Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 October	9 October >

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nurgul Jones

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

The is the same person as Nickk Dropkick (deleted) aka N3rgul (now a redirect, but deleted several times). Probably a G4, but I can't see the deleted version. If the article is identical, I would like to request request delete and salt. Vexations (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the footnotes represent reliable sourcing, and nothing claimed in the body text is "inherently" notable enough under WP:NMUSIC to exempt the footnotes from having to represent reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources aren't really RS, as Bearcat pointed out. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:28, 15 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 redirect to Synchronised swimming. Sandstein 07:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Cup

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

In its current state this article is a mess. Not enough actual sourcing or established notability ViperSnake151 Talk 15:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup; I'm not strongly opposed to a TNT delete + redirect to Synchronized swimming. This seems to be a mix between an article on Men's synchronized swimming and a specific event called the Men's Cup. [1] and [2] discuss it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to synchronized swimming. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synchronized swimming. Just not enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable in its own right. A small part of this content could be added to that article. CThomas³ (talk) 19:35, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 07:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Times Bangla

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

The sources consist of an official website and two Facebook pages (largely populated by people posting "Awesome" or "Good"). A search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator mentions, no usable references on the page itself, and I struggled to find any mention of Times Bangla anywhere. If someone can find some Bengali sources I would change my !vote, but there is pretty close to nothing out there in English. CThomas³ (talk) 19:45, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 07:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of active NFL players who have spent their entire career with one franchise

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

This list lacks notability per our guidelines (WP:LISTN), as it is not discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources." This falls clearly into WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete man, not everything needs to be listed. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak move to List of NFL players who have spent their entire career with one franchise and expand scope accordingly. "NFL players who have only played for one team" definitely sees some discussion as a natural grouping, eg here or here, but cross-referencing that to only include currently active players seems a step too far. However, there is probably just about enough here to form the nucleus of a list with expanded scope (not limited to active players) (compare List of one-club men in association football or List of NBA players who have spent their entire career with one franchise). That said, I would not mind if people would rather just WP:TNT this one. Lowercaserho (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, both links you provided are to the best players to play for one team for their career. Not every player, or every player over an arbitrary time limit. I believe the NFL is unique, in that it was very common for players to play their whole career with one team before free agency in the mid-1990s. Let's say this list sets an arbitrary time limit, like 10 seasons, similar to the NBA list. Does anyone have an idea how many people this would include? It would require a significant amount of digging, especially considering the NFL is 100 years old. There just isn't any source that I have seen that lists or groups all of these players together. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That there are discussions of the best players who are members of a specific group indicates to me that the grouping is a natural one. That is, it's discussing the group "all players who played for only one team", and then subjectively picking out the best players from that group. It wouldn't make sense to pick the best players from the group if it weren't considered a meaningful group in the first place. To my mind, that's enough for WP:LISTN. I can definitely see the concerns regarding WP:VER and WP:OR, though. Even if the grouping is notable enough for a list, it may inherently be impossible to actually compile such a list. As stated, my vote is only a very weak one and I wouldn't greatly object if this were deleted. Lowercaserho (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable and useless list. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such a list might have a good home in a sports almanac or sports encyclopedia, but it is too granular in detail for inclusion here. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I agree that this topic gets discussed sometimes, but many, many, many active players have played their entire career with one team (e.g., almost every rookie to start with), making the arbitrary cutoff at 10 years necessary. But once that cutoff is introduced, the list is really List of active NFL players who have spent their entire career of at least 10 years with one franchise, which is not the natural way this topic gets discussed. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rlendog and Gonzo_fan2007. The list is both too broad in scope as defined, as well as not discussed as a standalone group: while the topic of "playing their entire career with one franchise" does indeed get discussed, it is always in conjunction with another natural grouping (best players, longest careers, etc.). So it isn't really a natural grouping on its own, but a qualifier/filter of other natural groupings. "All active NFL players" isn't something we chronicle as a list (nor is "all active NFL players with 10 or more years of service"), so I don't think we should be doing so for this subgrouping, either. CThomas³ (talk) 20:03, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 07:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Putnis

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

Leader of a minor and unsuccessful political party (they got 2.6% in last weekend's general election, winning no seats.) No other claims to notability and I've had a look at the equivalent Latvian wiki article and online and can't find any useful sources that cover him apart from that. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIAN such articles usually don't stay around. Valenciano (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if somebody can find and add some additional sourcing; delete if they can't. To be fair, notability as a political party leader does not actually depend on the party's degree of success or failure in politics — it depends solely on whether there's a GNG-worthy volume of coverage in the role of party leader or not. I can't read Latvian, so I can't assess whether Putnis has enough coverage to get over the bar or not, but it's a question of coverage, not of how many seats they did or didn't win. Plus the English-language source which I could read calls him "one of the country's few openly gay politicians" — which is also obviously not a notability clincher on its own for a person who's sourced only to two short blurbs, but it strongly hints at the possibility that there's more coverage, and maybe even a much stronger notability claim, to be found. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do read Latvian and I couldn't find anything that covered him in significant detail outside his role as party leader, most of it was quoting him in that capacity in the context of an election campaign. Regarding the gay angle, I think that sentence makes that aspect sound more important than it is. We are (fortunately) at the point where being gay is rarely comment-worthy in most EU countries. Two openly gay politicians, Marija Golubeva and Edgars Rinkēvičs, were among the 100 elected to the Latvian parliament last week. The latter is the incumbent foreign minister, so that aspect is not as noteworthy as the article implies. Valenciano (talk) 10:38, 14 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minako Hamano

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

Has composed music for some notable games but does not seem to satisfy GNG or any particular SNG. Could not locate any significant coverage in either Japanese or English merely credit for songs composed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of procedure, could you please avoid referring to Wikipedia policies with short acronyms and link to the text of the policy? I think that would make the discussion easier to follow for people that aren't experts in deleting Wikipedia articles. Drj11 (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Since she appears on the fr and ja wikipedias, although those are stub articles too. I'm surprised there isn't acknowledgement of the composer she works with Kenji Yamamoto. I feel like people who work together should probably have separate articles on wikipedia. We don't want the Donna Strickland fiasco again. Sorry, i don't know the wikipedia policies that are relevant here. Fred (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside to the point of her working with Kenji Tamamoto, notability isn't inherited.JC7V-constructive zone 22:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She has an article on Catalan Wikipedia as well. (And if someone could add those cross-wiki links under the current process, I'd appreciate it. I can't figure out the new interface on that stuff, so I just stuck them in the body of the article.) -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That another Wikipedia has an article doesn't mean notability is met on this one. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minako Hamano composed music for Link's Awakening which received a Nintendo Power award for its sound and music. usgamer.net ran an article dedicated to the soundtrack for Link's Awakening describing it as "a powerful soundtrack that's unrivalled on the Game Boy". Minako Hamano composed music for Super Metroid which factmag.com lists in the top 5 best SNES soundtracks. That makes them notable compositions. Her work has been remixed and rearranged by other composers in the video game industry. Her work (in Super Metroid) has been arranged for and by at least two world class orchestras: The London Philharmonic Orchestra and WDR Funkhausorchester Köln. Her work (again in Super Metroid) has been sampled by others several times, and in particular by Vast Aire https://www.whosampled.com/sample/235824/Vast-Aire-Kenyattah-Black-The-Cannon-of-Samus-Minako-Hamano-Opening-(Destroyed-Science-Academy-Research-Station)/. These meet the standard for WP:COMPOSER. Drj11 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, award-winning composer, seems sufficiently notable to deserve an article. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately I don't think she passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. While Link's Awakening did win a Nintendo Power Award for sound, that award isn't on the notability criteria list (it's just a video game award given Nintendo Power magazine; the most relevant SNG criteron in this case would be WP:NVIDEOGAMES, which points out that awards and nominations do not by themselves demonstrate a game's notability, so I would assume the same for the video game soundtrack). Nor can we use the fact that she has article in other wikiprojects, as they may have simply created articles there because we had one here (WP:CIRCULAR). I think we have to rely on GNG here, and unfortunately I have to agree with the nominator: I'm just not seeing anything that resembles sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to merit a standalone article. If the music were that notable, I would have expected more coverage of it in the Link's Awakening article; unfortunately there is only passing mention (a little more than one small paragraph) of it there as well. I would support someone expanding the music coverage in Link's Awakening, perhaps even creating its own subsection. CThomas³ (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't think she passes GNG or WP:MUSIC. There are few indepedent and reliable sources that would allow expansion for her article beyond what she has composed etc. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, Hamano is mentioned frequently, but just in passing, in relation to her work. There's no in-depth coverage on the person. The award for Link's Awakening was for its "graphics and sound", not for the music and it wasn't awarded to Hamano. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't pass WP:Nmusic, not much has changed since the last AFD (which was a delete) and only passing mentions.Notabilityy isn't inherited and her working with other notable people or working on popular video games doesn't give her an automatic pass. JC7V-constructive zone 16:27, 16 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas (musician)

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

Article fails WP:NMUSIC. Appears to be an autobiography (per photo credits), and makes claims that are not supported by the sources. Promotional Claims, for example "international recognition" but provides no sources to corroborate that claim. Vexations (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Oppose/Keep) Article is not autobiographical, photos were shared by the artist and uploaded for reference. Article has been corrected to meet the WP:NMUSIC conditions and will continue to be sourced accordingly, unfortunately claims of "international recognition" come from music blogs such as an artictle about a song "Vapor" by Atlas ^[1] from Indieshuffle, that does not meet the citation requirements and so therefore it has been removed.(Oppose/Keep)Kolourz (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Kolourz Thank you Vexations for bring this to my attention and my apologies for undoing any of your edits this is my first article on Wikipedia and I am still getting the hang of it.[reply]

@Kolourz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(musician)#/media/File:Atlas_in_2016.jpg was created by claims "Zachary King - Own work" and links Zachary King to Commons:User:Kolourz. If Kolourz is not Zachary King, then the claim that the photo is his own work is incorrect. The exif data shows Copyright 2016 Kolourz. All rights reserved. Please clarify.

(Oppose/Keep)::Due to the fact the artist Zachary King also know as Atlas shared the photos for reference I attributed them to him as the copyright holder in the shared commons licensing ^[2], but it was also my first time uploading photos to Wikicommons and I may have misunderstood the process. From what I read, they would be considered creative commons to be free to share and download, and therefore weren't protected by copyright. I can ask for permission if the copyright needs to be under my username Kolourz. Please help me understand this process better, thank you for your time.Kolourz (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Kolourz[reply]

Kolourz I'll try to explain the issue with the copyright and attribution on your talk page as it has no bearing on the notability of the musician, which is the topic of this nomination for deletion. --Vexations (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Oppose/Keep)Vexations Could you define what makes an artist "notable" from a creditable source? I am just concered it might be subjective since you're the only one who has made this claim, and marked the page for deletion right after I accidently undid one of your edits. Thanks Kolourz (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Kolourz[reply]

Sure. There are two guidelines that are relevant here: The first is the general notability guideline and the second is the subject-specific notability guideline, WP:NMUSIC. We require sources that are independent of the subject as well as reliable that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. In other words; we need to see that more than one competent person, not just some random person on the internet, has written a serious piece about Atlas that critically analyses his work. As far as I can tell, that hasn't been the case. If you haven't read it yet, please read Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! --Vexations (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Oppose/Keep)Vexations One might equate that the username Vexations, which by definition is "the act of harassing or vexing : TROUBLING" ^[3] another person or thing, could explain the motive behind Vexations marking the page for deletion as retaliation under the guise of "notability". Which would be in direct violation of the Wikipedia AFD guidelines. Tealeaf90 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC) tealeaf90[reply]

Tealeaf90 If you think my user name is in violation of policy, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is the venue where you'd address that. Go right ahead, but please read Vexations first. This nomination is not "retaliation" for anything. I bear no animus towards anyone involved. The nomination results from my assessment as a page reviewer that the article lacks sources that establish the subject's notability. --Vexations (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Oppose/Keep)Vexations I am referring to the manner in which you nominated the page for deletion, looking at the view history it corroborates what Kolourz stated. If you were genuine about the assessment, why not nominate the article for deletion first, not after he accidentally undid your edit. Secondly, it does put Kolourz in a troubling or vexing situation, with all of the work now up for deletion, based on one reviewers opinion of the article. For new users, Wikipedia can be a hard and unforgiving platform to navigate, I hope your intentions are well and not to discourage others from being on the site. Tealeaf90 (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)tealeaf90[reply]

(Oppose/Keep)Vexations On the topic of "Notability" although the musician Zachary King also known as Atlas, might not have enough citable sources on Wikipedia yet. He has gained notability performing throughout the Southeastern United States. He's performed with notable Grammy nominated acts like Bonobo, Nightmares on Wax, Minnesota, and more. Publications shouldn't be the only qualifying factor in a musicians recognition or notability. According to the Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! "If you think you've met those standards but the improvements took place after most people finished discussion, one final option is Wikipedia:Deletion review. You can also request the article to be moved into userspace or into draftspace, (especially in the case of subjects that are not yet notable, but will likely become notable in the near future)." This would be an option I'd preferably like to avoid for the Atlas (musician) article , he is building recognition and is notable to a demographic. Kolourz (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Kolourz[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best WP:TOOSOON per Kolourz (talk) comments above. As it stands now, there simply are not significant, reliable independent sources to verify notability. The references provided consist of user submitted content. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, "Atlas" as a word makes it difficult find info connected to this subject. However, nothing related to "Zachary King" turns up, either. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has got a few decent support slots but notability is not inherited from the main acts. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Not there yet. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shows supporting credible sources, has artist page Atlas Music on Facebook verfied ^[1] notes "Zachary King" as sole band member. Kolourz (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Kolourz[reply]

Please see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL for why "will be notable in the near future" is an argument to avoid in avoid in deletion discussions. Facebook is a self-published, primary source, per WP:FACEBOOK. Vexations (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AllMusic ^[2] is a highly regarded independent reliable source for finding composer credits, and a musician must be qualified by their requirements before being cited on the platform. Also Zachary Jarrett King is a SESAC ^[3] song-writer affiliate which is a perfoming rights organization that is invitation only, which would make him a notable composer and credible song-writer by their organizations standards Maroon 5, Adele, and One Republic are also SESAC affiliates. Tealeaf90 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)tealeaf90[reply]
Delete Unfortunately neither AllMusic nor SESAC are part of the WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. Per the allmusic website, TiVo adds products and other materials to their databases at their discretion, with no indication of what that criteria is, and further goes on to state that TiVo tries to add recordings and review as many CDs possible, but can't make any promises about which artists and titles will receive an enhanced level of editorial coverage.. This does not seem to indicate any exhaustive review of notability, but rather that they review any and all submissions as they get around to it. According to SESAC's web page, they have 30,000 such affiliates. Certainly some (like Adele, Bob Dylan, and Neil Diamond) are notable. But we don't know what criteria they use, nor is there a comprehensive listing of affiliates for us to even guess at what their unpublished criteria for invitation are. At present we only have WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC to go by, and I have to agree with Vexations and ShelbyMarion that this level of coverage doesn't exist yet. Perhaps it will someday, but for right now I'd say WP:TOOSOON. CThomas³ (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Allmusic, per multiple source reviews, can be (though not always) reliable for those profile entries containing career biographic information written by staff writers. However, simple listings--such as in this case--are the result of any music released for sale, compiled by the Rovi/TiVo database. Such credits are common and can be user submitted. In such cases, it is not a significant source for proving notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:24, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 07:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Boldt

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG - the reliable sources aren't extensive. Last AfD had little participation and was no consensus, but nothing has changed in the last year in terms of available sources. Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional and non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 16 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 delete. G11 Speedy Deletion action performed by an admin. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxx Music

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

Fails WP:NCORP. sources given are all primary and non-notable. Raj Mahajan has also been nominated. Dial911 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:41, 15 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 keep and move back to Murray Menkes. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Menkes Developments

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

This page was about a property developer who appeared to me to just scrape by on notability. It's now been turned into a page that is supposedly about the company, though in fact much of it is about Menkes and his grandson. It doesn't meet our much stricter notability requirements for companies. I see plenty of conflict-of-interest editing, but no COI or paid editor disclosure, so it may also be a WP:TOU violation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but return to being a page about the person not the company. Page has an interesting history. It started as a Draft titled for company but I found that the founder was covered in lengthy obits by several leading Canadian newspapers, the Canadian equivalent akin to getting a New York Times Obit for a Canadian. I see efforts have been made to inject company info back in. I propose it be moved back to the founder's name and the company name become a redirect to the founder's name. A little pruning is in order to remove promotion. I see no reason to destroy a valid topic and page when normal editing can fix it. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as per Legacypac Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simonm223, Legacypac, could you please clarify whether you are advocating keeping the page on Menkes Developments or not – a "keep" !vote makes it look as if you are. If what you are suggesting is "move back to original title, restore original content and create a redirect from Menkes Developments", that isn't really a "keep" as usually understood. (is it?) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the move, restore and redirect scenario would have my support as a better option than deletion. But while we're here, let's establish proper consensus on the notability of the company. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in don't delete, fix by editing as outlined. The WP:NCORP standards are so impossibly high I would not try to do a page on the company. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to an article on the founder Still Legacypac's justification but clarifying my position. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:27, 23 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 delete. G11 Speedy Deletion action performed by an admin. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Mahajan

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

Out of 136 references provided, none is reliable and independent. Also, no significant coverage found for the person, indicating his non-notability. Dial911 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:41, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Drake (investor)

