do not consider seven pages of coverage in a book to be non-significant or routine.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
These books provide an overview, description, commentary, analysis, and discussion of the company, so ZoomInfo passes WP:CORPDEPTH.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other available sources provide negative coverage of the subject:
1. Goto, Shihoko (2005-12-05). "ZoomInfo mines deep for personal data". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes: "Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that the company's prospects look limited unless it offers more to subscribers. "It's a one-trick pony, though it's a really good trick," said David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research focusing on cross-media programming and online revenue streams.
2. Grace, Francie (2005-03-21). "New Kid In Internet Search War". CBS News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes: "Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert, said the new service seems like snooping, which could create a perception problem for ZoomInfo. … Smith said he is skeptical ZoomInfo could truly differentiate between people when creating profiles. That could result in more inaccuracies - not fewer - floating about the Internet, he said."
  The article also quotes from author Preston Gralla who says "Just the act of collecting all this information, you could consider it an invasion of privacy."
PR pieces would not include very negative coverage about ZoomInfo from experts calling it "a one-trick pony" or saying the service "seems like snooping", is an "invasion of privacy", and "could result in more inaccuracies" on the Internet. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Cunard, the problem is that you post 10, 15, 20 links to various references with selected quotes from each (selected, in that you often omit the pieces that show the information originates from an interview or connected source and this is deliberately deceptive), taking up pages and pages. Despite you having been told multiple times about this type of posting, you continue to do so. Not only that, but most of the references you post simply ignore the criteria for establishing notability contained in NCORP, especially the requirement for intellectually independence. Either you don't understand WP:ORGIND or you are intentionally ignoring it. Either way, posting as you do is both off-putting and disruptive. For example, you posted this reference previously and again just now. The article relies extensively on an interview from a company source. You've extracted one quote from David Card and I'll ask you simply, since that is the only intellectually independent part of the article you've identified, how exactly does this quote help to establish notability and just exactly what part of that quote meets WP:CORPDEPTH for example? Similarly, you've extracted a single quote from the CBS News, same thing applies. Similarly with the book references. The "Get Connected" reference is self-published from Entrepreneur Press and fails as a WP:RS. The "Semantic Web for Dummies" is a listing among other company listings and I would accept this as a weak reference but not enough on its own to establish notability. The third book reference "Technocreep" is a mention in passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Entrepreneur Press book that provides seven pages of coverage about the subject is not self-published. Get Connected: The Social Networking Toolkit for Business was written by Starr Hall and Chadd Rosenberg. From the book's copyright page:
    Publisher: Jere L. Calmes
    Cover Design: Del LeMond
    Production and Editorial Services: CWL Publishing Enterprises, Inc., Madison, WI, www.cwlpub.com
    
    Copyright @ 2009 by Entrepreneur Press. All rights reserved. … Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Business Products Division, Entrepreneur Media Inc.
    There is more information about Entrepreneur Press at http://entrepreneurmedia.com/books/, which says, "Part of the Entrepreneur Media family, Entrepreneur Press® has published quality print, digital, and audio books for more than 40 years." The publisher is selective; from the website about book proposals:
    Only those proposals that include all of the information defined below will be considered. Due to the high volume of submissions, we do not guarantee a response or take any responsibility for the materials received (by mail or electronically).
    Cunard (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the United Press International article, the journalist included several quotes from people affiliated with the company. That does not make the entire article based on interviews. The journalist attributed the information that was from the company's employees, did fact checking, and did independent research for the rest of the article. The journalist also interviewed David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research.
    The article also said "ZoomInfo is weak in listing executives in countries where English is not the main language", which likely is not based on interviews with the company.
    Cunard (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the CBS News article, the journalist included several quotes from people affiliated with the company. But the journalist also included quotes from four people not affiliated with the company:
    1. CBS News Technology Analyst Larry Magid
    2. Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert
    3. Preston Gralla, co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Internet Privacy and Security
    4. Chris Sherman, editor of the industry newsletter Search Day
    The quotes from people non-affiliated with ZoomInfo fulfills Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources, which says:
    Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
    Cunard (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very (weakest possible) weak keep Sources certainly aren´t impressive and looking at the article history, I feel there is a SPA push for company promotion (eg. removing negative content here: [43] - well, used source probably was not RS, so removal could have been legitime; suspicious anyway). However, there is enough sources to write a balanced article (as demonstrated by Cunard above) about this company, whose notability is (even by my quite low standards) borderline. Note I agree with analysis provided by HighKing just above my post, but my understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH is more permissive. Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor, could you elaborate on where you believe we differ on CORPDEPTH? Which piece do you believe scrapes over your understanding? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Pavlor as HighKing's ping was broken. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple: for me, few paragraphs of intellectually independent coverage in reliable sources are enough, I don´t need entire books about the article subject to pass my notability requirements. I know this is a minority viewpoint and not well suited for corporate articles, where blatant promotion by SPA/UPE is the norm and where lenient "fools" like myself only help these SPA/UPE to pollute Wikipedia with their corpspam. That is why I rarely participate in corporations related AfDs and rather stay in the field I like far more: old computers and computer history. I will put it bluntly, even years old minor Amiga application has far better coverage in reliable sources than ZoomInfo (eg. DOpus - whose Wikipedia article is also bad and probably SPA edited, but there are dozens of multiple-page reviews and tutorials from the 90s about it). As I commented early in this AfD and was prompted later to state my opinion, I did so. Pavlor (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the sources, Pavlor. I appreciate it. I agree that old computers and computer history would be a more pleasant environment to work in compared to corporations.