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

This article's sources are of the lowest quality possible. They are almost exclusively press releases, opinion columns at obscure websites, and various other pieces of questionable independence who only describe the subject in exaggerated, hyperbolic terms. There's also a lot of content promoting the subject's business on the page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage used, everything is sourced; language is plain and not flowery (though promotionalism is not an argument for deletion anyways). An SPA tried to post this debate a few times before a similarly named editor swooped in to complete the nomination, which makes this feel strangely set up; especially considering the only other vote here is an SPA focusing only on deleting and editing targets in the crypto industry or similar articles, that has no personal rationale to vote and says “per nom” which is advanced wiki-speak an SPA with no experience would know or use. Develofix (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on what you're suggesting by calling this nomination a "setup." I was not aware of the history of this article, though, in my opinion, it does not meet WP:GNG, which you failed to address. The "plain langauge" is really a series of claims about the subject's company for which the sources are either paid releases, self-published, or seem to suffer from circular reporting. And blatant promotionalism, or "advertising," does in fact fall under WP:DEL14. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puffery and pay-for-coverage non-RSes - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 30 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 18:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duck walk killer

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

At best, this is too soon for an article, but there's a good chance this will never have sustained notability. Natureium (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good sources. Not too soon at all. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But I may be biased living in the neighborhood affected. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was about to say shootings in Chicago are WP:MILL, however on examining the coverage it seems it is national,[3][4][5][6] and international.[7] Per WP:RAPID and scope/scale of coverage this should be retained at present. Whether coverage continues to be persistent should be assessed at a later date as at present it requires a crystal ball.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly passes WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID - this is a developing story drawing wide attention. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 12 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown–Rhode Island football rivalry

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

After deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth–Yale football rivalry, I found that this article is pretty much of the same type. No serious sources, no proper content apart from list of games played. Tone 18:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 18:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AP write-up from this year's meeting seems to imply that this is a recognized rivalry by the national sporting press. That being said, the article certainly needs more sourcing. GPL93 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and fails GNG. Supporting content is not found in locations which typically do so when it does exist, such as site:newspapers.com and site:nytimes.com UW Dawgs (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one has many of the classic attributes of a true rivalry: a traveling trophy (the "Governor's Cup"); geographic proximity (28 miles between campuses); intra-state competition; length of play (dates back to 1909); frequency of play (103 meetings). In addition, there is significant coverage of the series as a rivalry. See this from 2017 and this and this from 2018. See also this from the URI web site. Article needs to be improved with more sourcing and narrative, but that is not a reason to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it needs more sources and probably comes close to failing WP:NOTSTATS as it stands, but it's definitely a rivalry which passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:15, 20 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Hews

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

No evidence of notability. None of the sources indicate notability (either primary or self-published sources, or sources of very limited significance or reliability, like "experimental religion"). Article doesn't make clear what his claim to notability should be either. His published works haven't received attention, and are not even mentioned in the obituary in the "evangelical magazine". Looking for other sources gives some bibliographies which list his works (among thousands of others, and without further attention), and a short article in the "Bedfordshire Magazine" from 1966 about a poem he wrote. Nothing which would make him meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. Article was tagged with the "notability" template. Fram (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i have also added Hews to the music afd list as his book, The Songs of Sion in Gospel Sound is held by around 140 libraries (maybe librarians know something that we don't?:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And numerous editions of Spoils Won in the Day of Battle since 1798 under its various titles, including modern ones. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hews appears in A Baptist Bibliography (well he would...:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since nomination and clearly meets the GNG. He is notable as a religious author and autobiographer whose works are still in print 200 years later and widely held by libraries and have received critical attention. He is also notable for his account of the opposition he received to his work, the legal records of which are referenced by National Archives, and which is part of the story of non-conformism in England. His activities in Bedfordshire might seem a little parochial but the county was a centre of Baptist activity as the birth place of John Bunyan so being a preacher in chapels there is more significant than it at first appears. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. His work is not "widely held by libraries" or "held by around 140 libraries", and his work is not "still in print" (one work has received a very limited reprint in 1972, which has not received any verifiable attention at all). "The songs" has been digitised by the British Library, and as far as I can tell all other 139 libraries only have the e-book, just like they have every book digitised by the British Library. So basically, the actual book is owned by 1 library as far as we know. So, is he notable because his works "have received critical attention"? A 5 line review of one work, and a short segment in a longer article in the Bedfordshire Magazine 150 years later, is hardly evidence of being "notable as a religious author and an autobiographer". Legal records are primary sources and give no notability either. "being a preacher in chapels there is more significant than it at first appears.": not only than it at first appears, but more significant than any significant author has realised apparently. Basically, the significant attention he has received is one short review of one work at the time of publication, and a few lines in the Bedfordshire Magazine. All that remains otherwise is unreliable or partisan sources, one copy of the book in the British Library which has been digitized, and things you believe should make him notable, but where no authoritative sources have agreed with you so far. Fram (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting your correction:

Seven (non digital) works in the British Library.
Spoils and Songs of Sion is in print with Gale (but sold out awaiting new copies), most recently in a 2018 hardback edition. Here's the link there are two others too. So since first publication in 1798, Spoils has been reprinted in 1852 (part), 1967, 1972, 1982 (Bible Truth Books, may be same edition as 1972 per World Cat), 2010 by Gale (paperback) and 2018 by Gale (hardback).
You are wrong about these all being electronic. See here for the libraries holding the 1972 hardback edition such as BL, Trinity College Dublin, National Library of Scotland etc. Religious libraries holding it in the U.S. are stated to be Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, West Coast Baptist College. I have that edition and it is far more than a simple reprint. The publisher has added numerous photographs of baptist meeting places mentioned in the text and cross-referenced them, notes on Hews's life, and a map "The country of the Spoils" showing the place in which he worked so its clearly a work of enduring significance in its field. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every book which has been digitized (and is PD) is "in print" from these kind of publishers, they just make a print-on-demand version (basically, they print and bind whatever you want them to). That is not "being in print", that is "being digitized and PD". The BL tries to collect every book which has been printed in the UK ever, being listed there (or in most other university libraries) is not an indication of notability, just of existence. I can't find any reliable evidence of the 1852 edition or the 1967 edition, the 1972 and 1982 are probably the same (by someone who doesn't seem to have published any other books, not some reputable scientific or historic publisher?), and the 2010 and 2018 are print-on-demand services (Gale is in itself a very respectable publisher; but the Gale ECCO series, of which this book is a part, are some 185,000 18th-century titles from the BL c.s., not some restrictive, specific selection of noteworthy books[8]). So the book has been reprinted once, in 1972, in an edition which hasn't made any headlines (or bylines or even mentions), but is kept in a few libraries (have they bought it? Has the publisher sent it to them for free? No idea, no means to know this, but in any case not evidence of notability). Your claims that it is a notable book (and by extension author) are in direct contradiction with the extreme lack of attention they have received[9]. Fram (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1852 edition was titled Zion's Casket and 1967-69 Zion's Witness as stated in the article. It only reverted to the original title for the 1972 and later editions. Even if the most recent editions are printed digitally (like many Oxford University Press books by the way), the fact remains that since 1798 the book has had at least three further printings, quite apart from the other points that indicate that the GNG is satisfied from his other works and his life. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, I know the claims the article makes about the 1852 and 1967 editions, but where is the evidence that these exist?[10]. As far as I am concerned, the book has been reprinted once, by a publisher without any history or credentials, and without that reprint getting any attention at all. Value for notability of such a reprint is nil. Fram (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Later editions are generally regarded as reliable sources for the existence of earlier editions which are usually printed in the bibliographical details, as I am sure you know and as they are in that edition. I wasn't aware of that publisher either but you will just have to believe me when I say it is a professionally produced edition with new content such as photographs and notes and a map apparently drawn specially for it. It is not a facsimile. The value of reprints for notability is not in the publisher but in the fact of the reissuing, in this case over two centuries, which indicates the continued significance of a work in its field, i.e. the history of the Baptists and non-conformism in England. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

¨*Um, no. A publication by an unknown entity (we have a name for the publisher, but zero indication that they are in any way a trustworthy source) is not a reliable source for any information, and if like here there's is zero evidence that the information is actually is correct, then we don't accept it. A reprint by an unknwon publisher and editor is not a reliable source at all for any information. Please remove all information you have added to the article and which is solely based on this reprint, as it is simply not a WP:RS. Fram (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is not "unknown", it is Woodcraft of Bedfordshire, exactly where we would expect a work about a Bedfordshire preacher to be published. There is every reason to believe the source to be reliable. Please take it to talk or the RS noticeboard if you disagree. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcraft of Biggleswade is totally unknown as a publisher or as a historian. They have zero credentials in either role, and don't get quoted by any respected historians. Fram (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you really mean is unknown to you. This book is 99% a reprinting of a 1798 work, do you argue that they have deliberately misrepresented anything? Here's the page of notes at the front. Now I look at that page again, I think it is likely that Zion's Casket and Zion's Witness are journals rather than alternative titles (British Library have The Spiritual Magazine and Zion's Casket) but that only makes the subject more notable as it means it was published in multiple media and in the case of Zion's Witness in serial form. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean unknown to anyone anywhere. This is not a well-known publisher, this is not a well-known historian (or literary critic, or whatever). No reliable source has ever given any attention to this publishing house, or to the person who wrote these additional pages. Please don't try to express "what I really mean", if you think I am wrong just say so but don't be passive-agressive. As you clearly don't understand what our reliable sources policy is about, I see no point in trying to explain this any further to you. Let me just give a hint: "do you argue that they have deliberately misrepresented anything? " is a strawman argument of the first grade; the crux of RS is that we dismiss sources where have no indication that they are trustworthy, reliable, known for being accurate; not that we should only dismiss source which are known to "deliberately misrepresenting" anything. The lowering of all kinds of enwiki bars in this AfD is staggering, but I didn't think you would really go to this lengths to defend such a source. Oh, and your Google link gives a 404 error, "404. That’s an error. The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know." Fram (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, here's the link. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what are you trying to prove with it? I didn't doubt that the book contained the information you provided. But showing that page doesn't make the book any more or less reliable or trustworthy. Fram (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, great to see a couple of really experience editors duking it out at an afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets the GNG Whispyhistory (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? Which reliable, independent sources give significant coverage of Hews? The only source which really gives some attention to Hews is his obituary, which is hardly the best source (and e.g. ignores his work as a writer completely!) Fram (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a dearth of articles on English non-conformism, and this article further illuminates this tempestuous period, certainly satisfies GNG as it stands. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RSN discussion started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Hews. Fram (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE. The page in question seems to be coming along nicely but notice that this discussion is more than twice as big and forking per WP:LIGHTBULB. We don't delete AfD discussions even though they are usually just of historical interest. All that deleting the page in question would achieve would be to change its its status so that only admins like Fram could read it. This would tend to annoy the productive contributors involved to no useful purpose. Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Apart form what look like primary sources there is not a lot here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He turns up in an 1800 issue of London Review, which says of Spoils won in the Name of Battle: "This delectable narrative informs us, that the author is a Baptist teacher and druggist in Dunstable, where he has got many enemies, whom he abuses by name in the most libelous language. We are in doubt to which place he ought to be sent, whether to Bridewell for correction, or to Bedlam for cure."^[4] Ah, it's in the article after all. --tronvillain (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is a tough one. Personally, I would like the article to remain - it's interesting and imo encyclopaedic. But I can't in all conscience find a policy-based reason for retention. There's nothing in refs to assert anything other than that the book exists; that's way short of the notability guidelines. As a thought experiment, how would we feel if this were someone who died yesterday? I'd like there to be a GNG exception for 'quite interesting, verifiable, historical stuff that's doing no harm being here', but there isn't, and such a policy would be hard to draft. Mcewan (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think that autobiographies of Baptist clergy from that period are common, which probably makes this notable, as does the fact that it has been reprinted twice. As an 18th century book, it will no doubt be available on the Gale database Eighteenth century books on-line (which has a paywall). The article is currently an unsatisfactory one, since it is mostly not about what the autobiography tells us. No doubt that is liable to criticism as self-published (and thus presenting only the author's POV), but it is all we have and it is not recent. I expect that there are a few more copies about, if one looked hard, but even if there is only one, that does not prevent it being significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.facebook.com/atlasmusic
^ https://www.allmusic.com/artist/zachary-jarrett-king-mn0003746331
^ https://www.sesac.com
^ Staff writer (July 1800). "Art. 35". The London Review and Biographia Literaria. Vol. 3, no. 19. p. 89.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Philafrenzy Sakaimover (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article was nominated, there has been enough expansion with cited content, with the subject's significance in the history of English non-conformist and Baptist churchmen well enough set out. Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the references in the article now are sufficient for notability. Furthermore, there probably exist more printed sources which are not available online (that's probable for 18th/19th century figures.) SJK (talk) 09:07, 15 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 keep. Overwhelming jeep and snow keep consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Me (Steppenwolf song)

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

No evidence of notability. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a Billboard Hot 100 Top 10 single, sourced in the article before the nomination was made, I don't know how the NOM can think this does not meet WP:NMUSIC. I guess I'll see how much we need to argue about it after I see additional responses. I urge withdrawal of this ill conceived nomination. Trackinfo (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: this single made no. 4 on Canada's RPM 100 singles chart as well [11]... with top ten entries in two countries it's difficult to see how this doesn't pass WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Are we reading the same WP:NSONG? Where does it say that top ten entries in two countries makes a song notable? Can you provide a quote? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charting can definitely be one indication of notability, but if a song charts and still receives limited coverage from third-party, reliable sources, then it could be merged/redirected to another target article. I do not have an opinion about this specific case, but I just wanted to say that charting alone should not taken as the only indicator for notability. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, just charting in itself isn't a guarantee of notability, WP:NSONG criterion 1 says so. But the fact it was a big chart hit in not one, but two, countries, plus passing criterion 3, being an independent release by a notable band (its release almost certainly would have received coverage in various music magazines at the time, given how well known the band were), indicates this song meets notability by passing two of the three criteria of WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:NSONG. Generally, a song is considered a hit single if it reaches the top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100. A song that reaches the top 10 in two countries definitely clears the notability bar, especially since it's the band's third-biggest hit. — Newslinger talk 10:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG with a top 10 single in Billboard Hot 100. The nomination is in any invalid as no valid rationale has been given. Hzh (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above, article contains sufficient sourcing and context to assert notability. Song appears on several albums and soundtracks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:12, 12 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 merge to Hyaluronic acid. Sandstein 08:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fasciacyte

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

Bit of a corner case, but it appears that this term was coined and then referenced exactly 3 times in 7 years [12](along the lines of "there's also this hypothetical thing called a fasciacyte"). I suggest this does not constitute sufficient uptake and/or verification for an article, which would be based on the original publication alone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This could possibly be merged to Hyaluronic acid but I am concerned that the status of this research has not been established. Wikipedia should not be stating that these cells definitely exist when there is no evidence that other scholars have confirmed this, or even taken an interest in the work. It may be TOOSOON to be covering this on the basis of just the one original paper. I wouldn't be too concerned about the neoligism as such – if a human cell type exists then it is going to get notable enough to have an article. If it ends up with a different name, we would just have to move the page to the new title. SpinningSpark 23:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge to ~~Fascia~~. This article is a needless fork and can be better displayed in the context of the main article, fascia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the suggestion made by Athikhun.suw. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not strictly sure if SpinningSpark has cast a !vote, and in any case there would still need to be further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, my !vote is don't keep a standalone page. I'm undecided whether it should be kept as a redirect. If it is redirected, the target article should state that this is based on one research paper, and not that the existence of this cell is an established fact. SpinningSpark 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the presence of such cells may be hypothetical, albeit I was the one who wrote the Faciacyte article. The recent publication (in 2018) revealed that proposed hyaluron producing cells have round shape while other two studies from the same researchers in 2011 (published in Surg Radiol Anat) and 2013 (published in J Anat) reported that those cells rather had elongated shape. The results are contradictory here. In the mean time, I believe the article could be merged to Hyaluronic acid saying something like "The term fasciacyte was coined to describe fibroblast-like cells that synthesise hyaluronan.", citing all three previous papers. What do you think? And of course when there is enough evidence there can be a standalone page. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss where to redirect / merge to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hyaluronic acid: I am a (very!) non-expert, probably like most of our readers, but as the resident layman, I find Athikhun.suw reasoning wholly convincing. I also echo the suggestion that it is merely TOOSOON rather than never; it's clearly a field where "new" discoveries are relatively common. ——SerialNumber54129 08:03, 16 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 no consensus. Everybody seems to agree this fails WP:NGRIDIRON. The question is whether it passes WP:GNG in the alternative, and there's no agreement on that. There's lots of sources that talk about him, but people don't agree on whether they're WP:ROUTINE coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Cooper