Cunard (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A quick research on Zoominfo shows that it has received a considerable amount of coverage over the last few years as seen on Google news, and is a leader (in worldwide terms) in the field of "B2B account and contact database" (with a website ranked at around 700 in the US, according to Alexa), therefore making it notable enough for Wikipedia. Yambaram (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yambaram: include links to your findings from your research, note I'm not disputing your statements i simply got different results when searching for information on the company. Tacticomed (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough intellectually independent sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH particularly the later book sources and the critical pieces are certainly independent and cannot be considered pr in the least, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babysitters Beware

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

Was prodded back in June and recently recreated. A direct to DVD film, which fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

This isn't a school. Removing from WP:SCHOOLS AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, link to the deletion page? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I found it. See public log for page --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the fact that it was previously PRODed as being failing WP:NFILM --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject failing WP:NFILM. My turn to pick up the popcorn debris. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave this the good old college try as far as source finding goes, but there's just one lone review out there - not enough to pass NFILM. You'd think that more people would be willing to review a Trejo film, but apparently not this one. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 15:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas (hip hop artist)

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

Promotional linkspam article with unreliable sources. Redraftify possible if people finally understand that promotion is not allowed here. » Shadowowl | talk 18:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment additional review of potentially reliable sources (not Youtube/IMDB/Itunes shit)

Source	Type	Suitable
[44]	I cannot load this page. Reviewing the URL, I think this is a bad link because it refers to a tag and not an article	Possible
[45]	Mention	No
[46]	Interview	Primary source
[47]	Mention	Yes. It proves the point that they had a tour, but not the previous point about 50 cities. In fact, it says that he toured in less cities making the article having a minor hoax.
[48]	Interview	Primary source
[49]	Promotional reviews that are usergenerated	No

EDIT : New sources added. Let's review them.

Source	Type	Suitable
[50]	Interview	Primary source
[51]	Another interview	Primary source
[52]	Another interview	Primary source

If these are the great sources that decided to move this from draft, we seriously need to consider to who we listen with move requests. » Shadowowl | talk 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowowl: You appear to be dismissing interviews out of hand as primary sources. This isn't consistent with WP:INTERVIEW whereby the fact of the interview itself may confer notability, and there may be significant secondary material within an interview such as biography or analysis by the interviewer. I'm not saying that the links you classify as interviews do confer notability, but I think you need to build your case for that better than just saying interview=primary source. I checked the first link above and there is a significant biography of the subject in it. While this could still bear investigation, e.g. WP:INTERVIEW warns that some sources ask the subject of an interview to write their own biography, it is certainly completely possible that the bio is secondary information. Ross-c (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I speedied this initially but restored for improvement after a request from an experienced uninvolved editor. I think this version still fails to meet our criteria in terms of notability or sourcing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever else is decided, I can't see how all those links to YouTube can be acceptable in the light of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I agree. The article really needs work to be neutral POV and encyclopaedic. But, that's WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an odd one. I'd expect more coverage for the artist, but the sources are poor. He did have some Billboard entries - [53] (but only one album listed in two charts, therefore the claim that his album has consistently appear in the charts is somewhat dubious) possibly satisfying WP:MUSICBIO, although a lowly position in the chart is not that compelling. Perhaps draftify and see if it can be improved. Hzh (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an odd one. I found some references to the subject, e.g. [54] The Billboard charting would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, but the link to find out more on Billboard's site is broken - not an indication of lack of notability, just that Billboard's site doesn't work properly. While All Access Music is frequently used as a source on Wikipedia, the title of that article just strikes me as a bit ... odd. There's this: [55], this is local [56], this is from elsewhere, so not just local cover age [57], this is from a magazine [58]. It's not a lot, but I believe this satisfies WP:GNG which added to the WP:NMUSIC of the one charting EP on Billboard (plus other charts mentioned in the article) is enough. Ross-c (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Youtube can't referee BLP notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a few more comments on Ross-c's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Rossc that WP:NMUSIC is passed for charting albums and there is just about enough rs coverage to pass WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. Has been merged per DGG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four Diamonds Fund

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

local charity connected with one university hospital. Local references only, which are indiscriminate and do not prove notability DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or consider merge into Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. The refs aren't good enough for a stand-alone article, but are probably good enough for a section of the larger article. Note that both articles are padded with trivia, so the merged article should end up being shorter. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything necessary is already merged. And I will start cutting down the Hershey article. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil place names in Malaysia

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

No valid sources Pakbelang (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Tamil place names in Malaysia None of the references cited on this page actually support the claims being madePakbelang (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that this is a bit "narrow" topic, I think a merge to a suitable target (or multiple targets) might be better. How about Malaysian_Indians#Influence_toward_Malaysian_Culture?--DreamLinker (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes good idea. (talk) 3 September 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has sources and it's not clear why they are not considered valid. Here's another one: Malaya: What's in the name?. The page has been around since 2006 and the topic seems notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your source doesn't really support what's stated in the article - it says Malaya is Sanskrit, but may be related to a word in Tamil or Malayalam (referring to a place in Kerala which is Malayalam-speaking), while the article claims it's Tamil (an unsourced claim). A cursory look will tell us that the claims of origin of the names in the article are highly speculative, for example no one really knows what the origin of Selangor is (see the etymology section in the article). Same for Muar. It seems to be a problematic article, written with an ethnocentric slant and almost certainly a POV. There maybe a proper article on the subject to be written, but this is not it, perhaps a WP:TNT is necessary. Hzh (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced garbage, and especially per the source linked by Andrew above, the opening sentence of the article is a mess POV/OR, equating "Dravidian" and "Tamil/Malayalam" (and even Sanskrit!) with "Tamil", and just calling it "Tamil", perhaps (?) for some ethno-nationalist POV reason. If anything in this article is salvageable, it's only because a topic-proficient editor could put out a much better article that includes all the same information (more appropriately worded) with five minutes of work, so there's nothing that would be lost by deleting the page. I would not be against userfying the page, deleting and redirecting it, or even redirecting it without deleting. I'm not going to comment on whether the topic is notable since, like Andrew, I have very little to no training in this topic area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After consideration, I don't think the article is salvageable. None of the entries can be firmly established to be of Tamil origin. That there are similar names in India is neither here or there, since they are not clear evidence that the name is Tamil in origin (e.g. Malaya may be Tamil or Malayalam or Sanskrit). All you have is a load of unsourced POV or OR speculations. Someone more knowledge might write another article on this, but the article as it is cannot stay. Hzh (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antigen Shift

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

Band whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. As always, it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a band in the door, but the depth of reliable source coverage in media that can be shown to properly verify that the claim to passing NMUSIC is actually true -- but there's not a single reference being cited here at all except their discogs.com entry (which is not a notability-supporting source), and I can't find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: An anonymous IP attempted to salvage this by adding new references, though they failed at adding useful ones that demonstrated the notability of this band: most of the new references are blogs, not reliable sources, and the only two that do count as reliable sources at all are both verifying stray facts about a different band this band once performed with, while completely failing to even namecheck this band's existence at all in the process. That's not how sourcing a band as notable works. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't establish notability and I can't find anything of significance on Google. Subject is clearly not notable.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm weighing in after three re-listings and still no decision. Bottom line, no significant reliable sources, per nomination. Sources are small time and blogs. Further Googling turns up nothing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Sarin

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could find nothing to desmonstrate notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been CSD'd as there's literally no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. MBlaze Lightning 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is basically promotional fluff, there is no claim to notability and no sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-international theatre actor, dancer, model,polymath, philanthropist.The outcome is well-known.∯WBG^converse 15:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlynn Carter

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by two WP:SPAs. Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's pretty unknown for an article of her own. thenamelessdoll (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently created by multiple socks. wumbolo ^^^ 10:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy East

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ [59][60] Lorstaking (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, both sources look like routine industry announcements, rather than "in-depth coverage". Edwardx (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete then. Lorstaking (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billion Dollar Boy

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. Entirely promotional. Beyond that, does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Scheza. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable agency. Only one press release is available as evidence of coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH . Kpg jhp jm 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Campaign

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

Completely unreferenced - and has been tagged for 4 years. Mostly futurology. Rathfelder (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not seeing evidence of notability for this particular Freedom Campaign, whether by WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. (The associated U.S. Campaign for Burma also looks open to similar challenge.) AllyD (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 CA Central Region League

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

A futsal league with no source provided. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV to support notability. Fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable article per region league and CA Central Region League is redlink Hhkohh (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable league. SportingFlyer talk 06:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CAH Cheras Futsal Team

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

A suburn futsal team. Rejected three times in AfC for no WP:RS provided. A WP:BEFORE found not WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cannot find any coverage of this local amateur club in WP:RS. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT and the fact there are so many red-links does really raise a red flag over the article. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia at the 2020 Summer Olympics