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines set out in WP:NGRIDIRON, i.e. he never played in a regular season game for a professional football organization. He is currently a free agent and his only experience has been on practice squads. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not meet football specific notability guidelines but seems to pass GNG for instance [13] [14] [15]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON, the articles written on him above are routine articles from papers local to either his high school or the team he signed as an undrafted free agent with and were written in the same week. All other stories are routine transactional announcements. SportingFlyer talk 17:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even review the sources before you made your claim? The first one is from 2016. Here's another article [16] I'd hardly classify as routine. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did, and the article presented there is absolutely routine - it just notes a local former high school player will participate at the NFL Combine. It's as routine as they get, especially since he never played an NFL game. SportingFlyer talk 03:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are entitle to your opinion. What I took issue with was that you said all the articles were written in the span of a week, when the first was written when he was in college in 2016. I wouldn't classify it as routine, but I digress. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ third party references in the articles and that I can find through searches appear to all be transactional reporting in nature which typically are not considered add to notability. He could achieve notability through his college play but that is rare for offensive linemen and it does not appear to be such an exception. Other references are either blog posts or team pages that also do not meet the reference requirements. It's possible that he could gain notability (it's happened before) but in this case it has not happened yet that I can see.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: Take a look at the sources set forth below and see if they change your mind. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are much better, great research! Passes WP:GNG and changing to Keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: What about WP:NGRIDIRON ? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? WP:NGRIDIRON has always been interpreted to be inclusive and not exclusive. Passing WP:GNG is more than enough. There is more than one path to notability. For example, WP:ABELINCOLN didn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON either...--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but unlike our subject here, Lincoln's primary claim to notability had nothing to do with football (or athletics in general). SportingFlyer talk 06:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thus proving there is more than one path to notability. WP:NGRIDIRON is one, WP:GNG is another. --Paul McDonald (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON since neither attending the NFL combine or signing with an NFL team guarantees notability. I don't believe the coverage shown is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper was a D2 first-team All-American in 2016. He plainly passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Characterization of the coverage as WP:ROUTINE is wholly fallacious. Routine coverage consists of passing mentions in game coverage, brief transactional blurbs, etc. The coverage here consists of in-depth feature coverage in mainstream media outlets -- the antithesis of "routine" coverage. As noted by Paul M., offensive lineman almost never get such feature coverage. The fact that Cooper does is telling. Examples of such coverage include: (1) "IUP alum Ethan Cooper living in the moment with Steelers", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/2/17 (feature story); (2) "Former IUP All-American lineman Ethan Cooper drawn to Steelers' Mike Munchak", Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 6/5/17 (feature story); (3) "Former CD East standout Ethan Cooper hopes name is called on NFL Draft's final day", The Patriot-News, 4/29/17 (feature story); (4) "Giants have crowd of veteran guards blocking Ethan Cooper's path", Pro Football Weekly, 5/23/18 (274 words, available at NewsLibrary.com); (5) Central Pa.'s Kyle Friend, Ethan Cooper taking it 'day-by-day' with Pittsburgh Steelers, The Patriot-News, 8/19/17; (6) "IUP product Cooper looking to impress childhood cross-state rival", Latrobe Bulletin, 7/31/17 (721-word feature story available through NewsLibrary.com); and (7) "CD East grad Ethan Cooper eyeing playoff run with IUP, NFL career", The Patriot-News, 11/23/16. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - I think they're all pretty routine coverage. Just because a college athlete gets a feature story written about them doesn't mean that they deserve an article on this site, and all of the articles you've written about can be classified as a "local man tries to make local professional football team" with the exception of the Pro Football Weekly article, which I don't have access to. Apart from Pro Football Weekly, all of the articles are local to either the city he tried out in, the city he played college ball in, and the city he played high school in, and they all talk about how he's trying to become a professional football player. He's just a guy who played college ball and couldn't make the pros. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and I believe the GNG presumption. SportingFlyer talk 22:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of "routine" as including multiple feature stories in multiple mainstream media outlets is unsupported by the language of WP:ROUTINE, contrary to the language of WP:GNG, and well outside the mainstream. Cbl62 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, though. There's a lot of routine sports coverage in the vein of "local man wins award" per WP:ROUTINE, even in feature stories. I know this as a former sports journalist - hyper-local sports coverage sells papers. The fact every article prefaces his name with the name of his high school or college demonstrates his notability is very limited. And remember, WP:GNG is a presumption. The fact he meets neither WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH and is only covered in his home state doesn't lend itself to that presumption. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not think that your view of feature coverage is well out of the mainstream, and you're entitled to your opinion, but the long history of similar AfD discussions shows a clear consensus that this type of feature story coverage is (a) not routine, and (b) sufficient to pass the GNG bar. You may want to review the Player notability discussion library. Cbl62 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, to which I would ask all to please read WP:ROUTINE closely. You will find that it applies only to events and not people. Further, you'll find that "sports scores" as is defined in routine is way below the bar of "feature articles" which this subject has. For a counter-essay, you can read WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the "keep" in the "player notability discussion library" and I see about five or six editors who will vote keep on any college football article with any coverage at all, and a number of other voters who occasionally disagree and get railroaded in the process. I don't view this as consensus. This is actually a WP:BLP1E fail. Furthermore, there's no reason why WP:ROUTINE can't apply to people, especially people who participate in routine events such as Mr. Cooper. SportingFlyer talk 01:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation that there is a group "who will vote keep on any college football article with any coverage at all" is a gross misrepresentation of fact that should be withdrawn. The participants at the college football project have differing views but are pretty solid at policing and deleting articles that lack significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diocemy_Saint_Juste was for a running back who failed WP:GRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH and didn't have any feature stories outside the state he played in. I noted here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dalton_Crossan the article was borderline, but all of the coverage after my vote (I didn't go back and look at it) are pieces from his local area saying he's trying to make the NFL. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmie_Kaylor was kept off the back of coverage again local to the Colorado area. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Aiono received a two-sentence blurb in the Orlando Sentinel, was saved off of coverage local to the Utah area. Even after the AfD, that article in mainspace is a stub without any sources! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Waisome was mentioned in a coatrack article about a minor senior bowl and had an ESPN recruitment article named after him but was saved off of local Florida sources. I'm less concerned about Waisome because he apparently played for a national championship team, but still. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Demario_Richard was kept off the back of two articles about his recruitment and about five articles from a student newspaper of the school he participated at. SportingFlyer talk 08:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one of those articles: there were two public interest articles written about the fact a local player was trying to make the Steelers, a relatively short article about how two Harrisburg players were trying to make the Steelers from a Harrisburg paper, a local article saying a local is hopeful for being drafted on the last day, et cetera. There's no national coverage of any sort, he didn't have a notable college career since he played at a DII school, and has only received niche coverage once he was released by the Steelers for being on the Giants' practice squad. If you look at any other sports notability guideline, just because a player receives coverage does not mean that player is notable. Heck, not to other stuff exists, but we just deleted an AFL first-round draft pick! (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paddy_Steinfort was a bad pick by Richmond and the article failed NPOV, but still.) SportingFlyer talk 08:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sometimes editors disagree. The comments about "local" coverage do not apply to WP:GNG, the word "local" is not even on the page. Significant coverage is defined as coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Note that there is no mention of the distribution of the publication.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: You are advocating a drastic change in Wikipedia's notability standards to eliminate any weight being given to feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers from Pittsburgh. As you well know, this drastic change was rejected at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Local sources, again -- despite your advocacy there. Having lost the argument there, it appears that you are now simply forum-shopping for a second bite at the apple by filibustering the same issue here. If you want to continue discussing broader issues, I am happy to do so on my Talk page, but I think you've made your view clear for purposes of this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not advocating for a drastic change, and I don't appreciate you misinterpreting my argument - and my comment at the local sources has nothing to do with football, but rather with local political cruft we're seeing a lot of at the moment. My argument for Mr. Cooper is simply he's a non-notable football player who fails WP:GRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. The coverage of him fails WP:BLP1E, with the event being his attempt to make the NFL in Pennsylvania (apart from the PFW blurb). The fact he got a couple write-ups was largely because he was a local product, not because he's notable - he didn't get any press with the Packers or Chiefs that I can see, for instance. SportingFlyer talk 20:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were saying the feature stories about Cooper from Pittsburgh's metropolitan newspapers should not be given any weight. I apologize if I misinterpreted your argument. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Being a division 2 All-American doesn't meet any notability standards. Coverage is routine and local. By that I mean the coverage is from each city where he tries to make an NFL team and is no different from what hundreds of NFL wannabe rookies get each year. There's nothing unusual about the coverage he receives and no football notability standards are met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple feature stories are the antithesis of routine. Moreover, there is no bar on the use of coverage in major metropolitan newspapers from a city like Pittsburgh to establish notability. To the contrary, a proposal to limit the use of local sources in biographical articles was recently rejected at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Local sources, again. Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that multiple feature stories are clearly WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local athletes can have multiple feature stories written about them and yet still not be notable. No one is attacking the Pittsburgh newspaper for being "local" - the problem is the athlete only received coverage because the local papers covered a local athlete trying to make a local professional team, which they do routinely - and the athlete then failed to make the team! SportingFlyer talk 20:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated before (and I think in this discussion, but just to be sure) the word "local" is nowhere to be found in WP:GNG. I have yet to find any reference to a policy, to a guideline, or even an essay that disqualifies coverage because it is "local" -- if you have a reference, please provide it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with local sources, except local sources generate a ton routine sports coverage, and I strongly believe all of the coverage of him is routine, in part because he's only notable for being a local football player. SportingFlyer talk 00:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case (and I'm not saying that it is) it would still pass WP:GNG based on the standards provided there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which standards are you talking about? Routine sources go against the premises of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. SportingFlyer talk 06:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating yourself at this point, but feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers are plainly not "routine". Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Please ping me and correct me if you believe I am wrong. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Per your request: You are wrong in relying on NGRIDIRON as a basis for deleting. NGRIDIRON is clear and explicit that it is an inclusionary standard only and that athletes may still have articles if they pass under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'm still sticking with delete based on SprintFlyer's arguments. That's what I see too. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those that support the delete position: are you stating the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and that's all that matters, not even looking at WP:GNG; or are you stating that the subject fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG? Or something else? Please summarize your positions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and either fails WP:GNG due to the fact all reporting on him is routine or passes WP:GNG and fails WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE for receiving almost all of his coverage from his attempt to make the Steelers. SportingFlyer talk 01:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That helps, I don't think anyone here holds the position that the subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON at this time. I really have a hard time accepting the feature articles as "routine" because most certainly not every college player gets articles like that--he had to do something to warrant the press. I fail to see how WP:BLP1E applies because it's more than one event. I've never bought the WP:NOTNEWS argument because it makes no sense that someone or something would not be notable because they have too much coverage in the news. And as for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the subject matter and articles clearly are WP:DISCRIMINATE and are on a focused topic rather than summary only descriptions of works; lyrics databases; excessive listings of unexplained statistics; nor exhaustive logs of software updates... nor anything close to that. It seems to come down to WP:GNG and how that is interpreted and applied. Have I summarized properly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The other important wrinkle to note here is he only got significant coverage after he was no longer a college player - it was routine Steelers beat reporting about a former local college player. (I believe feature articles can be routine, too - we disqualify high school sports articles, for instance.) I don't think there's any argument the transactional signed/released by Giants/Packers reporting is routine? In any case, the conflict between keep/delete here is pretty well defined, not sure there's much more to say. SportingFlyer talk 10:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please do not confuse the word "routine" with the Wiki shortcut WP:ROUTINE--the latter is specifically for events and calls routine coverage to be "sports scores".--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our insanely low criteria for notability of playes of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I said in my vote that I thought he failed WP:GNG and that hasn't changed. Responding to Paulmcdonald's comment above, I think the word "routine" is often used to mean "typical" or "not unusual". This would be the opposite of what would make something "encyclopedic" or "worthy of note". In this specific case, this type of coverage is given to every player trying to make an NFL team and I think the SNG is clear that merely trying out for an NFL team does not grant automatic notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "routine" can certainly mean that, but the guideline WP:ROUTINE provides much more specific and restrictive definitions. In Wikipedia, we often use "handles" or "shortcuts" to easily remember essays and policy and guidelines--and those are normally one word or an otherwise easy-to-remember "handle" for our own reference. But they point to a much more robust definition with extensive content that is argued, discussed, edited, and argued some more. Simply reading the content at the destination page of WP:ROUTINE shows that it is much more extensive in its definitions than the single word "routine" -- it's important that we all remember that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The discussion around this AfD has been constructive. I continue to believe the coverage, including feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers, is not WP:ROUTINE, that such significant coverage is all that is required under GNG, and that GNG is the bedrock of our objective standards for notability. At the same time, I recognize that there are significant factors that make this a close and controversial case. First, Cooper was a Division II player, and players at this level are very rarely notable. Second, we have not found significant coverage received by Cooper during his college playing career. Instead, the coverage found all relates (as others have noted) to his efforts to make an NFL roster, all consists of local/regional coverage, and could be viewed by some as "feel-good, underdog-tries-for-the-big-time" coverage. Because of these unique attributes, this AfD should be considered a very weak precedent whichever way it closes. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how this coverage is routine. Not every single newspaper coverage of a living person is routine. There is a very specific meaning of what routine coverage, and I am definitely not under the impression that every single one of the sources Cbl62 provided is too routine to be able to pass GNG. Imo, this is a clear pass of the general notability guideline.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm persuaded by SportingFlyer's extensive analysis above. What we have here is a DII All-American who went undrafted, bounced around a couple practice squads, and is currently a free agent. WP:GNG is ultimately about the presumption of notability; if the sources meet all the other criteria, we presume the subject is notable, unless proven otherwise. It's not enough for sources to exist; you have to be able to write an article from them. The current article is utterly routine, and there's no indication that it will become otherwise. Most of the non-routine coverage is of his attempt to make an NFL team. There's nothing unusual or even interesting about that, so far he is unsuccessful. Hundreds if not thousands of young men are in that position every year. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The newspaper stories are more than routine coverage. Discounting a small-town newspaper story about a local kid who becomes or tries to become successful is one thing. Discounting coverage in multiple large cities on the basis that they are all local is silly. Many people try out for sports teams. Most don't get even one full length article written about them. He did, several times. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 18 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown–Yale football rivalry

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

After deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth–Yale football rivalry, I found that this article is pretty much of the same type. No serious sources, no proper content. Tone 17:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Seems to fails GNG requirement of significant coverage. Supporting content is not readily located in locations which typically contain it when it exists, such as site:newspapers.com and site:nytimes.com UW Dawgs (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterCake: Given the historic prominence of these two programs, and the longevity of the series, this may well be a legitimate rivalry or notable historic series. That said, AfDs are pretty harsh on one-sentence sub-stubs like this. Any chance you'd be willing to work to improve this? It's an article you created back in 2015. If the answer is "yes", by the way, let me know, and I'd also be willing to help. Cbl62 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit. It's certainly overshadowed by Harvard/Yale, and a bigger game for Brown, but just about all the Ivy League matchups are historic rivalries. Outside of combos of the big four, Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Penn, seems like it's Cornell/Columbia, Dartmouth/Harvard, and Brown/Yale. Cake (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article from the NCAA site calls it a rivalry and one of the oldest in college football. Dates it to 1880 with 125-plus games played. That's persuasive. Time permitting, I'll take a look, too. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources linked in the article don't describe this in terms that would meet WP:NRIVALRY: [17] and [18] (unless it's on a page I don't have a preview for?) don't mention a rivalry at all, and while [19] calls it a "rivalry" I don't think it's in the proper context (just a headline, and also calls Columbia a "rival"). SportingFlyer talk 07:22, 20 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 delete. Tone 20:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos A. Godoy

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Several source searches, including custom source searches, all as per WP:BEFORE, are not providing adequate independent coverage in reliable sources; just name checks, passing mentions and quotations, none of which establish notability. With the exception of one source, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, and the one independent source ([20]) does not provide anything near significant coverage. Furthermore, the primary sources in the article and available in online searches do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The presidency of the seventy is inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no presumed notability for religious subjects, nor is there any guideline or policy that states such. Notability on Wikipedia is based upon the encyclopedia's notability standards, not personal opinions about notability, and the encyclopedia's standards require significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not there is any such thing as "inherent notability", I'm not convinced it attaches to the presidents of the seventies, if it exists at all. And, putting that issue aside, there are very minimal sources for this individual from non-LDS publications. (And even the LDS sources seem to be just run-of-the-mill coverage, nothing making him stand out.) SJK (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, largely per NA. I am unable to find substantive intellectually independent coverage in reliable sources, and I am not convinced by the "inherently notable" argument. Vanamonde (talk) 17:31, 22 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 merge to Maccabi Haifa F.C.#Early years. Clear consensus that there is some material here worth merging to the main club article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1922–23 Maccabi Haifa F.C. season

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

Removed PROD, article fails WP:NSEASONS and I feel this fails WP:GNG also. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:NSEASONS, this is presumed to be notable as historic information regarding a team that plays in a top professional league, and should be merged with Maccabi Haifa F.C. rather than deleted. The article is prose, not merely statistics and lists. This was an abbreviated season, and I expect additional sources would be limited due to world and regional events since 1922/23, so a detailed article is unlikely to be developed, therefore merge and redirect to the main article on the club is appropriate. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why you would need to merge anything, the club reorganised in 1923, however there is nothing else of interest to note. Nothing else significant happened. Also the league wasn't established till 1928. Govvy (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The establishment date of the league is a red herring. Yes, the founding of the league was significant, but nonetheless it was incidental. It's common to trace a pro club's history back to the founding of the club, even if their current (or later) league was not yet established at that time. Here's a random example, and there are numerous others. OK, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but why not start the history of the club from when the club was founded? It would be fairly easy to include this as part of the history section in the main article, and the main article is of a length that could readily include expansion of the early history. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, not needed, nothing worth merging. Giant Snowman 13:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least in some form - the article's sourcing is fine, and I'm sure someone could expand this with WP:NEXIST. I think it might be better suited as "Maccabi Haifa in the 1920's," though. SportingFlyer talk 23:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't believe that a collection of friendlies qualifies this as a season, per se. However, the information on the Hebrew Cup is well-sourced, and is at the least notable enough to be mentioned in the club article. Maccabi Haifa F.C. certainly needs more information about the club's early years, and this would be a part of the club's history that could be merged in to that section. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maccabi Haifa F.C.#Early years. It really is all of one line (once you cut out the OR in the lede (10th season) and tables for two matches) - After a period of inactivity, the club was re-organized in February 1923.^[1] The club playing a handful of matches during the season, including taking part in a cup competition which was called "The Hebrew Cup". Due to its distance, the club was given a bye to the final,^[2] in which it lost of Maccabi Nes Tziona 0–2.^[3]^[4]^[5]. Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Haifa Doar HaYom, 8 February 1923, Historical Jewish Press (in Hebrew)
^ Maccabi Haifa First Final Loss 24 May 2016, Kaduregel Vintage (in Hebrew)
^ The Football "Hebrew Cup" Doar HaYom, 11 May 1923, Historical Jewish Press (in Hebrew)
^ The Hebrew E.I. Cup in Football Doar HaYom 3 May 1923, Historical Jewish Press (in Hebrew)
^ The Football During the British Mandate Era Asher Goldberg, 28 September 2010, IFA (in Hebrew)