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

Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON . I found no reliable sources on the Internet . This can be recreated when squads are announced or some reliable sources are found . Kpg jhp jm 04:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is something odd about an article with a past tense from an even 2 years ahead, I see no reason to keep or edit, if the tense is kept JarrahTree 04:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics. WP:TOOSOON but will eventually become an article. Ajf773 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-create once there's some known information, above and beyond that they will send a delegation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TOOSOON - agree with User: JarrahTree.Vorbee (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics. Seems too soon to warrant a full article, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't redirect it to a relevant topic - WP:ATD-R and WP:CHEAP.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2020 Summer Olympics it seems to be too soon for the article to exist and only create when their is more information on the nation. Animation is developing 23:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics. It's a plausible search term, but as they haven't qualified anyone yet, it's too soon, and in any case the article is completely inaccurate as it seems to reference events which have not yet happened. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tom Guerra. Article must be kept to preserve attribution for content merged to Tom Guerra. czar 19:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo Sons

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

One of the members of this band, Tom Guerra, has his own article that has survived two different AfDs (barely), and I plan to clean up his article with sources found during those AfD debates. Meanwhile this band, Mambo Sons, was one of his side projects. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources for Mambo Sons, beyond completely run-of-the-mill listings at retail/streaming sites, and their own self-promotion. They have been mentioned in a few news articles that are actually about the slightly more notable Tom Guerra (e.g. [61]). This side band can be mentioned in passing at Guerra's article but they have not achieved notability in their own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tom Guerra. I found more coverage of Guerra (who appears notable enough) than this band, e.g. [62], [63]. This band is obviously a significant part of his career so should at the very least be covered there to the extent that available sources permit. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - When the Tom Guerra article survived its AfD back in June, I vowed to clean it up and add references. I finally got around to that today and added verifiable information on Mambo Sons. As the nominator here, I still think that this Mambo Sons article should be deleted, but if the ultimate result of this AfD is to merge, I have already done it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, the article needs a cleanup. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of listed buildings in Sorbie, Dumfries and Galloway

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

Every building just lists the category, HB number, coordinates, and the name. Most of the names are things similar to "Garlieston,11 South Street". There isn't much information to be gained from this article. Beasting123 (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one of hundreds of such lists in Category:Listed buildings in the United Kingdom. It seems only to make sense to discuss all of them instead of one of them. --Bsherr (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Bsherr's note above: I was surprised to find this detailed structure of list articles across many areas exists here, but insofar as it does, it would be unreasonable to consider creating an omission gap for any particular area (which includes some Category A as well as B buildings) through an individual AfD. (Coincidentally, attention to these List articles may even provide some framework for Wiki Loves Monuments images of the important public buildings during the month to come...) AllyD (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN, listed buildings being notable as a group. There might be scope for merging some lists if they are short enough to be merged, but that is about it. James500 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I created these lists back in 2012 because someone requested me to add them for Wiki Loves Monuments. Looking at the lists were also indexed for the Monuments Database (tool used for Wiki Loves Monuments), but it dropped out. Not sure why. Usually lists of historic buildings start like this and get expanded over time. I wonder why nothing much happened on these lists. Not editors from Scotland noticed them? I dug some more into the configuration and looks like the renaming of {{HB Scotland row}} and maybe some other things are messing up the indexing. Created phab:T203348 for that. Multichill (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – No opinion, but I do think that if this is kept, it should be cut down only to actual historic buildings and renamed something along the lines of "List of historic buildings in Sorbie, Dumfries and Galloway". Redditaddict69 15:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All listed buildings are historic. That is why they are listed. They are also notable under NGEO. James500 (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redditaddict69: see Listed building#Scotland. Multichill (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: @James500: - But if there were a way to cut it down even further, or maybe even merge this with another related article, is what I'm suggesting. Redditaddict6 9 19:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of a clearly established and full category. All listed buildings are notable per WP:GEOFEAT, so any one of these could technically have an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sensible list-article, a member of Category:Lists of listed buildings in Dumfries and Galloway. If you are a deletionist, you should want to keep this list-article, towards forestalling creation of articles for each of the listed buildings. --Doncram (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston-Texas football rivalry

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

Per WP:GNG, rivalries aren't inherently notable. Significant coverage is required. And, running a Google search, I could not find a single source that covers or even mentions a football rivalry between Houston and Texas. If significant coverage can be established, I'm open to changing my mind, but so far I have been unable to find anything

Okay, so I will admit that the Houston-Texas rivalry may not be as big or as important as the Texas-OU rivalry or the Houston-Rice rivalry, however, this historical rivalry at its heyday has provided many intense and emotional games that fans/alumni I’ve spoken to nowadays still get heated over. I’m not sure where you got that “there are no articles” point from, as a simple Google search provided me with a fair amount of articles such at this Bleacher Report article linked (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/378202-how-the-texas-longhorns-diminished-college-football-in-texas) that provided an in-depth look at the animosity between U of H and UT’s athletic departments. The following text samples some of that tension:

“Although the Houston Cougars did not join the SWC until 1977 and only lasted in the conference 21 years, the Longhorns learned to despise the upstarts from mud city, the demeaning label applied to the Bayou City for much of the early 20th century … UT claims UH did not play fair … The Cougars represented a huge financial risk to the Horns as well as being a renegade program” and thus UT “abandon[ed] Houston.”