Keep either as is or make it a part of Maccabi Haifa in the 1920s. Should not be delete. Warrants inclusion in wikipedia as per above. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all above comments. Information passes WP:V but WP:NSEASONS would prevent this from being an actual article. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow I find it difficult to believe that this was a professional club, when it seems to have had no potential opponents. However it maight in usefully merged to an article on the club or Football in Mandatory Palestine.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Khanam

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted (article subject requested deletion, unanimous AfD). Fails GNG. Sourcing in the article consists mainly of short quotes of her in event announcements for BritBangla which she co-founded, sources form BritBangla, and the award of a BEM in 2015 (the same line is repeated by sources covering the entire 2015 list). No in-depth sources found covering her. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for pretty much the same reasons article was previously deleted. PR professional, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G4 So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:50, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 08:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BritBangla

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Sourcing consists of event announcements,the organization itself and Asianimage (which actually covers the organization). Promotional, and fails WP:CORPIND - a lack of multiple in-depth reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable professional networking organization. Has gotten a little press, publicity placements like "Bengali women past and present celebrated," but there is no claim to notability, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G4 So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:50, 15 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 merge to Niavaran Complex. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private library of the Niavaran Complex

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

The only source listed for the article is a dead link which hasn't worked for years. It is a private library within a complex whose overarching notability is marginal at best. Initial google searches show little to no independent coverage of the library amongst any sources. Flip^and Flopped ツ 15:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Niavaran Complex, presuming the sourcing issue can be dealt with. The main article is short and can easily absorb this, and there's not the slightest claim to independent notability. Seyasirt (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Niavaran Complex. desmay (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationals above. Sadads (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge though a proper search, even in English, show there are a number of mentions such as this one. Obviously "Niavaran library" is the best term to start searching with. Poor WP:BEFORE! Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 11 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Labbayk

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2013, G4ed in 2014. Lack of independent in-depth coverage of this Islamic vocal group. I am also nominating 4 albums released by the group which are almost entirely sourced from iTunes/Amazon/eMusic/CD Baby/etc. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of proper British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) references for this British Islamic music group (Labbayk). Also keep the Wikipedia pages of the albums of Labbayk because their albums are still available for sale/download and their Wikipedia pages contain factually correct and relevant information. The band is still active and perform worldwide according to the website (http://labbayknasheeds.com), Facebook^[1] and other social media^[2]^[3] pages of Labbayk. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC) > — Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources ? Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Yes lots of coverage by independent sources, especially the BBC. Please check the list of references for foreign sources. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with one of the group members in BBC Asian Radio does not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT - specifically it is clearly not independent - being an interview with a group member.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Huh? But Masum is the lead singer of Labbayk, just like Bon Jovi. Besides, there are other BBC interviews and foreign media coverage. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen all that many interviews in my search - however regardless - interviews with group members is coverage that is not independent of the group. Per WP:ORGCRIT - we need SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I'll have to disagree with you. Isn't the BBC coverage impartial, significant and trustworthy enough? Even the significant third party news coverage (foreign press coverage) such as Kuwaiti News, is very reliable. Liberty Pedia (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote once (your bolded keeps). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the group´s albums, the group is far from being notable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BAND #4. The group has performed some international concert tours. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BAND-4 requires SIGCOV of the tour - which does not exist here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is provided, as shown by the coverage of third party news outlets. Liberty Pedia (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Let us know about your definition of SIGCOV. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The articles mostly cite the group, their (non-notable) label, websites selling their music, lyrics sites, and trivial mentions. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The deepest coverage is (presumably, it requires registration and a download, so I haven't listened to it) the 9 minute BBC Radio interview. It's a reliable source, and may be used within the constraints on primary sources, but as nom has already explained, does not contribute to notability (see also "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" in WP:BAND).

Proponents of keep have asserted the existence of significant third party news coverage without identifying any actual sources. The closest I see is [21], but that's a passing mention of the group in a press release by the organizers of the festival at which they were playing. It is not "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - According to WP:BAND - Musical ensembles or bands may be notable if they meet at least ONE of the following criteria:

1.) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

2.) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

3.) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

4.) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

5.) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

6.) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)

7.) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

8.) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

9.) Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.

10.)Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

11.)Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

12.)Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Labbayk has met many of the above criteria, especially numbers 1, 4 and 12. Significant coverage of Labbayk, and/or members of Labbayk, by reliable independent sources includes coverage in UK Channel 4, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 4, Kuwait News Agency and Muslimness Blog. Liberty Pedia (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND criteria #1, #4, and #12? No, no, and no.

4thought.tv [22] on Channel 4 in the UK is a short film format in which a single speaker, in this case the leader of the band, gives their personal views on religion. It is a primary source, Masum in Masum's words, not independent coverage.
BBC Asian Network [23] is a radio interview. Again it's Masum in Masum's words, a primary source, and specifically excluded from consideration of notability by the first bullet point under criterion #1 of WP:BAND.
BBC Radio 4 [24] contains only about a minute and a half, starting at 18:30 minutes in, of Masum. He speaks briefly with the interviewer about nasheeds. He mentions in passing that his band exists and plays nasheeds, but the piece is not significant coverage of Labbayk (or of Masum).
Kuwait News Agency [25] is a press release from the organization employing Labbayk to play at their event, so not independent.
Muslimness Blog is a group blog that "work[s] with brilliant media groups" and whose motto is "shameless promotion". It is not in any way shape or form a reliable source.

--Worldbruce (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All these bullet points by Worldbruce prove that Labbayk has met criterion number 12 of WP:BAND and Labbayk only needs to meet one of the 12 criteria.

Another important point to remember is that Labbayk never performed in Kuwait.
Masum is the lead singer of Labbayk, just like Bon Jovi.
The BBC Radio 4 coverage is important because it shows how ISIS (Daesh) and other extremists used the music of Labbayk, as well as the music of other groups, in their propaganda materials without ever paying any royalties and in complete violation of the copyright. --Liberty Pedia (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete I spent some time evaluating notability of the subject. I have this gut feeling that they should be notable. The problem is, this gut feeling is not backed by any evidence. I cannot say Labbayk clearly pass any of the WP:BAND criterion; while they come very close to passing some of them. If deleted, which is more likely outcome, please also protect, so that next time we see this article is recreated again, that happens through AfC. --nafSadh ^{did say}

If one reads the article thoroughly and checks all the references, as well as the websites and links that the references lead to thoroughly, then one will come to the conclusion that this band meets multiple criteria of WP:BAND and Labbayk only needs to meet one of the 12 WP:BAND criteria. As the discussion for deletion above shows, this article should not be deleted. Instead it should be expanded and improved. --Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is after doing exactly that. The thing is, it doesn't pass any of those 12 criteria. Only you are saying it passes few of them, other editors disagrees. My gut feeling is to keep, but reasoning says delete. --nafSadh ^{did say} 15:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens to the band, the albums need to go: delete the albums for lack of coverage (and for being spamlink reservoirs). Drmies (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 4 albums and the band. Problem is that the sources are largely from non-notable publications and are often promoting an event, not discussing the band in a significant way. Even the few better sourced, such as Kuwait News Agency, mentions the band in an article about a topic: Muslims in Switzerland rise up against islamophobia. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:BAND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is independent, significant coverage of this topic, see the book that was added, for example. Leo1pard (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo1pard: You didn't add any content to Labbayk when you added the "independent book" as a source. Have you read the book? Can you provide a relevant quote from it?

When evaluating the reliability of a book, the guidelines tell us to consider three things: the book itself, the publisher, and the author. No library in the world seems to hold a copy of the book. This often means that professional librarians do not regard it as a reputable source. The only listing I see for it is on Amazon,[26] where no publisher or year of publication is identified. It's a print-on-demand book, which often indicates a self-published source. The author, Russell Jesse, is not an acknowledged expert on British Bangladeshi bands, Islamic music, or anything else. If we examine what else he has authored on Amazon, we find Clenbuterol,[27] Samsung SGH-D600,[28] Vaimanika Shastra,[29] and many other diverse titles. These examples are published by Bookvika Publishing, which according to this complaint merely copies and pastes from Wikipedia. If the same is true of his Labbayk Nasheeds title, then it's a circular source, and not reliable at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You mean this book, with the publisher "Book on Demand Pod" (POD = Print on Demand) - a WP:SPS which seems unavailable for sale (at least online)? That would not account for independent reliable coverage (if this book exists at all - it might just be a reserved ISBN). @Leo1pard: - do you have a copy of this book on hand? Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce and Icewhiz: I don't have the copy on hand, but I know that this isn't the only link for the book that I've seen. Another one exhibits details like the date being January 2013. Leo1pard (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a copy on hand (and haven't verified the contents, reliability, or even existence) - you shouldn't be citing it. Beyond being self published (clear from the named publisher - "Book on Demand Pod") - there's a good chance (since it seems impossible to actually purchase this, isn't on google books, lack of other on-line content around this book) - this is just a reserved ISBN. Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

books that cannot be found, whether self-published, or produced by a group or organization, are not reliable sources or useful to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a source you haven't examined is risky, one might go so far as to say foolhardy. There are strong indications that the "book" is merely a copy of Wikipedia (the date of January 2013, which you don't say where you saw, is consistent with this, as the Labbayk deleted in October 2013 was created in June 2012). We can't say for certain because no one has seen the book. It may, as Icewhiz suggests, never have been printed. Or it could be about nasheeds that mention Labbayk or other Hajj-related terms, and nothing at all to do with the British band. I encourage you to reconsider your keep recommendation. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:23, 22 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 delete. Tone 20:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqra Promotions

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources in the article are their about page (archived from the defunct website), and 3 items from Burngreave Messenger (a very local source) which detail upcoming/past music events they organized in Sheffield. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete A record label that didn't make it. It did get a little coverage in the local paper, the Burngreave Messenger, but nothing beyond that. company website listed on page is a deadlink.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find any substantive coverage of this topic in reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 22 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 delete. Tone 20:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Akhtar

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO (and GNG). Seems to be sourced from his homepage. The additional source in the article - the Burngreave Bessenger (RS?) has him in a list mention - "Nasheeds (Islamic music) were heard from Wajid Akhtar plus his debut single, soon to be released. Sheffield group, Ahmad Daud, and Asad from Fir Vale also performed.". In my BEFORE I was not able to find much else. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've run some searches but cannot find anything on him, appears to have been a would-be professional singer who didn't make it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 17 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M P Chaudhary

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

Apparently non-notable mathematician, highest citation on Scholar is 14. Article is an autobiography, most of it unsourced, and some of it apparently not without an element of fantasy: he claims to have been the "Albert Einstein Chair Professor of Mathematical Sciences", but the only hits on Google for that position (or variants thereof) relate to this person. Of course, if he holds or has held a named professorship, that would be an automatic pass of WP:NPROF. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims that he is a "Fellow of [the] International Academy of Bisosciences [sic]". This organization doesn't even seem to have a website any more, but going to the Wayback Machine finds what looks to be a list of journals they published. These were then subsumed by Nexus Academic Publishers, a probable predatory company. So, don't be fooled. Also, the opening sentence is a copyvio of his website ("working on Number Theory, especially the fields of interest to Srinivasa Ramanujan"). And those 14 citations on Google Scholar? He's coauthor on all of them. He appears to be the same M. P. Chaudhary who co-authored "On identification of the nature of triangle by new approach" (no, just read it), since both its acknowledgements and his website mention a stay at Julius-Maximilians-Universitat, Wurzburg in 2014. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the failure of academic notability there's a more basic failure of verifiability. The "International Scientific Research and Welfare Organization" listed here as his affiliation doesn't seem to exist separately from him, the second organization, the "Centre for Mathematical Sciences", is a deadlink from 2008, and its archived copy doesn't mention Chaudhary. It is difficult not to conclude (also from the interesting piece of writing linked above) that much of this is simply made up. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication that WP:GNG is met and I don't see anything to convince me that WP:NPROF is met. Lots of puffery, vague statements (e.g., "visited...prestigious universities"), and the problems already mentioned in previous comments all lead me to the same conclusion--there's no independent verifiable evidence than any notability criteria is met. Papaursa (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. As mentioned above, apart from the lack of notability, there are also significant WP:V issues here. E.g. the lead says that ``He has authored more than 150 research papers and 35 books and monographs". MathSciNet only lists 33 publications by the subject (with the grand total of 1 citation). MathSciNet indexes almost everything published in mathematics, so it is hard to imagine that they would have missed over a 100 publications by the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because of the nature of the field, the expected citation numbers for notable mathematicians are lower than in biomedicine, but he does not meet even the most minimal standard. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 16 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pillus

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

I have found no evidence that this type of pasta is exists, an unreferenced tag was placed almost a decade ago on this page, however since then no one has been able to find a source that verifies this pasta type exists. A notability tag was placed around two years ago and yet no one has been able to find information about this topic. Links to Wikibooks and Wikimedia turn up nothing; no information can be found of this presumably non-existent pasta. Something important to note is that this page was created by User:Starzynka, who was blocked indefinitely. One look on this users talk page reveals he has had approximately 450 of his created pages deleted or speedy deleted, primarily due to them being poorly written stubs which violated WP:V and WP:N. I believe Pillus is just another one of these pages, and should've been deleted a long time ago. Despite this, there may be a source somewhere, however this page would most likely still violate WP:N. RussianAfroMan (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look in Encyclopedia of Pasta or numerous other books? Keep. SpinningSpark 14:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yummy
Weak Delete Just because the form of pasta exists, doesn't necessarily make it article-worthy. If there's no coverage or mention of the pasta in reliable sources - if all we can produce about it are mere sentences - it probably doesn't warrant an article. Amenable to having my mind changed if more mentions of it could be found. Flip^and Flopped ツ 15:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the new sources added, looks better. Weak keep Flip^and Flopped ツ 19:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flipandflopped: I've added four sources to the article and eight encyclopaedic facts. Besides the sources I've added, this book, La cucina sarda di mare, describes twelve different pillus recipes. It is clearly an important part of Sardinian cuisine. SpinningSpark 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of the added material. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 16 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry Tayle

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

Non-notable artist, not much coverage online. aNode (discuss) 13:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:52, 23 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 speedy keep. Nomination is plainly incorrect and poorly reasoned, and we have a sowball of unanimous keep votes, so this can just be closed right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales Foundation

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

Not famous organisation. It is not passing guidelines. Jackfield1122 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)— Jackfield1122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jackfield1122 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Blocked Sock--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of major media references. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above has coverage from major media outlets.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:59, 8 October 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 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the subject is notable, and has been covered in reliable sources. Thanks, Knightrises10 talk 13:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Jerusalem Post and The Huffington Post that are already in the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This foundation has got attention from reliable independent sources and thus satisfies WP:ORGIN.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:15, 8 October 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. Sandstein 08:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Tariq Saigol

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

Unelected MP, and an interim cabinet minister. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Caretaker_cabinet_members, I don't think interim cabinet minister are something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless pass GNG.

Subject also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG as well Saqib (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unelected MPs are not considered notable, unless they have received coverage from reliable news sources. The subjects hasn't received that, and therefore is not notable. Regards, Knightrises10 talk 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While strictly speaking the notability test for a politician is the holding of a notable office rather than the question of whether he was elected or appointed to it, I have to agree that "caretaker" ministers, generally civil servants who held the office solely by virtue of being the top person in the line of succession between the end of the previous holder's term and the appointment or election of the official new permanent holder, are not entitled to the same automatic presumption of notability that a regular cabinet minister would get. If he could be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, then things would be different — but the mere inclusion of his name in a list of all the caretaker ministers who took office at the same time is not enough sourcing to deem him notable all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) JC7V-constructive zone 17:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 IAAF World Cross Country Championships

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

WP:TOOSOON. This events is 6 months away and full of red links. Not likely to have any additional information until March of next year. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment if the timetable is already published then maybe not too soon? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We know it's going to happen and it will be a major event. Perhaps the available content doesn't really justify an article yet, but I don't see a major problem with leaving it to develop. --Michig (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree with Michig. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - an upcoming (notable) event that is likely to take place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above reasons, a scheduled notable world championships event. It has an Official website and an internet search overwrites WP:TOOSOON as it already shows enough secondary sources for the article to exist (insidethegames.biz, Fast Running, The Copenhagen Post newspaper, Business Standard to name a few). 94.208.106.53 (talk) 17:02, 10 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 no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has emerged herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapali Jewels

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

Fails WP:NCORP.Certainly quite popular among-st celebrities but I can't care less. ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strictly promotional article. Rogermx (talk) 16:11, 24 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 12:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP. Callmemirela  ^talk 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. The promo issues have been fixed and reliable sources have been added. The Jewellery brand has stores in India, Pakistan, New York and London. The brand has in depth coverage across several mainstream newspapers such as Express Tribune, The Week UK, Daily News and Analysis, Outlook (magazine) and other sites.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] The brand also operates a museum of Indian jewellery in Jaipur.^[6]^[7] --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "DNA Mumbai Anniversary: Indulgence is now on a roll". 28 July 2018.
^ "Amrapali opens first store in Pakistan - The Express Tribune". Express Tribune. 4 December 2015.
^ "Tarang Arora: The story of Amrapali". The Week Portfolio.
^ "Amrapali launches 'Baahubali' jewelry at Hyderabad store". financialexpress. 28 April 2017.
^ "Tarang Arora on history and journey of Amrapali Jewels : Luxury Market: Business Today". www.businesstoday.in.
^ "Amrapali Museum Pays Tribute to its Heritage". Outlook. Retrieved 1 October 2018.
^ "This beloved Indian jewellery brand is opening a museum in Jaipur". 19 January 2018.