In other words, UT bolted for a better athletic conference using propagated claims against UH. I’d say that’s a lot of hate. UH also has their entire hand sign based off their hatred for UT, proving that there is definitely hatred stemming from both sides.

So why does this rivalry game matter nowadays? It is a historic rivalry, meaning that many notable and important games were played in the past when the two teams were part of the Southwest Conference. These include when Houston handed no. 4 Texas one of two losses or ties in 1968, or when Houston beat no. 6 Texas for one of only three losses in 1978, or when unranked Houston tied the no. 5 Longhorns for one of only two losses or ties in 1981, or when unranked Houston derailed UT’s national championship hopes in 1984 by beating no. 3 Texas, or when Houston’s 47-9 blowout of UT in 1989 helped Andre Ware win the Heisman Trophy. This rivalry also left Houston fans upset, such as when UT handed no. 5 Houston their only loss late in the season in 1979, preventing Houston from claiming a national championship, or when UT again handed No. 3 Houston their only loss of the season in 1990, Houston’s highest ranking in the AP Poll.

But to answer the question of why the rivalry game matters today, you only need to look at the intense anger Houston fans and alumni had when head coach Tom Herman bolted for the same position at UT. And it wasn’t just any ordinary coaching change, as reports came out of Herman ditching his courtesy car on the side of the road (http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/houston-booster-darryl-schroeder-unloads-tom-herman/336644 -again, another article) making fans angry as described in forums such as this one (https://247sports.com/college/ohio-state/Board/121/Contents/Tom-Herman-Snake-Oil-Salesmen-Screws-UH-Royally--49544489). Other petty acts Herman did at UH such as refusting to interview with UH’s radio show (https://www.chron.com/sports/cougars/article/UH-coach-Tom-Herman-cuts-off-SportsRadio-610-9195612.php) or bolting even as Houston’s top school officials promised him incredible amounts of money (https://www.chron.com/sports/cougars/article/Tilman-Fertitta-ready-to-spend-to-keep-Tom-Herman-10629214.php) should help prove my point. Herman hasn’t helped out the situation either, only adding fuel to the fire when he accused Houston fans of “fit[ting] whatever narrative they’d like to fit in” (https://www.hookem.com/2017/04/20/tom-herman-leaving-houston-texas-sleep-easy-knowing-never-lied-player/) in blaming him for abandoning his players.

Thus, the Houston-Texas rivalry is still going strong today, with UT snidely scheduling games with Houston’s crosstown rival Rice (who usually finished in last place in the former Southwest Conference) and snubbing Houston - as well as U of H selling t-shirts in their campus bookstore proclaiming that their two favorite teams are Houston and anyone playing Texas (https://uh.bncollege.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Houston_Cougars_Champion_Long_Sleeve_TShirt/ProductDisplay?imageId=1223539&level=&graphicId=APC02975075001&categoryId=40425&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=19067&productId=400000007110). Keep in mind many existing college football “rivalry” pages on Wikipedia don’t even have so much of a description of why the rivalry is a big deal, which was included in the UT-Houston rivalry article. This rivalry isn’t the main rivalry for either team by any means but the animosity is clearly visible that articles such as the ones above can help make evident.

I hope this quick write-up has shown everyone why this rivalry game is a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomel6510 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am on the fence and will need to review in greater detail. However, I did find this from 1981 in which UT coach Akers said of the Houston series: "this has become quite a rivalry ... it doesn't go back as long as some but it's as intense as any of them." (BTW, it would be helpful if everyone above [nominator included] could sign/format their comments. As currently formatted, it's hard to tell who is saying what.) Cbl62 (talk) 13:26, 29 August 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 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Nomel6510: I will say that, for encyclopedic purposes, it does not matter whether the series is notable now; if it was notable forty years ago, it is notable now, as notability on Wikipedia is not temporary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs)> 04:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about this rivalry, but you are 100% correct Nome16510. It's sad and embarrassing that history is erased everyday on Wikipedia even after notability has been established. No wonder studies show kids are learning less and less about history. Guess we're also part of the problem and not the solution. Happens way too often on here. Spatms (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment – if this article is kept, the page needs to be moved so that the title is Houston–Texas football rivalry, with an en-dash instead of a hyphen. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move done. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a gut reaction here, so the closer of this discussion could choose to ignore me and would well be within their rights. Heck, if I were the closer I would probably ignore this comment. I have relatives in Texas who talk football all the time, and love them Longhorns... and none of them reminisce about "the big rivalry with the University of Houston" … as in ever. I'm just not convinced that this particular article makes Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The history of this rivalry needs to be preserved. I dont understand why this should be deleted. Spatms (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to accuse but I think the article creator, Nomel6510, may be a bad actor here. From his edit history, he seems to be rather focused on Houston football, to the extent that he might be a fan of the program or perhaps an alumnus. In the spirit of fair disclosure, I am a Texas alumnus myself. To be clear, I don't think being affiliated with Houston would necessarily invalidate his position, but his bias should be considered.