GNG is irrelevant, as to those entities that need to pass WP:NCORP.I guess the difference between NCORP and other SNGs are self-evident, as to the absence of certain phrases in NCORP:-)
We need intellectually independent reporting rather than verbatim statements that stems out from the mouth of the folks at helm.Fails WP:ORGIND.
Hardly any significant coverage about the company and covers the launching of a store.Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.
This fails both ORGIND and ORGDEPTH.Much of the statements about the company is sourced to the chief of their distribution-partner.Also colorful puffery like two young graduates with a passion for ancient history and a vision for re-introducing long forgotten jewellery designs and manufacturing techniques to the world hardly convince me any.
This is the sole one of some significance but the article is about a museum owned by the jewelry company.I fail to see how can it contribute to establish notability about the company-itself.

Best,∯WBG^converse 16:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addition to my Keep vote above, here are more in-depth sources from New York Times, calling it one of India’s largest jewelry houses^[1] The Hindu,^[2] Outlook (magazine)^[3] Livemint^[4] ^[5] Deccan Chronicle^[6] New Indian Express^[7]^[8]--DBig Xrayᗙ 17:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, an article on the museum is probably most-merited, than an article on the entire brand:-) ∯WBG^converse 03:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "In Homage to India's Jewel Culture". New York Times.
^ Stephen, Rosella (11 December 2017). "Amrapali Museum to open next January in Jaipur". The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com.
^ Business, Outlook. "Star Jeweller - Amrapali Jewels". Outlook. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Chhibber, Vatsala (23 February 2018). "Fancy a ruby-studded back scratcher?". Livemint.
^ "Jewels from a museum". Livemint. 25 March 2018.
^ "Treasures from the past". Deccan Chronicle. 1 April 2018.
^ "A home for heritage". New Indian Express.
^ "The 10 pieces you need to see at Jaipur's Amrapali Museum". 1 March 2018.

The wide coverage of the one of India’s largest jewelry houses e.g. [30] that spans a period of 40 years and makes this brand article a notable one, obviously merits its own article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGIND. ∯WBG^converse 12:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New york times is not a SPS, none of the sources listed above are WP:SPS, all are independent with coverage of the subject in great detail following WP:SIGCOV. --DBig Xrayᗙ 00:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep !voters above do not appear to be fully familiar with the criteria for establishing notability. References should always be from reliable sources and must be intellectually independent. None of the sources mentioned pass WP:ORGIND as they are either based on company announcements or rely on quotations/interviews.

For example, the author of the Financial Express article shows that it is a syndicated piece from the Indo-Asian News Service with no named journalist - therefore arguably fails as a reliable source. The exact same article is also published by the Business Standard, Yahoo and lots of others. The first sentence says at its store here which indicates the article is based on the launch/company announcement and is therefore classified as "dependent coverage". Furthermore, a variant is published by Ind Today which includes much of the shorter article published by the Financial Express. It is noteworthy that from this longer article, we can see that the article (which also has no author) includes additional information including quotations from the co-founder. From WP:ORGIND, 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. Clearly, these articles are not intellectually independent and fails ORGIND.
As another example, the Tribune article is based on a relatively straight-forward corporate event - the opening of a new store - with phrases such as "Amrapali Jewels, a brand whose legacy precedes it"; "have been working tirelessly" to get the store in Pakistan for the past three years" and "With the price range falling between Rs2,500 and Rs300,000, Amrapali offers a versatile range that can be donned with western and eastern outfits." Most telling is that the store opening was also covered by diamondworld.net (different "author") and contains a summarized version of the exact same information. Amazingly it also uses the exact same phrases! Clearly, this is not "intellectually independent" and was produced in conjunction with the company - hence the exact same phrases turning up in "different" publications.

Therefore references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lucas, Andrew; Bhatt, Nirupa; Singhania, Manoj; Sachdeva, Kashish; Hsu, Tao; Padua, Pedro (Winter 2016). "Jaipur, India: The Global Gem and Jewelry Power of the Pink City". Gems & Gemology. Vol. 52, no. 4. Gemological Institute of America. pp. 356–358. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  This is a 1,181-word profile of Amrapali Jewels.
  The article notes:
  
  Amrapali Jewels. Unlike other Jaipur companies that date back to the 1700s, Amrapali Jewels was started in 1978 by two entrepreneurial history students, Rajiv Arora and Rajesh Ajmera. Both men wanted to start a business that incorporated Indian culture and history, which they found could be expressed through jewelry. They started the business with no long-term business model, just a few hundred rupees in their pockets and a passion.
  The two traveled to remote villages in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Orissa and sought out one-of-a-kind tribal jewelry to recreate in their vision. These pieces could be purchased in secondhand stores and pawnshops for very little money, often just 10% over the metal value. Much of the jewelry they created contained compo- nents of the original piece. After purchasing a necklace with 24 drop pendants, they would turn the piece into 12 earring pairs and sell to 12 customers rather than one. By following this strategy they were able to get more customers and higher profit margins. (Indeed, one of the history student founders was also a business school graduate.) Their original store in Jaipur, a 150- square-foot shop at the end of a quiet street, was the least expensive place they could find. At first the two partners made everything by hand. In 1981 they hired a craftsman, and that was the start of growing the business.
  Amrapali brought the tribal motif into the realm of high-end fashionable jewelry, attracting Bollywood celebrities and other sophisticated customers. The first Mumbai store, opened at the end of the 1980s, was in an upscale shopping area that catered to a trendsetting clientele. The brand name Amrapali be- came synonymous with this tribal designer look. The jewelry styles remained closely related to those of each individual tribe’s unique design elements but also reflected Amrapali’s own influences. One example, the Panna collection, features carved emeralds in floral designs (figure 32).
  Along with the flagship store on Mirza Ismail Road, which is considered the Fifth Avenue of Jaipur, stores were also opened in Delhi and Bangalore, and franchises were formed. Amrapali’s growing e-commerce business is designed to reach the consumer globally and directly. The export business also began growing due to strong international interest in the tribal-inspired designs. By 2002 these collections were available in Selfridges, an upscale department store in London (Kaushik, 2014). Amrapali is now sold in Harrods of London and in retail stores other than the brand’s own. There are 36 global retail outlets, 28 of them in India and eight outside the coun- try, with an office in New York City. In addition to its own products, the company manufactures jewelry for other brands.
2. Taknet, DJ (2013). Grover, Razia; Bhardwaj, Nandita; Arora, Monica (eds.). Jaipur: Gem of India. Jaipur: International Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship. ISBN 978-1-942322-05-4. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The book notes:
  
  For jewellery aficionados across the world, Amrapali is not only an ornament brand but also a cult that has revolutionised the world of beauty and glamour. Ethnic yet contemporary, modern yet classic, delicately crafted jewellery from the house of Amrapali has made Jaipur a centre-stage of fashion. Since its inception in 1978, Amrapali has won a fan club of international celebrities like Paris Hilton, Queen Latifah, Queen of Bhutan Ashi Wangchuck and Israeli president Shimon Peres. For several famous families like Hermes, Corum, Porche and Barbie-Muller, Amrapali has been a frequent and valuable jeweller, whom clients visit again and again. Amrapali has also caught the imagination of glamorous stars of Hollywood and Bollywood. It won the proffered jewellery brand endorsed by international celebrities for the Academy Awards' Red Carpet, in 2010. It is the only Indian jewellery house to present its collection in the Fashion Weeks of Milan and New York. Leading stores like Juicy Couture, John Lewis, Banana Republic, Cost Plus, World Market and many more stock its unique pieces. Amrapali is the first Indian jewellery brand, which is also available at Harrods.
3. de Bruyn, Pippa; Venkatraman, Niloufer; Bain, Keith (2006). Frommer's India (2 ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 396–397. ISBN 978-0-7645-9899-9. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The book notes:
  
  In 1980, two young entrepreneurs, Rajesh Ajmera and Rajiv Arora, saw a gap in the market and started adapting traditional jewelry styles to appeal to a broader international market. Conveniently situated near Panch Batti and the city gate that leads into Jauhri Bazaar, Amrapali is famous for its tribal silver jewelry, but the gold showroom also contains some rare examples of kundan jewelry, a technique in which each gem is set by pressing fine strips of highly purified gold around it. Depending on how much you spend, you may be able to negotiate a discount.
4. Moore, Booth (2017). Where Stylists Shop: The Fashion Insider's Ultimate Guide. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 365. ISBN 978-1-68245-032-1. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The book notes:
  
  One of India's most well-known jewelry brands, Amrapali was founded in 1978 by Rajesh Ajmera and Rajiv Arora. The brand is influenced by the country's varied cultural traditions, as interpreted by 1,200 craftsmen. Amrapali jewelry is available in more than 36 outlets. You can find everything from a pair of gold-plate floral jaali hoop earrings for less than $50 to a multicolored sapphire bangle for $10,000.
5. Sebastian, Sunny (2012-05-14). "Pink City jewellery brand Amrapali nominated for international award". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The article notes:
  
  The Pink City's own jewellery brand Amrapali has been nominated for the prestigious Andrea Palladio International Jewellery Awards. The brand is nominated in the category of the Best International Jewellery Brand Collection, which places it along with the big names in world jewellery such as Tiffany & Co, Brumani, H. Stern and Van Cleef & Arpels.
  The Andrea Palladio International Jewellery Awards are instituted by the Fiera di Vicenza.
  Amrapali Jewels, started by Rajeev Arora and Rajesh Ajmera in 1978, has also been invited to the “red carpet” with other guests at the gala evening to be held in Venice on May 19 with a private viewing of the “Diane Vreeland after Diane Vreeland” Exhibition at Palazzo Fortuny, followed by an exclusive dinner at La Fenice Theatre.
6. Apcar, Camilla (2016-01-17). "The house built on 400 rupees". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Tarang Arora has not been sleeping well, yet the cause of his restless nights is not the stress from his job as chief executive and creative director of the Jaipur-based fine jeweller Amrapali. On the contrary, it is the rather welcome one of the birth of his first child, a boy.
  For a family-owned jeweller — Amrapali was founded in 1978 by Mr Arora’s father, Rajiv, and his friend, Rajesh Ajmera — this is significant news. Will Mr Arora’s son eventually take over from his father? “I hope so — let’s see what he would like to do,” says Mr Arora.
  Mr Arora’s father and Mr Ajmera began the company with 400 rupees in their pockets — in today’s values about £4. Fascinated by antiques and history, the pair bought a second-hand car and travelled India’s states, from Rajhastan to Gujarat, buying jewellery from small village pawn shops and discovering the traditions and craftsmanship of different local styles.
  They amassed more than 2,500 pieces of antique jewellery, particularly silver traditional designs. Mr Arora says that in his father’s hands, one necklace might then be transformed into a dozen earrings. “It was entrepreneurship at a very initial stage,” he says. Today that process has been reversed — every day the brand is offered jewels and antiques from all over India.
7. Sissons, Jemima (2013-11-14). "Amrapali: By the Light of the Silvery Moon". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The article notes:
  
  WHEN RAJIV ARORA and Rajesh Ajmera were starting Amrapali, their luxury Indian jewelry brand, more than 30 years ago, in their spare time they would travel throughout India, buying up stunning one-off pieces from remote villages and tribal markets. They are now setting up a museum in Jaipur to showcase some of their most exceptional finds, offering a unique insight into the jewelry and ornaments worn by the tribespeople of rural India.
8. Marwaha, Aastika (2018-01-19). "This beloved Indian jewellery brand is opening a museum in Jaipur". Vogue India. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The article notes:
  
  The Pink City has a new addition to its already impressive list of gems. Founders of Jaipur-based jewellery house Amrapali Jewels, Rajiv Arora and Rajesh Ajmera, are all set to throw open the doors to the Amrapali Museum of Jewellery, a 6,500sqft space which will house a mix of rare jewellery and other collectibles painstakingly curated over four decades.
  For Arora and Ajmera, the passion for collecting jewellery dates back to as long ago as their college years and it was this passion that lead them to open the museum. At the sprawling space, expect to find everything from fine jewellery to silver antiques and exquisite curios. Think rosewater sprinklers, plates, tea sets, ornate shoe covers and even an extravagant silver-covered chariot. What’s more? At the gift shop, visitors can get their hands on vintage silver pieces, much like the ones on display.
9. Liu, Ming (2017-03-24). "In Homage to India's Jewel Culture". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The article notes:
  
  For Rajiv Arora and Rajesh Ajmera, founders of Amrapali, one of India’s largest jewelry houses, their country’s heritage has not only influenced their modern designs, it also has led to the creation of a museum.
  Traveling the subcontinent as history graduates in the early 1980s, Mr. Arora and Mr. Ajmera were inspired to create a contemporary jewelry brand after discovering for themselves India’s rich heritage in the decorative arts. Over the next 35 years, they amassed some 3,000 examples: from 500-year-old “rural village” creations, Mr. Arora said, to contemporary designs like a circa-1960 silver, gold and glass Araipatta waist band.
  Their collection now will be housed in a 6,500-square-foot space, an annex to Amrapali’s corporate headquarters in Jaipur, scheduled to open next month. They say it will be the first museum of its kind in India’s gem capital.
10. Agarwal, Preeta (2012-07-17). "Stars the world over shine in Amrapali". The Jewellery Editor. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Started in 1978 in Jaipur by two young post graduates of Ancient Indian History and Culture Amrapali is now well recognised as the epitome of handcrafted Indian jewellery. Owners of a great collection of Tribal & Ethnic Silver Mr. Rajesh Ajmera and Mr. Rajiv Arora lay the foundation of their company by collecting old pieces from remote interiors of India. They used elements of Ethnic Indians Jewellery in their designs and revived the traditional methods to incorporate in their pieces, creating a design language distinct to Amrapali. Each one is a handcrafted one-of-a-kind piece destined to be treasured.
  ...
  Amrapali was introduced to international market by making its benchmark at a high-end department store Selfridges in London and presently at Harrods. It was the only Indian Jewellery House that was also Official Jewellery Sponsors for the Milan Fashion Week 2003. Today, they have over 25 selling points within India in various formats such as exclusive outlets, shop in shop and showrooms in various famous forts of India. They also have a presence in UK, USA, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Spain. With such success it comes as no surprise to see that Amrapali has created a fan club, with American businesswoman & socialite Paris Hilton, Queen Latifah, Maharani Padmini Devi and Princess Diya of the Jaipur Royal family, Mr. & Mrs. Ram Goolam (PM Mauritius), Queen of Bhutan Ashi Wangchuck, Israel President Shimon Peres. Known families like Hermes, Corum, Porche, and Barbie-Muller are also on the list.
11. Mubarak, Salva (2017-02-23). "10 jewellery stores to check out the next time you're shopping online". Elle. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Amrapali. Mumbai-based designer Nitya Arora founded her label Valliyan in 2008, creating a distinct theatrical style that is now associated with her brand. Arora calls herself a 'mad scientist' when it comes to experimenting with designs and nothing is off-limits. She believes that the country is slowly realizing that jewellery can be more than just an investment and that has contributed to the sudden growth in fashion jewellery in the market. This 'mad' exploration of designs and materials often result in pieces that cannot be replicated, so you have a good chance of ending up with a one-of-its-kind Valliyan piece. Don't miss out on the famous shoulder dusters and large hoops on her website.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amrapali Jewels to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Cunard please stop posting these overly long posts. Your style of linking is great and appreciated but there's no need for you to include so much text. A one or two line summary is far better. Also, please take a read of WP:ORGIND - in particular what "independent" means. You appear to not understand the meaning of "intellectually independent" as most of your links (on AfDs related to organizations) fail this test - Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). 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. Also, you appear to deliberately ignore parts of articles that categorically state they are based on sources affiliated with the subject and omit quotations/interviews from your selections in an attempt to make the article appear intellectually independent.

This article "Jaipur, India: The Global Gem and Jewelry Power of the Pink City" states at the beginning Many of these were family businesses, and we were able to interview multiple generations in preparing case studies. The authors conducted numerous interviews with their ownership, management, and production crews and collected over 80 hours of video and more than 10,000 photos. The profile of Amrapali Jewels is a copy-and-paste of nearly every other article on the company including their history, their style, their market and customers, their prices. All photos are "courtesy of Amrapali". This is pure churnalism and fails WP:ORGIND.
This book "Jaipur: Gem of India" does a small profile piece on a number of "Contemporary Design Houses" in Jaipur and lists 22 firms. The tone of the article is purely promotional and your extract clearly demonstrates and not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also provides no corporate details and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The Frommers book is also not intellectually independent and is little more than a travel directory listing hotels and shops. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
"Where Stylists Shop: The Fashion Insider's Ultimate Guide" is also simply a travel/shopping directory. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The article "Pink City jewellery brand Amrapali nominated for international award" is based on an announcement that the company was nominated for an award (which they didn't win). It is not intellectually independent as it contains no original information clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject and fails WP:ORGIND. Since it is based on an announcement by an affiliated source (and also contains no corporate information) it fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The FT article "The house build on 400 rupees"] is clearly based on an interview with the CEO, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. If you had familiarised yourself with ORGIND as asked countless times, you would have known this already.
The WSJ article "Amrapali: By the Light of the Silvery Moon" has very little to do with the company as it focuses on the opening of a museum. It is also based on a company announcement. Fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
The Vogue article fails for the same reasons.
The NYT article fails for the same reasons.
The article in The Jewellery Editor is churnalism and entirely promotional. The source is also a small niche online publication. There is nothing here that indicates anything original or independent.
The Elle article "10 jewellery stores to check out the next time you're shopping online" is simply another online shopping directory and contains no corporate information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Overwhelmingly, the articles are promotional, all contain the same style of opening referring to the two founders, most are entirely promotional with no indications of any original and independent content, just a regurgitation of the brand message. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1,181-word profile of Amrapali Jewels from the peer-reviewed journal Gems & Gemology is not "pure churnalism". It is a well-researched overview of Amrapali's history and business. No other sources I've found go into as much detail and research as this profile so it is not "a copy-and-paste of nearly every other article on the company". There is independent analysis in the article about Amrapali and the economy. An example:
With the challenging global economic conditions over the last several years, the international sales volume has actually increased through lower-priced pieces, including base metal fashion jewelry and silver jewelry, which is less expensive and easier to sell and often has a higher profit margin. Amrapali’s silver jewelry often contains lower-priced colored gemstones, and the base metal jewelry incorporates crystal and other imitations.
The Jaipur: Gem of India book source has a positive tone but it is an independently researched overview of the company. There is no evidence that the information is based on content from Amrapali. It does provide corporate details such as Amrapali was founded in 1978, its products are used by international celebrities including Paris Hilton, Queen Latifah, Queen of Bhutan Ashi Wangchuck and Israeli president Shimon Peres, it presented at Fashion Weeks of Milan and New York in 2010 and was the only Indian jewellery company to do so, and it is sold in the stores Juicy Couture, John Lewis, Banana Republic, Cost Plus, and World Market. There is enough information to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, which requires "mak[ing] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization".
Regarding the other sources, I disagree that interviews with company employees render the entire articles non-independent.
Cunard (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response It is difficult to look at the 1,181 word article as anything but pure churnalism. All the photos are "courtesy of Amrapali". The history "started in 1978 by two entrepreneurial students" is repeated in every other "article" on the company. Comments like "They started the business with no long-term business model, just a few hundred rupees in their pockets and a passion" is typical fairy-story poor-men-done-good promotion. If you read again the definition
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.
there is nothing in this article that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject. All of the "facts" undoubtedly are provided by Amrapali. The piece you highlight starting "With the challenging global economic conditions..." is not the start of the paragraph. It starts by saying "Fifteen years ago, 60% to 70% of Amrapali's business was in exports, but today that number represents the company's domestic sales". Now do you honestly think that Amrapali, a private company, threw open its accounting ledgers and allowed some journalists to make that calculations as an act of independent research? That's absurd. It is obvious that all the facts and figures were provided to the journalists. You concede that the book "has a positive tone" but it is far more than merely "positive", it is gushing. It's a PR piece, plain and simple, and every single fact, figure, projection, etc, was provided by the company for publication, along with photographs and prices. The article ends with the standard forward-looking "Amrapali believes that the market .... will continue to grow". This is not "intellectually independent" by any stretch of the imagination and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for further input regarding the third batch of sources provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple Independent sources showing WP:SIGCOV have been produced[31] to Justify the notabilty.--DBig Xrayᗙ 00:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Nothing in that article] meets WP:CORPDEPTH since 1) it isn't even about the company and 2) it is dicussing how the founders are opening a museum. Please note that notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fashion, and perhaps even more jewelry, is a subject area where a great deal of what is published is hype and coi, and if we are going to cover it at all we need to accept some degree of it. And it is also true that in these areas Indian news sources especially, tend to at least look like promotionalism . The nature of the sources we use needs to suit the subject. The basic idea behind WP:GNG and NCORP is whether RSs not given to hype publish about it, and they do, such as the NYT article which discusses the company, and the founder also, and the museum. (Personally I'd prefer more objective standards, but since the consensus is still to use mainly the GNG, we need to be realistic about it, not use every possible excuse to avoid covering a company. My comments at various afds have to some degree contributed to the tightening of the NCORP standard, but carrying it to this extent is absurd--perhaps we have over-reacted. ) (and the photos are of course all by courtesy of the firm--how could it be otherwise--these are proprietary designs!) DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 16 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 16:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Chiappe

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

There's no claim of notability other than her marriage to José Carlos Mariátegui. The only hit on a Bing search is a picture on Flickr - posted in the context of her husband. The source provided is about her husband with a passing mention of Chiappe (as Anita) in a footnote. Redirect to José Carlos Mariátegui. Cabayi (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found https://books.google.ca/books?id=_oQ4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA78 which appears to confirm that her role was a supporter, not so much a collaborator of Mariátegui, although it's more complicated than that. Her notability comes from her efforts to disseminate the work of her late husband, not her marriage. She is the recipient of a notable award, the Order of the Sun of Peru. --Vexations (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Was Chiappe awarded the medal or did she accept it on behalf of Mariátegui (see here)? if she is the recipient than she meets WP:ANYBIO. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept (about which I have no view), Merge to José Carlos Mariátegui rather than delete. Her notability seems to be derived from that of her husband, in keeping his archives and campaigning to preserve his memory. This could be dealt with in a new section of his article dealing with family and posterity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per articles in multiple publications. There are multiple blog hits on a DuckDuckGo search, and they reference multiple lengthy third-party sources. wumbolo ^^^ 10:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wumbolo. Passes GNG. Regards, Knightrises10 talk 11:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Found reliable sources and qualifies the notability WP:ANYBIO and she has received the award.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand why this was nommed (due to article state), however she is covered by multiple RSes per my BEFORE - numerous books as well as current news reporting. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 12 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 redirect to Operation Site Down. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centropy

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable movie piracy group. All sources in the article, and elsewhere that I've been able to find, simply mention this in a list of other similar groups caught in an FBI crackdown. This does not amount to substantial coverage. Reyk _YO! 12:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:35, 24 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 12:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of notability, but there may be a placet o redirect it to. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Site Down (with the history preserved under the redirect) where Centropy is already mentioned. DGG is correct that there is a place to redirect it. Centropy's sources include a Time article and a Computer & Internet Lawyer (ISSN 1531-4944) article. Retaining the history will be useful to allow for a merge of its material to Operation Site Down. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 16 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 keep. Consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music Is the Weapon

AfDs for this article:

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

This article invites additions of hoax and unsourced content and the album hasn't released yet after three years. In the previous AFD, an editor argued that sources such as [32][33][34][35] are sufficient for the article to pass the WP:GNG. However, these are just passing mentions about an unreleased Major Lazer album reportedly titled "Music Is the Weapon". These sources do not discuss the subject significantly or in-depth, which is required by the GNG. The content is better off merged into the band's article per WP:NALBUMS, which states "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography," and per WP:FUTUREALBUMS - "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." The track listing is still incomplete for this album and there is no confirmed release date. Flooded with them hundreds 07:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've got this in my watchlist: there's a bit of vandalism etc., but not much. For notability, rather than just looking at the four sources mentioned in the last AfD, just search for it in Google: this album has generated a lot of ongoing speculation in reliable music news sources (i.e. many articles just about the album, not just passing mentions), passing GNG, and I would agree with Sergecross73 from the last AfD that it's comparable to WP:FUTUREALBUMS' Chinese Democracy example (and note that the WP:FUTUREALBUMS quote mentioned above is prefixed by "generally", as well as the example I mentioned for high profile unreleased albums – the purpose of this guideline seems to be for cases where fans of a minor band start an article when there's nothing to say yet – the expansive coverage in this case makes me think it doesn't apply). The article is already beyond a stub, so WP:NALBUMS' "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography" is passed too. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my argument in the last AFD just a couple months ago. Entire articles dedicated to the subject by extremely high level sources like Billboard and MTV are enough to pass the WP:GNG. Much of the rest of the nomination is irrelevant - we don’t delete articles just because of the hypothetical concern of fake release dates (that’s something that happens in virtually every article about a commercial product, and it’s an invalid WP:NOTCLEANUP argument.) Additionally, it’s already expanded beyond a stub, so that concern isn’t relevant either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the first section, just the following paragraph has relevance to the album: Major Lazer revealed their fourth album would be called Music Is the Weapon... stated in an interview with Billboard: I shifted my goal to just make singles, because no one really buys our albums, leading the magazine to conclude that Music Is the Weapon may never be released and that Major Lazer will instead periodically release individual songs from the recording sessions.[8] Reports surfaced in January 2018 that the album would be released the following March,[9][10] but it remains unreleased as of September 2018. Most of the content is about alleged songs/singles from the album not the album itself. It's still stubby and could be better off in the band's article. Flooded with them hundreds 13:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Songs...discussed in the context of the album. And the albums almost 10k. “Stubby” is a reach. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still not about the album though. The fact there isn't sufficient content explicitly about the album itself, shows it doesn't satisfactorily meet the WP:GNG and WP:FUTUREALBUMS. Chinese Democracy, months before its release, already had a full non-stub article about the album, so it isn't a great comparison. Also, Major Lazer is just a small side project of Diplo, it's not as big as the Beatles or anything. I wouldn't call this a high-profile release. Flooded with them hundreds 10:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youre cherry-picking difs. Chinese Democracy existed as a stub years before the albums release. And again, this article is already expanded beyond a stub. And being an exact 1:1 comparison to Guns N Roses is not the goal - the point is that it’s getting very high level, dedicated, reliable source coverage, from a musician with a history of internationally charting material. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Major Lazer is just a small side project of Diplo"... woah, hang on there, Flooded with them hundreds - I don't think it's unreasonable to state that the name "Major Lazer" is far more recognised worldwide than Diplo's name, and he certainly hasn't had anything like the worldwide no. 1 successes of "Lean On" or "Light It Up" under his own name... I think it's disingenuous to suggest Major Lazer is just "a small side project". Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrated Comment - This discussion will go around in circles interminably, and I know because I was the nominator for the first AfD on this album. The problem is that Wikipedia policy does not acknowledge different types of "not yet released" albums, so arguments for both keeping and deleting this one can be backed up by policy. On multiple occasions I have suggested a new policy that differentiates a future album, with sources confirming that it will really be released on a certain date, from a conjectured album that has been discussed in the press but with no confirmation that it will actually be released, even if the artist or record company said that it has been cancelled or delayed indefinitely. Current Wikipedia policy considers all of these to be "future" albums, and my requests for something new and improved were met with the exact type of circular discussion that we have above. See this for example. Nobody is going to budge on this one. And by the way, I still think Music Is the Weapon should be deleted as something that does not and never will exist, but according to current policy it's notable because it has been discussed in the press. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that it is frustrating to be discussing this yet again. I'm not sure why the nominator felt this needed to be reopened again so quickly. Its only been a couple months since the last time we discussed it, and nothing has changed at all, in either the subject's status or Wikipedia guidelines on how to handle this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per this - "Genius has since taken down the album's release date and removed a number of the tracks from the page. Sources now say the information originally posted was inaccurate" shows that a number of reliable sources are retracting their articles because they were initially based on the Genius' report, which is now proven inaccurate. There is no good reason to keep this article which has been stubby with poor content for few years. I'm not seeing how this passes the WP:GNG because most of the sources are only passing mentions (i.e. the title of this album is Music Is the Weapon, the release date of Music Is the Weapon is unconfirmed). After cleaning up the article by removing content with iTunes sources, the article is just a single paragraph with an infobox. I don't see why this cannot be placed in the group's article. It only encourages fans to add unsourced content and unconfirmed tracks. Flooded with them hundreds 07:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're making a lot sweeping generalizations that aren't really reflective of reality here. Dedicated sources =/= passing mentions, and sources writing retractions/updates to their articles doesn't change the fact that the coverage happened. Additionally, information being retracted doesn't mean automatic deletion - retractions can be worth mentioning as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serge, you are a respected longtime colleague and you know what you're talking about with WP policies. But the nominator is not the only one making generalizations. If I read your comments correctly, you contend that any media comments on how the album won't be released are merely speculation. Well, media comments that it will be released are also speculation. What's the difference? The album's existence is pure speculation all the way, even in that Forbes article below. Therefore it does not exist and can be mentioned as a historical development at the artist's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're quite following what I was trying to convey. To clarify, as long as the content is reliably sourced and directly attributed to the reliable sources, I'm not particularly opposing any content's inclusion. I don't care if we have 20 reliable sources writing dedicated articles saying the album doesn't exist or will never release. They're still providing coverage that satisfies the WP:GNG. Perhaps you misunderstood my comments about handling retractions/updates? My point was, lets say a source reports something, then retracts it later. The nominator is proposing erasing any mention of it at all. I'm proposing tweaking the wording to "X was initially reported, but later clarified as false" or whatever prose one would use to capture what happened. It's not that I'm trying to capture one side of the story, but actually both sides, that it was both reported and then revised. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's another source written this year (showing its not only getting coverage, but sustained coverage over time), by Forbes, written by Hugh McIntyre a writer who has previously written for Billboard, MTV, Fuse, and a bunch of others - definitely a professional writer/journalist. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a running list of sources writing dedicated articles about the album, all sources from WP:RSMUSIC.

(2015) Exclaim
(2017) DJ Mag
(2018) Billboard
(2018) MTV
(2018) Forbes
(2018) Las Vegas Weekly Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for #5-6, this is the same list of sources used in the last AfD. The first four all predicted possible release dates for the album that have long since come and gone. The two newer articles merely ask the musician where the album is, perhaps missing the musician's own announcement months ago that it will never be released. They may be at reliable sources but they still have to do their research. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first four sources are what kept the article from being deleted in the first AFD, I did not mean to have it look otherwise, I was just starting up a running total, which wasn't present anywhere at this AFD. Your comments on the two new sources are irrelevant though - speculation on whether or not the reliable sources "did their research" doesn't affect notability discussions, nor is a release required for a subject to be notable. Its enough that these reliable sources wrote articles about the album. I'm not arguing for or against the probability of the album being released - its not the time or the place for that - I'm arguing it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ham-fisted about my removing of unsourced and poorly-written content that is blatant WP:BOMBARDMENT. The listed songs are singles but not off the album, thus do not belong in this article. Moreover, there are no confirmed track listing and release date, failing WP:FUTUREALBUM in which the exception "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" likely isn't for an album like this by a music group whose studio albums, mixtapes and EPs have never charted in the US top ten. There are a bunch of reliable sources but they only exist because the album is by Major Lazer not because the work is truly notable by itself. Let's not sabotage quality in favor of influencing the outcome of this AfD. Flooded with them hundreds 13:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much of it was very much so ham-fisted. Yes, there is no confirmed track listing, but there are many reliable sources that report the songs in relation to potentially being on the album. I don't care if you remove the iTunes sources or whatever, I'm not trying to pack the refs with junk like that. But hacking all the prose out of the article about the songs, when the sources mention them in the context of the album, is fundamentally wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks more like the iTunes sources were just there for release details more than anything, but it's fine, they can be easily replaced. Like this Rolling Stone source, which mentions its release in respect of being a potential track on the album. Thank you, sources like this are actually much better. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially being on the album ≠ being on the album! This is an encyclopedia not a fan site, it is ridiculous to include existing unrelated songs and call them singles from the album simply because some sources say they could be. If there's insufficient material solely about the album, content about possible songs in the context of the album is unnecessary and shouldn't be in the article per WP:PROPORTION. Unless sources call them singles from this particular album, they should be removed. The Rolling Stone piece was written in 2016, obviously outdated so it cannot be used to support the claim. Flooded with them hundreds 15:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources cover the songs in relation to the album (they do), then so do we. In theory, you can add things like "as of 2016" to the end of things if there are actual doubts about info being outdated, but the Forbes and a number of the other sources still make the claim in in 2017 (Rolling Stone - 2017) and 2018 (Complex - 2018, Idolator - 2018), so that wouldn't be appropriate when the only doubt appears to be your own personal speculation. Sources frequently and consistently associate them to the album, so their discussion in the article is fair game, provided the proper context is given. I've reworked the wording and added these new sources to better articulate this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Plea to Admins - As you can clearly see above, this discussion is not only interminable but it's also pitting brother against brother. What we have here is not just an unreleased album but also a blaring example of conflicting policies. For this album, WP policies support both deleting it and keeping it. But this is just one example of a growing trend, especially in rap/R&B, in which a so-called upcoming album is announced but then never happens for years and years. Here are just a few additional examples of the trend: The Baddest (Davido album), Fantasea II: The Second Wave, El Disco Duro, The One (Trina album), The Queen Is Here, Street King Immortal.