Obviously, I can't confirm Nomel's affiliation, it's just a hunch. Regardless, a Houston fan would have a perverse incentive to create this page. Per multiple media reports, Houston has for the past several years been unsuccessfully attempting to enter the Big 12 conference. Using a public platform to state that Houston has a rivalry with a Big 12 member is arguably an attempt to help Houston's bid by establishing a stronger historical connection. There are no doubt some Houston fans who consider this a rivalry but there are a dearth of Texas fans who consider it similarly as others have noted. In my opinion, a rivalry should be two-sided with both sides acknowledging each other. I must acknowledge that Nomel has done a good job in cherry picking the limited pieces of information that support his point but he has failed to establish proof of any consensus within the respective fanbases or the college football community overall. College football reporters are infamous for having wildly different opinions. To my knowledge, the Houston-Texas series has never appeared in any public poll or ranking of major football rivalries and that I argue is the strongest evidence. Here is a comparison link of Google search terms showing a complete lack of public interest in the search terms "Texas Houston Rivalry" and "Houston Texas Rivalry" versus "Red River Showdown":
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=texas%20houston%20rivalry,houston%20texas%20rivalry,%2Fm%2F03_g66

Nomel6510 argues that the decision of Texas to schedule Rice constitutes an acknowledgement by Texas of a Houston-Texas football rivalry. This is patently ridiculous for the same reason that scheduling Rice does not constitute an acknowledgement of Kent State as a rival. There are hundreds of schools in NCAA football. Rice is Texas's most scheduled out-of-conference opponent since the collapse of the SWC (and probably vice-versa for Rice). All this proves is that Texas prefers to schedule Rice over all other out-of-conference options. To think that Houston is somehow being "singled out" by that is an extreme stretch of imagination and reinforces my point about potential bias.

Historically, Houston was a conference opponent for Texas. Currently, Houston is just an in-state competitor for recruits and coaches. At no point was there widely considered to be a major rivalry between the two teams. There are indeed documented instances where fans and coaches on both sides have referred to it as a rivalry. That must be weighed against all of the fans and coaches who do not consider it a rivalry (and hence make no reference to it at all).

I recommend the deletion of this page. Failing that, I would recommend the renaming of the page to "Houston–Texas football series" which would allow for the preservation of information but distinguish it from actual and well-recognized rivalries. However, I would strongly caution against that action. It is not reasonable for Wikipedia to have a series page for every pair of football teams that play more than 10 games against each other. That would easily be several hundred additional pages of dubious notability. I consider deletion to be the most sensible option.

Thank you for considering my opinion. 2601:281:8200:ABD0:1959:D77F:513:FE5D (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)'[reply]

Caution I would like to caution that editors are free to be enthusiastic about any topic, and that enthusiasm does not necessarily mean they have bad faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel it's worth pointing out that the editor who originally initiated this AfD (User:CalebHughes) has since been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, FWIW. As for the merits of the article itself, WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP are the two applicable policies in play here, keeping in mind that the era in which this series was most likely to be considered a rivalry occurred well before the invention of the internet (thus, it's very possible that coverage of the series as a rivalry is primarily only available in offline sources). No doubt, this series probably means more today to Houston fans than to Texas fans, but whether it's a rivalry right now is irrelevant - if it was a rivalry back in the 70's & 80's, then it's still a rivalry today, per WP:NTEMP. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sockpuppetry aside, there's nothing in the article discussing this as a rivalry, nor can I find any source which even mentions this as a "rivalry." Crufty, fails WP:GNG as a rivalry, even if the games are discussed. SportingFlyer talk 18:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can discern only one policy-based argument here that is relevant to whether this should be kept or deleted. More would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to low participation, this article may be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND. Mz7 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Islamia Darul Uloom Madania

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

Most of the article is unsourced, and the sources that are cited are abysmal: an entry on a telephone list, the school's dead website, and an internet forum post. I considered redirecting to the community, Jatrabari Thana, but there's nothing that sets this madrasa apart from the other 67 in the area.[64] (in Bengali) Indeed, although searches found passing mentions of Jatrabari Madrasa,[65] and of Jamia Islamia Darul Uloom Madania,[66] (in Bengali), no source is deep enough to tell whether the two names even represent the same school, as claimed. The bottom line is that subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, or WP:NSCHOOL. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the significance of this place that it belongs in an encyclopedia?Freetheangels (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up This is very confusing. The official websites point to Majlis e Dawatul Haq Bangaldesh, which appears to be some kind of organization. pdf describing the Majlis (facebook) Then there's some event called "16th Markazi Ijtema '10 of Dawatul Haq Bangladesh" that is held at the school. [67] So is the article supposed to be about Majlis e Dawatul Haq Bangladesh or Jatrabari Madrasa? The informal directory by Yousuf Sultan suggests they are the same [68] but that isn't really a reliable source. The website has a list of madrasas [69] translation but this particular one isn't listed among them, unless there's yet another name for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) KCVelaga (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable surviving veterans of World War II

AfDs for this article:

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

Randy Weston and a few other war vets who died today were not included in the list, so it doesn't make sense for people to add any more notable veterans, and this page is consuming a bit too many kilobytes. Extrapolaris (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Vahe Demrijian[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 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDONE. Just because one person was missing, doesn't mean the entire article should be deleted. Since articles are contently being written or expanded, things will be missed. I agree it's large, but splitting the article into pieces would be one solution. Emk9 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 02:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure why the nominator believes the list should be deleted because of the omission of some names. The inclusion rule should be as simple as if the veteran has an article. I do have an issue with the article title including the word "notable". Ajf773 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For casual use only. Not encyclopedic. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wikimedia IT department will let us know when we run out of kilobytes; for now we have plenty to go around. I see no issue with the page besides that it needs to be replaced with a more modern table style. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars which has a sensible focus on the last few survivors of such conflicts. The current structure won't do because, eventually there won't be any surviving veterans, and so we should switch to a more stable format. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, a mess to maintain, and probably wrong on the BLP status of quite a few members. This is not a WP:NOTESAL (list of X), but rather a cross-categorization of "Lists of X of Y" - in this case the selection criteria being the intersection of Category:Military personnel of World War II and Category:Living people. Had this been a stable cross-cat (e.g. veterans who were Sherman tank drivers) it would be one thing, but the BLP cat is inherently unstable - and particularly so for this age cohort - which makes for a maintenance nightmare here - and makes this cross-categorization better served by category queries. A merge to List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars would make sense at some point (when the list of "final survivors" (overall, per country, per service)) are manageable - but not now when the list has over a 1,000 entries.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No doubt this will loom larger as the conflict recedes into history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if this list satisfies WP:LISTCRUFT definition 6 and 10. What exactly makes someone a "notable veteran of the Second World War" this would not only require research but its open to one's interpretation because different people would define "notable" differently some looking at what they did after the war, while others would argue that any veteran who played a significant part in the war "notable". Making the list infinite or at least close to it Freetheangels (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason the word notable is used is to limit the number of people adding relatives to the list. It basically means they need a wikipedia page to be on the list, since otherwise there would be a lot of redlinks. Emk9 (talk)

"Notable" is a Wikipedia term. It means anyone with their own article. We're still at least ten years away from anyone being notable simply for being one of the last, as with List of last surviving World War I veterans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just worried that this is gonna turn into a giant memorial

Strong Keep I was wondering when you'd get around to this article. Just because it needs work doesn't meet it should be deleted. Czolgolz (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It's (currently) too general/indiscriminate, as there were tens of millions who served in the war, and even the tiny fraction of notable living individuals is still too many. As time goes by, that is becoming less and less of an issue. Other than those who were underage and lied to enlist, they would be in their late 80s at best. As Hawkeye7 has noted, the list will become manageably encyclopedic in about a decade when there are a lot fewer survivors. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. Survivors of the war aren't notable for being survivors because they're still too common. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Emk9 and Nate. Into the Rift (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then keep and you're free to improve it. MaeseLeon (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid argument for deletion has been made and the list seems quite reasonable, especially compared to some others I have seen survive AfD. That said, it is a bit long and we might want to look at breaking it up into multiple lists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NLIST, not seeing a good reason for deletion Atlantic306 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rothrock

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, citations do not reflect significant coverage in secondary sources. Also possibly in violation of WP:OR, WP:AUTO. Rosguill^talk 01:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy. The Forbes article is by a "contributor" and doesn't even mention this person by name; the other "sources" are even worse. See also Soren Kaplan from the same user, and this list of upBoard managers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forbes is good but not enough. Notable if you developed the article and included more citations Freetheangels (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cited sources are very far from enough to meet WP:GNG, and nothing better found online. Edwardx (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback. Understood that it fails WP:SIGCOV and will look for more notable references / citations. (Mcvalley) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Serwa

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

A personal-services advert for a "life coach", with no sign of actual biographical notability, just the usual passing mentions. Calton | Talk 01:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not your average life coach. Worked with some important people. Not to mention its well-cited far from "passing mention" Freetheangels (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not your average life coach.

Proof?

Worked with some important people.

1) Who? 2) So what? Notability is not inherited.

Not to mention its well-cited far from "passing mention"

Which of those citations qualify as in-depth?

And as long as I'm here: do you have a conflict of interest here? --Calton | Talk 20:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you even asked these question shows that you neither read the article, looked at the citations or did any independent research on the subject of the article. As for conflict of interest I have to ask, do you have a conflict of conflict of interest? Why are you so determined to get this article deleted? Freetheangels (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate spam. Why are YOU so determined to see this on Wikipedia that you resort to falsehoods about the sources? And I'm still waiting for you to declare whether you have a conflict of interest. Be sure about your answer, sir. --Calton | Talk 05:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's certainly crap. I'm not sure if coverage such as [70] gives him a Dr. Oz-style notability, or it's just advertorial promotion of his book/business. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Average life coaches do not have a Forbes article with them as the subject. Portfolio Magazine and Citymatters also have him as the subject; while they are weaker sources, I still think the article passes WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Average life coaches do not have a Forbes article with them as the subject

Except that it's NOT a Forbes article, it's their self-published blog section. The Portfolio piece is an interview, so effectively a primary source, and Citymatters is a hyperlocal site (their term) with no reputation as a reliable source I'm aware of. If this is how you analyze sources, maybe you shouldn't be approving new articles, like you did this one.