So should it actually have its own article as an "album" that exists, or simply be mentioned in the musician's biography as a project that got started but never finished? The answer is: "who the hell knows?" In the past I have called for some sort of policy solution to alleviate this disconnect, to no avail. Admins, please initiate a new policy discussion in the appropriate forum, and I will be there with bells on. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better sourced than most articles that have never seen an AfD, let alone two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems I need to be more clear for some editors. The article meets WP:GNG and so should be kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it’s worth, the article was recently updated with this source an interview released within the last month stating that the album is scheduled for 2019 now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely passes WP:MUSIC. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Pile-on from the music WikiProject. Flooded with them hundreds 05:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you’ve been told by multiple people that this nomination was a bad idea, and then you were the one who asked them for more input anyways. That’s what happens when you do that... Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on a basic level, this article passes WP:GNG. We cannot say at present that the album has definitely been shelved, and the recent source from Complex that Sergecross73 posted above would indicate that it is still planned for release, so it's still classified as a future album. But on a wider issue, I have to ask: would it matter even if the album never came out? Surely if it passes GNG with enough reliable sources discussing the record so that a decent Wikipedia article can be created, it's a valid article. Chinese Democracy has been mentioned above – imagine if after 14 years in the works, it had never been released... would we be suggesting that an article with more than 100 references should be merged into the band's article? And the most famous unreleased album of all has an article of more than 130 kB, and could well make GA with a little work – so we have a precedent for articles about unreleased albums. Sure, Music Is the Weapon isn't likely to be as famous or have an article as long and detailed as those two records. But if it's longer than a stub and it's well-referenced enough to pass WP:GNG (which it is), I don't see that it necessarily has to be released in order to have a Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:15, 15 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 redirect to FIDE#Commercial agreement with Agon. czar 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agon Limited

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

Fails WP:NORG eventually merge and redirect to World Chess Championship. Sources come nowhere near to showing that notability is met. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better merge/redirect target would be FIDE, which has a section providing significantly more detail than this article. The World Chess Championship currently does not seem to mention Agon. Eigenbra (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Eigenbra: for the suggestion looks like a better choice. Are you !voting merge and redirect? Dom from Paris (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing substantial in this article is missing from the FIDE article. So I vote redirect. Eigenbra (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seems to be a clear consensus to redirect to FIDE#Commercial_agreement_with_Agon. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Domdeparis above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 20 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 keep. Over whelming keep consensus. WP:SNOW keep close. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Pugh

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

Lack of significance through coverage which may not meet WP:RUGBY and WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Is this nomination someone’s idea of a joke? Pugh played several international rugby matches for a Tier 1 rugby nation, so he satisfies WP:NRU. And the article contains several citations to reliable sources, which satisfies WP:GNG. CUA 27 (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played international Rugby, clearly passes WP:NSPORT! Govvy (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. He meets point 1 of WP:NRU (though I agree that bit of notability guidance is slightly confusing) because he played for his senior national team. Sionk (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets notability criteria. Open and shut case.Skeene88 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above. I was very tempted to just WP:SNOW close this rather than express an opinion it's that clear. Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 12 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 delete. Sandstein 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Heatseekers

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

No notable tag team. The sources are WP:ROUTINE, no notable enough. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All coverage I am finding is WP:ROUTINE - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:17, 8 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 delete. Sandstein 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Empire

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

No notable tag team. The sources are WP:ROUTINE, no notable enough. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sourcing is WP:ROUTINE, fails WP:GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Does not meet WP:GNG and is WP:MILL PoliceSheep99 (talk) 19:52, 10 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 merge to Hannan Majid. Perhaps not strictly the consensus, but a reasonable middle ground which has attracted support from both sides of the argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Collective

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

Small production company, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Sources 3,4,5,6 are self-sourced (and a listing at DIGNItex). Source 1 is a local source covering a documentary they made. Source 2 is about the founders, not the organization. In my BEFORE I was able to find other Rainbow collectives, but not much else on this organization. Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Multitude of cursory mentions, although the best I could find is this [36]. Seems affected by the same problem as most film companies; people gladly write about the films they produce but the company itself attracts little media interest. Still, they are featured in media from UK, Spain, Cambodia, etc., so definitely it's not your local convenience store or cleaning company. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are cursory mentions, but the company must still meet WP:CORPDEPTH which the references fail to do. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does have some reliable sources coverage of regional rather than local nature Atlantic306 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To he precise - there are only 2 possible RSes cited. East End Review is approx. 50% about the company. The South African is about two specific films and not about the compant at all - just mentioning it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:24, 23 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 01:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional and fails WP:SPIP, I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. In response to the comment above, this article discusses the films and the film makers and provides no information at all on the company (the subject of this article) and since notability is not inherited, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The eastendreview reference appears to be an unreliable source. There is no "About Us" or equivalent on the website, no details about journalistic standards, etc, fails WP:RS. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 26 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 01:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the article is on a very authentic topic and qualifies wikipedia criteria for articles but need extra data and should be developed from this stub with proper reference,The topic is very relevant as it about DOCUMENTARIES on human and child rights issue wwhich can make very good impact on people in this growing world of media.Vinodbasker (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
Perhaps - but notability is based on coverage, which in this feel good enterprise does not exist (and feel good enterprises generally get covered) - this is an extremely small company. Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An option to consider is merge to Hannan Majid and redirect which I am happy to support. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a redirect to Hannan Majid (whose notability is borderline, but meeting NDIRECTOR is easier than NCORP). The company itself is essentially a 2-man company (Majid and Richard York) - and was created as part of a walled garden around Majid. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect -- Hannan Majid is notable and this subject is strongly tied to him. --nafSadh ^{did say} 18:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. All options are currently on the table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per HighKing and Nafsadh. Article as it stands is self-promotional and fails WP:GNG Flip^and Flopped ツ 00:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have no objection to a merge with Hannan Majid and delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to director Hannan Majid. The sources for the company article are very obscure and very thin, and are a subset of those for his biography. There really isn't any more to say about the company than what is already written about him. There are, however, a few additional pieces about him and his work that don't mention the company (or barely mention it) but could be used to expand his bio and cement his notability (they're referenced in his bio or in its further reading section). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with only a quick Googling I found 3 sources from The Guardian which each have significant coverage of the company. Also, 6 of their films have Wikipedia articles: Bafana (2006), AmaZulu: The Children of Heaven (2006), The Machinists (2010), Baghdad Holiday (2010), Tears in the Fabric (2014) and Mass E Bhat (2014). I have added various details and sources to the article and removed inappropriate YouTube and Google Calendar sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lopifalko: please provide sources that are in-depth and are on the company (and not products - films). As for the wiki articles on the films - they were all created by User:Tanbircdq (presently blocked, I've been reviewing the notability of their article creations) together on 1 Feburary 2015 as part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden around this article - which was created on the same date. As all articles were created by the same (indef blocked) user on the same date - their creation does not indicate notability. I will further note that meeting WP:NFILM is a much lower bar (due to the availability of movie reviews even for small film, and the guideline setting a lower bar) than meeting WP:NORG for a company. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Thank you for that additional info on the films. I thought that my sources did provide enough depth on the company; not a whole article on the subject, but not just a passing mention:

"This week, another UK event will focus on those left in poverty by Rana Plaza. Open Vizor, War on Want, Traid, and the Rainbow Collective will premiere a new documentary, Tears in the Fabric, to press more brands to pay up and sign the Bangladeshi safety accord. Film-maker Hannan Majid, of the Rainbow Collective, has spent years documenting the garment factories with co-director Richard York."
"One year on from the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh, social justice campaigners and film-makers the Rainbow Collective with Raising for Rana are premiering Tears in the Fabric, a 30-minute documentary focusing on the struggles of one family in the aftermath of the disaster. An open screening on Thursday 24 April at 8.30pm at Regent's University"
"In partnership with Rainbow Collective, they have made a series of citizen journalist films with Cambodian garment workers that are well worth a watch." -Lopifalko (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 guardian refs - you quote from above - are all passing mentions (two of them have other issues - one is a film screening event announcement, and the other is a product listing for Triad - both of which just mention Rainbow as the producer or being in cooperation with) - they clearly fail the significant requirement in WP:ORGCRIT. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 17 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 keep. Michig (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACC 50th Anniversary men's basketball team

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

This article contains one (1) source, which is an archived link to a press release from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Much of the text of the article appears to have been copied and pasted from that source. I see little in the way of secondary source data on the topic. This topic is not notable enough for its own Wikipedia page. I have, however, moved some of the information from the article to the Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball page. SunCrow (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created the article way back when I started on Wikipedia ten years ago. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I didn’t have much experience writing/sourcing article. I think the information has some historical value, but buy the argument that it doesn’t warrant a stand alone article. As an aside, I should have been notified as the article creator that this AfD was taking place. That would have been standard courtesy. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN, having "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The team was named in 2002, yet the group is still referenced years later in sources including MyFox8.com, 2018, The Herald Sun, 2017, The Daily Progress, 2017, and Complex, 2013. There is also mention in books (snippets included from Google Books) such as Blue Ribbon College Basketball Forecast. 2002. p. 80 ("The ACC celebrates its 50th anniversary next May, an event being commemorated in all sports through the 2002-03 school year. The basketball team, which was announced in mid-September, included a Hall of Fame lineup of players from ..."), Legends of N.C. State Basketball. 2015. ("Voters for the ACC's 50th anniversary basketball team had a tough task. The league has produced some of the most sensational players from some of the top teams in NCAA history."), Golden glory: the first 50 years of the ACC. 2002. p. 66 ("Heyman, a member ot the ACC's 50th anniversary team, averaged 25.1 points during his career.").—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources from Bagumba. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though I'm not opposed to a redirect (as the merge has been done) to Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball. Seems to be enough coverage for notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Still delete.~~Comment I have put all the information from this page onto the Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball page. I am glad someone found some sources; I couldn't. However, even though there are a few sources, I still don't believe a separate Wikipedia page is warranted. SunCrow (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You do not have to reiterate your Delete !vote, it is assumed since you nominated the page. These kinds of rebuttals should be labeled Comment or leave it unlabeled. Rikster2 (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, nominator SunCrow should generally not !vote delete again.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Undid copying I also removed the copying of the full text to Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball. It's against the spirit of an ongoing AfD, not to mention WP:COPYWITHIN was not followed.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bagumba. SportingFlyer talk 07:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per Bagumba. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:42, 21 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Professional Schools Foundation

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

(Note: searched on the Spanish name "Fundación Escuelas Profesionales de la Sagrada Familia") Fails WP:GNG, promo. Perhaps the individual schools are notable but not the umbrella organisation. The Banner talk 09:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:14, 17 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 01:37, 24 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 02:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:01, 8 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's Church, Navan

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

I can't find any sources that would indicate that this building or congregation would be of particular historical interest. The building is included on the Record of Protected Structures for Navan ([37], [38]), but so are 192 other buildings/sites, so it's not a particularly exclusive club. There are a lot of old buildings in Ireland; simple age does not necessarily translate to notability.

The citations in the article are mostly side notes or links to photos. The only one that might be considered reasonably reliable would be A History of the Diocese of Meath 1860-1993, although it's by the former Bishop of Meath, so in my opinion it's not a great indicator of notability as that's very local and not fully independent.

In any case, one source is hardly enough to sustain an article. I tried to look for more using permutations of "St Mary's+Navan+Catholic" but mostly found directory entries, which are not indicators of notability. It's admittedly a difficult search, in that there are lots of Catholic churches named St Mary's in Ireland (even in County Meath there are multiple) mucking up the search results. I'm happy to withdraw if people do locate sources, but I couldn't find anything substantial. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National heritage listed buildings are notable per WP:GEOFEAT. And this is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, the Irish National Inventory of Architectural Heritage lists every building in Ireland considered historical, not just national-level ones. Each building or site has a rating; the rating for St. Mary's is regional, not national, so GEOFEAT does not necessarily apply. Even if we accept "regional" as counting as "national", GEOFEAT ends that bullet point with and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable. Without verifiable information beyond simple statistics, the presumption of notability for the building does not apply. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The NIAH rates buildings as being of International, National, Regional or Local significance. The first three are effectively listed buildings in a national context. The Regional rating is similar to a Grade II listing in England and Wales, which we would certainly consider to meet GEOFEAT. "Regional" status certainly does not mean it is not a nationally listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as is a National heritage listed bulilding and has the significant book coverage but more sources would improve it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Atlantic306. Spleodrach (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, further sources (as well as an infobox and several photos) have been added, meets WP:NBUILD. Sam Sailor 11:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept, article should be moved to St. Mary's Church, Navan per WP:CHURCH. Sam Sailor 11:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This was never discussed and is never used in articles in Commonwealth or Irish English (except Canada). So no, it should remain where it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 16 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Safety Match

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG).----RTY9099 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 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 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a critical review from the notable Soviet Screen magazine. AveTory (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as Soviet Screen and press coverage, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film clearly marks an historic point in Soviet-era cinema. There is non-trivial coverage in Modernism in Kyiv. SpinningSpark 14:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film satisfies reliable source criteria thus fulfills WP:NFP and has got attention in media even years after its release.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:40, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AmaZulu: The Children of Heaven

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

Sources are a 2 paragraph description in an interview with the directors, dead links, the production company (Films for Food is a subsidiary), and dead links. Not much else found in BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources coverage including ref 6 which I fixed which is not an interview and is significant coverage in a reliable source South African Times, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two possible RSes are ref6 and ref7 - which seem PRish and are copies of eachother (suggesting a press release reprint) - regardless this is 2 paragraphs of coverage in a longer item - far from SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, particularly on the basis it was championed by the South African government and also won a Best Film award. The sourcing is weak (the South African and SA Times articles are identical) but recognition in Africa and Europe fits my definition of general notability. Sionk (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm not completely sold on the refs, but enough to not feel comfy about deletion either. Sorta a "ties go to the runner" deal. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:30, 5 October 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, wumbolo ^^^ 09:58, 8 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 keep. Tone 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirank.net

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)

an unremarkable website, the article has been created in multiple Wikipedias in the past week by same user or same ip address with same text and same references Mardetanha (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is proven by sources --31.0.43.182 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article contains references to reliable and scientific sources. Wikipedia has about 300 different language editions and rules do not prohibit the translation and transfer of the information to other language editions. Currently, the article has only about 20 language versions. For comparison, nominator user profile (Mardetanha) contains about 240 language versions and mostly without translation ;) --PolskaNauka (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multilinguality of the article cannot be a reason for deletion. For example, there are a lot of commercial products with over 20 (Tesla Model 3), 30 (Audi A4), 40 language versions (Ford Mustang). Only in 2010s automobiles category there are over 1000 articles, and a lot of them have various language versions. Unlike these and other products, wikirank.net is non-profit and research project. Its importance is proven by sources. --188.146.235.91 (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to closing admins, same user is voting to keep the article with different Ip adress Mardetanha (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the service is described in the scientific literature, recognized by educational institutions as a tool for quality assessment of Wikipedia, noted as an important finding in Wikimedia Research, and has been presented at international conferences several times. If necessary, I can add additional information to the article. --VeronikaAZ (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete many of the references aren't about this project but are to other academic papers in the field; it reeks of a deliberate attempt to pad notability of a project that does not have notability. The only mention I saw was one paper which mentions in passing that one of the authors is working on WikiRank. This is almost certainly created by a person with a WP:COI based on their creating this in 20 languages at once. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usage in academic papers isn't enough to establish notability; we need people writing about Wikirank. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usage as the primary method of research in multiple scientific papers is a justification for notability (but whether this is in other WP's is a very peripheral argument--except that that the notability standards of deWP are higher than ours, and this is unchallenged there. I trust themon topics like this. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:16, 16 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 merge to Municipal Art Society. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Center (art gallery)

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

Has no sources and has never had any since creation in 2005. A web search shows it to have closed and I do not see sources to support its notability. I recommend merge with Municipal Art Society. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge to Municipal Art Society. Five sources added; previously there were none. It obviously has a public profile. The help of a New Yorker would be appreciated, to determine the status of where it actually is and if it is still open! There. are mentions of a move int he NY times source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry my mistake in saying that it had closed, if it has. I have not yet found a web site for it. And prior to my removing the link form the article, it had two web sites in External Links, the "Official website" was Municipal Art Society, as well as "The Urban Center book store". It is The Urban Center book store that Google says is "permanently closed". -Lopifalko (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Municipal Art Society. The NYT article provides significant coverage, but sources found in searches and and those added to the article are mostly listings in guide books that do not quite provide significant coverage. Other sources also only provide mentions, rather than significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 30 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 delete. Tone 20:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Christopher Waddell

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches provide no independent, significant biographical coverage in reliable sources, just quotations from the subject, passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in article are not independent (Church News, Liahona, lds.org) or are trivial coverage of church announcements (Deseret News). Search finds the subject named or quoted briefly in routine coverage of ceremonial functions like handing over a donation check or opening a temple, or as a trivial mention in the context of covering a large event with many speakers and quotes. It's not significant coverage of this subject. While some LDS leaders are notable under WP:GNG, this one is not. Open to alternatives if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 15:55, 22 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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember this show, it was kind of made notable at the time because of Brett Goldin murder. If people feel this article isn't needed maybe a redirect to Brett Goldin's article. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not merit the independent article. Looking at the references, first is a primary one, and the third is not connected to the subject but to Brett Goldin instead (and WP:NOTINHERITED stands so Brett cannot make this notable by his death), none of which establish notability. I have cleaned up the blog reference that was used and IMDB one (not a reliable secondary source). Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible sources at all. Exploreandwrite (talk) 09:58, 26 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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean M. Davies

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches provide no independent, significant biographical coverage, just quotations from the subject about religious beliefs ([39]), quotations from the subject acting as a spokesperson ([40]) fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my 2014 statement at AFD1 "Weak delete I liken this to a professor with no mentions in the press other than websites from his own university. We need to know that he is considered a ntable person to the general public."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there are more than a few references to his actions in this role, though most are fairly minor: [41] [42]. The various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article. I think the role is prominent enough to justify a keep with this coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. power~enwiki's links have given me pause. I am leaning toward weak keep. But not sure yet. Den... (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a source analysis of the articles posted by power~enwiki above.

Source	Analysis
[43]	Consists of a name check and then all quotations from the subject, acting as a spokesperson. Being just about all quotations makes this a primary source, which does not establish notability. Furthermore, this article provides just about no biographical information about the subject.
[44]	An article about the subject attending an event and acting as a spokesperson, consisting mostly of quotations, making it primary in nature. This also provides basically no biographical information about the subject, and is just minor routine coverage about an event, rather than the subject.