Also, you forgot to mention that you were canvassed to this discussion. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you take up a lot of screen space in your discussions, rather than simply type out text. I also note from your talk page you are a little confrontational. I feel the combination akin to bullying rather than discussion. Perhaps you shouldn't be proposing articles for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some fact-checking. The Forbes article written about Michael Serwa is not a self-published blog as Calton suggests but a legit article written by Andrew Cave a business journalist. Freetheangels (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not. Please don't misuse a term like "fact-checking". --Calton | Talk 05:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for contributing to this discussion. I tried to improve this article as much as possible. Michael Serwa is far from your average life coach anyone who cared to do some research would come to this conclusion. Not only has he worked with some of the biggest names in: business, science, technology, government and the arts but he has written and been the subject of multiple article including Forbes magazine. Who has he worked with? He mention no one by full name but by reading through some of his citations, looking at his website and doing some research you can make some educated guesses. I also went to mention that Serwa is the only life coach to ever appear in the Spears 500 catalog. This listing was mentioned when the article was originally published but was removed shortly after. I feel this is worth mentioning because the Spears 500 catalog is considered the must have catalog for the rich and powerful and listing are chosen based on a persons credentials. Notthesteps (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's so prestigious that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about it. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Forbes article is on their blog section. wumbolo ^^^ 10:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forbes article is a legit article written by one of their financial journalist's Andrew Cave and not just some blog. Personal notable not just because of Forbes article but because of the work he done and the reputation he built.Freetheangels (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes article is a legit article written by one of their financial journalist's Andrew Cave
Really. So why is in their blog section? Why does the author credit says "Andrew Cave, Contributor"?: I don't see the words "Staff" or "Forbes Reporter" or any synonym thereof. And then there's the notice attached: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
In other words, your claim is straight-up false. --Calton | Talk 20:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is legit the author of the article Andrew Cave is a business writer with Forbes and other publications [71]. Freetheangels (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, absolutely false. 1) It's in the Forbes.com blog section: it's NOT Forbes magazine and it's NOT an "article". See here. 2) Andrew Cave is NOT a financial journalist for Forbes, as your LinkedIn profile. He doesn't work for Forbes. Please stop persisting in citing this falsehood. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising, likely covert, that is excluded from Wikipedia by policy. MER-C 10:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Atiyeh (Entrepreneur)

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

Vanity bio of a "Chief Strategy Officer" for a company which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, since it's just a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs. Calton | Talk 01:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too early for this fellow to have an article. Also, one of those "Harvard Crimson" references is not from the newspaper but from the sports information public relations people. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to significance, not enough in-depth coverage, and does not inherit (per WP:NOTINHERITED) personal notability from notable projects he worked on/with.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentForbes is good but maybe you should rely more on proper citations Freetheangels (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Forbes refs is /sites url subdomain for companies and folk who want to web host. It is user generated content and is considered Non-RS by Wikipedia. The individual is entirely non notable. Fails WP:BIO.# scope_creep (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has worked for various startups building the companies and making them attractive for acquisition by large financial firms. Notthesteps (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Atfal Allah (Children Of God)". dubaifilmfest.com. Retrieved 2018-09-02.

[2] "Children of God (2013)". zlinfest.cz. Retrieved 2018-09-02.

[3] "CHILDREN OF GOD". giffonifilmfestival.it. Retrieved 2018-09-02.

[4] "Ahmed Yassin". lfs.org.uk. Retrieved 2018-09-02.

[early_life-5] Beary, Habib (June 27, 2003). "Indian's silence speaks to Hillary". BBC News. Archived from the original on June 10, 2004. Retrieved November 26, 2017.

[poem-4-6] Chakravarthy, Smitha (August 7, 2003). "The Hindu : A poem that moved a Clinton". The Hindu. Archived from the original on January 17, 2004. Retrieved November 26, 2017.

[7] "Who edits Wikipedia?, Newshour - BBC World Service". BBC.

[8] "Anasuya Sengupta - SheSource Expert - Women's Media Center". www.womensmediacenter.com.

[9] "Anasuya Sengupta Wants to Diversify Wikipedia - The Teal Mango". 1 August 2018.

[10] Mozilla (27 February 2018). "How to Build an Internet With Us, Not For Us - Anasuya Sengupta and Siko Bouterse at MozFest" – via YouTube.

[11] "Grand Challenges Summit keynote: Anasuya Sengupta by MIT Webcast".

[12] MITLibraries (25 June 2018). "Grand Challenges Keynote: Anasuya Sengupta" – via YouTube.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]