A subject's role in a religious organization does not create presumed notability, because there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. What is needed is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Passing mentions and name checks are not significant coverage, and articles consisting mostly of quotations are primary sources. Furthermore, regarding the notion above of "the various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article", this is entirely backwards, because to qualify for an article, notability per Wikipedia's standards needs to exist, then an article should be created, rather than vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Northamerica. Convincing source analysis. Den... (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NA1000. Spam LDS. Refs have been analysed convincingly. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 30 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 speedy keep. (Nomination withdrawn). Since the subject was a member of the 1st Utah territorial legislature, he is presumed notable, per WP:POLITICIAN, which provides presumed notability (in part) for "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phinehas Richards

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches provide no independent, significant coverage, just fleeting passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of a territorial legislature he passes the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 12 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 speedy keep. (Nomination withdrawn). Since the subject was a member of the Utah Territorial Legislature, he is presumed notable, per WP:POLITICIAN, which provides presumed notability (in part) for "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horace S. Eldredge

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing quotations from the subject, passing mentions and name checks, and many available sources are primary, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of sources out there for this person, many of them are encyclopedic in nature and so he easily passes WP:BASIC. Note that there is some variation in the way his name is rendered – his middle name was Sunderlin. Andrew D. (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson: Could you provide links to any of those sources so I and others can assess them? My extensive WP:BEFORE searches did not provide independent sources that provide significant coverage. Your WP:LOTSOFSOURCES rationale does not actually prove any notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be part of a deletion spree of articles about Mormons and the nomination has a cookie cutter style. Per WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do source searches and explain why they are not satisfactory. My impression that the nominator is dismissing many substantial sources on the grounds that they are not independent. They should please detail and explain this rationale as I'm not buying it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson: All of my nominations regarding notability are WP:BEFORE-based, and I perform custom searches well beyond what WP:BEFORE suggests. So, again, could you please provide any links to the sources you find to be adequate, so they can be assessed? I searched extensively, and from what I found, the subject fails WP:BASIC. Also, my nomination is worded succinctly, but it is not a "cookie cutter" nomination whatsoever. The nomination is based upon research, which has not provided necessary coverage to qualify an article. For example, in the nomination I stated that my source searches are only providing quotations from the subject (which are primary sources), and passing mentions and name checks (these do not establish notability, because they do not provide significant coverage). Hopefully this describes my deletion rationale more clearly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator indicates that they have found lots of sources but considers them unsatisfactory. I also found lots of source and consider them satisfactory. The nominator now wants me to do work which they have not done themselves: listing the sources in question. Per WP:SAUCE and WP:CHOICE, the nominator should please do this work themself before making demands of others. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have it backwards, per WP:ONUS, which states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not buying it and my !vote stands. As there are hundreds of pages about Mormons, perhaps the nominator can help matters forward by explaining their general intentions. This particular page has been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and I suppose there are lots more like it. WP:BEFORE explains that "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag ..." Has any of this been done? How many Mormon articles is the nominator planning to send straight to AfD? What has occasioned this purge? Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Wikipedia is not about every person who walked the earth. Just so happens that there are many biographical articles about people that just don't meet notability standards, some ridiculously so. It's okay to nominate these for deletion; happens every day at AfD and via Prod. I could have prodded, but I felt that a full discussion would be more beneficial. Still waiting for those sources, and I don't mind being proven incorrect if sources usable to establish notability are provided, in which case I would then gladly withdraw. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to produce a list of sources until the nominator starts by producing the list of sources that he has reviewed. In the meantime, editors can start with the source linked in the article, which cites more sources, and then try the search links provided above, varying the keywords of the searches to include the full middle name "Sunderlin". Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the WP:ONUS is on you, not me: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's how it works, not vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After you, Claude... Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the last word. Oh, wait, this may be the last word. Anyway, regarding WP:ONUS, I'll buy that! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't some of these people of the Latter Day Saints be combined into one article? Govvy (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of the Utah Territorial Legislature he passes the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While [45] the Joseph Smith Paper's project listing someone does not inherently show they are notable, this publication of the Church Hisotrian's Press, a press that works to meet the general standards of academic respectability, is a reliable source for the information it provides on the people it lists. Thus, it is a reliable source for statements an individual was in a territorial legislature. Thus we have sufficient evidence to show that Eldredge is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 12 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 redirect to America's Got Talent (season 12)#Week 3. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Tam

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

Somehow like an advertisement, feel free to rewrite B dash (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America's Got Talent (season 12)#Week 3 Hyperbolick (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hyperbolick. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about artist specific notability guideline, but the subject seem passing WP:GNG for the news coverage in Chinese language article. the article itself looks like G11 material for citing many pirated video, hosted in youtube. Matthew hk (talk) 10:59, 30 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 delete. Sandstein 17:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Syberspace Social

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

Delete - Fails the mandatory criteria mentioned by WP:NALBUMS. Relying on store links that doesn't have any further information. There is no point in having this article separate from singer's article. Horizonlove (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike the other Sy Smith albums that were recently nominated for deletion, this one really does have problems. It appears to have been self-released by the singer and attached to all of the usual run-of-the-mill retail/streaming sites, but it received no significant coverage in reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:07, 12 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 no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete the article at this time, and editors preferring to keep the article have offered solutions to the problems raised by the nomination. bd2412 T 01:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict (Sy Smith album)

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

Delete - Fails the mandatory criteria mentioned by WP:NALBUMS. Relying on one source (Billboard) that doesn't all have much information about the article. There is no point in having this article separate from singer's article. Horizonlove (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources reviews such as Billboard, also Nu-Soul Magazine and Soultracks. To nominator please keep this version as it shows the reviews whereas the cut version had the wrong billboard reference, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Nu Soul Magazine is not confirmed to be a reliable source. Soultracks is debatable but in this case, it only cites their own review of the album. Furthermore, they are NO confirmed release dates for any of the singles other "Fly Away With Me", no confirmed album sales, the Critical Response section is completely WP:COPYPASTE from other links, the Billboard reference only directs to singer's page on Billboard.com which does NOT name the album or album's producers as the source is currently being used for, the album has not charted on any Billboard charts, has not won any awards, and Smith has not been on any major radio stations or TV shows to promote the album other than The Mo'Nique Show. There is no point in listing "Conflict", "Spies", "B-Side Love Affair", and "Art of You" as singles because they have no physical or digital single release; just music videos. When I break it down like this, the article has no reason to be separate from the Sy Smith page. Horizonlove (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I try to stick to the "assume good faith" standard, but the nominator's comments display an unfamiliarity with some relevant WP policies including WP:BEFORE, WP:NEXIST, and WP:UGLY. The AfD process is not the forum for drawing attention to an article that needs clean-up or expansion. An editor who is capable of initiating the AfD process can use those same fingers to improve the article in question. Also, it has never been necessary for an album to chart and win awards to be considered notable in Wikipedia. Those are things that help establish notability, but being reviewed in reliable sources, as is the case with this album, also bestows enough notability for at least a stub article. The Billboard links added by the last voter are brief but valid, and I also found this much more substantial review: [46]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In WP:UGLY, it states "...if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible." As stated in the comment to another user, the "Critical reception" is completely WP:COPYPASTE. So when you take that out and also removed alleged singles that I can't find a source for (other than "Fly Away..."), you're basically left with nothing but a track listing. So you might as well just merge Conflict with Sy Smith. You might want to reread WP:NALBUMS and consider revising your comments. My reason for deletion is good faith and consistent with Wikipedia policy. Horizonlove (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Comment - The COPYPASTE violation can be re-written and paraphrased to indicate that the publication really did mention the item, though without completely plagiarizing the publication. In other words, that block of text could be fixed without deleting it, and that could said for the entire article too. Meanwhile the rest of us have located additional sources that could be used to expand the sections that you are criticizing for being too short. I am already completely familiar with WP:NALBUMS, but at your recommendation I will reread it if you vow to read WP:NEXIST for the first time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "the rest of us have located additional sources". Who is "us" and what "additional sources"? I have already looks for reliable sources that mentions the recording of the album, the album's singles, the album's sales, as well as a tour that took place. I don't see any reliable source that confirms any of that. I've already looked but if you can confirmed any of that, then maybe it would make sense for the article to stay. But in my opinion, it is not notable for separate article and I don't see the harm in merging this article. Horizonlove (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh... "Who is "us" and what "additional sources"? Atlantic306 and myself, who have mentioned sources from Billboard, SoulTracks, and NuSoul right before your eyes in the above discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:48, 13 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Water Hub

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure promotion of their activities. The references mostly are either from them, or are general treatments of the problems they hope to solve. Material emphasising how important the need is for the work of a charity or foundation is how they raise money, not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly modified and shortened to remove promotional material and provide clearer referencing for existing achievements rather than future aims. Further clarity has been given the promotion of their identity as an academic institution rather than the misinterpreted suggestion of charity or foundation --Trennez (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a small project of 4 universities, not a general international producject.The largest section, section 1.1, still talks about general importance of the problem, rather than the organization. The references for the other material are either PR or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:37, 22 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 delete. Tone 20:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trending Live!

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

This is the fruits of a paid COI editor who has ignored multiple warnings. Multiple issues. Promotional, poorly referenced, not notable (fails all criteria in any sub-group; fails GNG) Rayman60 (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources are either promotional or trivial mentions.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Trending Live is a small show, it attracts notable guests including Jason Derulo, will.i.am, Big Narstie, Sigrid, Hailee Steinfeld, Dua Lipa The Vamps, 5 Seconds of Summer, Tom Odell and Why Don't We. By all means, ban the person who has been making rouge edits but a TV programme with 10 series and over 300 episodes certainly has a place on Wikipedia. It represents 6 hours of live programming per week on 4Music and a further 10 hours of repeated programming. Data from BARB show that a recent episode had 57,500 viewers. Previous presenters of this show have gone on to present notable programmes like The Circle on Channel 4 or take part as a contestant in Strictly Come Dancing on BBC One. I strongly believe it should be kept and improved. 86.140.110.199 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is the only contribution made by this IP other than a promotional edit on the trending live article. Rayman60 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can provide sources showing Trending Live is notable until itself, this is nothing more than promotional cruft that has no place in an encyclopedia.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous violation of policy (WP:NOTPROMO). Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article in current form has no redeeming features, promotional. Can be recreated if more sources suggesting notability become available. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 10:38, 20 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 delete. Redirect can be created separately. Sandstein 17:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box Fresh

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

Non notable campaign. Fails everything all the way up to GNG. Overly detailed. Transparently promotional from COI paid editor who has ignored many warnings. Unreferenced. A multitude of issues Rayman60 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominator. This might have been a speedy deletion candidate, honestly. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable and promotional DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Box Plus Network#The Box. After looking around a bit, I can't find any reliable, independent sources that signficantly cover the topic, so I agree with the above !voters that this does not pass the notability guidelines. However, The Box Plus Network page mentions a tiny bit about Box Fresh, so I don't see a strong reason why we shouldn't redirect it there per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:22, 16 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 redirect to Tilian Pearson. Sandstein 17:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptic (album)

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass general notability guideline, makes no claims that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Previously nominated for PROD but blocked by article creator without explanation. As the article has not yet been released, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and draftifying may be appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 17 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 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tilian Pearson for now. The coverage isn't there at the moment, and the sourcing in the article is very poor. Should the album receive significant coverage, it can be revived and improved. --Michig (talk) 06:12, 24 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 01:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from album}} and {{R with possibilities}} to the artist article Tilian Pearson. Even if the notability guideline for recordings can not be met, the article title is a valid search term, and there is no need for deletion, cf. WP:ATD-R. Sam Sailor 07:50, 16 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Se Acabo

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

Unsourced, does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. May be redirected to The Beatnuts per note 1 on NSONG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 17 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 01:19, 24 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 01:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not fond of this song's explicit and sexually charged lyrics (perhaps even denigrating), but when deciding on keeping or deleting an article, I seek, of course, notability (WP:N) and distinctiveness. I was ready to recommend a redirect for this one, but then I re-read the article and noticed that this particular song is remarkable in that it has crossed language and cultural fences, been adapted and adopted in the Spanish and English languages and reproduced broadly (see here for its popularity in France). This is supported by the sources, which unfortunately do not appear in the article yet. So, simply listing the song among the others would have missed what makes this song special, namely, that differently from the other songs in the album, it went beyond the Beatnuts, crossing into merengue and appearing even in Portuguese, Duth and Finnish charts. Artists like Swinger, Magic Juan (see here) and even the renown Mexican singer, Marco Antonio Muñiz (see here), adapted it. And then it was remixed in English featuring Method Man (see also here). In 1999, Vibe (Volume 7, Issues 7-10 - Page 268) had this to say about the song: "'Se Acabo' is their first strictly Spanish smoker, with a scene-stealing appearance by Proyecto Uno's Magic Juan." Btw, some of the previous links take you to WP:RS, which adds strength to the Keep argument by showing the coverage in the mainstream media. Still, I can be persuaded to the other side. Den... (talk) 16:30, 14 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 merge to NTT Communications. NTT Europe Online wasn't officially included in this nomination, so I won't include it, or the template, in the close, but if somebody wants to be WP:BOLD, let not this close stand in their way. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NTT Europe Ltd

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

Wholly owned subsidiary. Not notable in its own right. Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a conflict of interests so I am not going to !vote. I'll just suggest that if this is deleted then the optimal merge and/or redirect target would be NTT Communications. I'd also suggest to have a look at navigation template Template:NTT as that has a lot of red links on it. Obviously, red links don't help anybody to navigate anything and, if we do feel that the subsidiary companies are not notable, then having red links is merely setting a trap for some poor person to unwittingly click on and waste their time editing fruitlessly. Whatever happens here, the same result should probably be applied to NTT Europe Online as that is a one line stub about a company (formerly Verio Europe) that was merged onto NTT Europe. Finally, I'll just note that there are also French and German articles for NTT Europe. These are a bit more substantial (which might be helpful) but also clearly out of date as they still list the previous MD. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added a second "Find sources" line which omits the "Ltd" from the name. This is not intended to push people in any particular direction. It is just that most writers tend to omit "Ltd" when writing about companies and hence this gives a more complete view. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and the aforementioned stub (NTT Europe online) to NTT Communications, the parent is notable these are offshoots. The template is OK it just needs copyediting and changing. Szzuk (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (what little there is) and Delete. Fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 20 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ik Onkar

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

Citations either only mention the subject of the article in passing or are unreliable; fails WP:GNG. Almost entirely original research. --Joshualouie711^talk 03:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 16:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't looked at the content or sourcing of the article, but this is a prominent symbol of Sikhism, so I would expect there to be an aricle about it. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 132 results for "Ik Onkar" on Google Scholar. Though most of them are probably little more than a mention some of them should be good enough. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Anti-Feudal Dialectic of Sikhism Social Scientist Vol. 2, No. 8 (Mar., 1974), pp. 22-26: Guru Nanak gave a new orientation and complexion to the materialist tradition ... he envisaged the material, phenomenal reality as a creation of the transcendental spiritual reality (Ik Onkar). And much other discussion as well. Furthermore, I believe it's likely that sources are obscured due to problems with transliteration. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the holy symbols of Sikhism and the prime Mul Mantar. The refs presented are enough for demonstrating the notability, and a lot more coverage exists in Gurmukhi language --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:08, 29 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 delete. Sandstein 17:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cissy Wellman

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

No WP:Reliable sources that this person is WP:Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most important film in which she performed was The Outlaw Josey Wales, but her role was minor. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have added a few sources. Yes, her role as Josey's wife in Clint Eastwood's The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) was minor, and so was her role as Sissy Walker Tucker on the 1970s TV series The Waltons. I can't find sources that suggest any of her other many roles would make her meet WP:NACTOR, and while she gets a lot of mention, also for being the daughter of William A. Wellman, it does not add up to meeting BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 09:01, 16 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This House of Books

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

Fails WP:ORG, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's coverage but the sources aren't reliable. Billings Gazette discloses no editorial information and the Huffington Post article is a blog post. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation added, but I agree, subject fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sam Sailor 08:13, 16 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 keep. The consensus is not to delete, therefore default keep. A merge or other editorial actions are of course possible. Tone 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Intelligence

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

No WP:Reliable sources that this topic is WP:Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is interesting. I completely agree and I think this applies to a very high percentage of such characters: they lack reliable secondary independent sourcing, and even if they "exist" in a bunch of other comics and movies, that doesn't mean they are of encyclopedic value. Not without secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge into either List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Kree. BOZ (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating: Based on the sources presented below by Jhenderson777 and Den..., I believe we now have enough to meet the WP:GNG, so I am affirming my Keep above, and I imagine FreeKnowledgeCreator and TriiipleThreat would concur, and possibly some of the others as well. BOZ (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 22 references to primary sources, three references to unreliable sources, and one reference to Screener for TV episode listings. This article handily fails our notability guideline. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD: Article can be improved by regular editing. After a quick google search sources do exist, they just aren’t being used.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--so we have three keeps. The first actually says "if sources can be found", and lists no sources. The second says "per first", so that also means nothing. The third says "oh there's Google hits". Drmies (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find enough third-party, reliable sources to prove notability for this to have a standalone article. I do not believe a merge would be helpful, as I am uncertain if there is enough information support by third-party, reliable sources to use. BOZ's keep argument is purely on the condition "if sources can be found". If FreeKnowledgeCreator agrees with him, then they should list the references here to prove notability. Same goes to TriiipleThreat. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kree, as the character is relevant and important to the topic and not all aspects within an article require to meet GNG if the article as a whole does. If the reliable sources mentioned are provided, then keep. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kree. Secondary sources are hard to come by for this character (partly because of rampant speculation about a future film incarnation), but the character is extremely notable within the fiction. Removing the information entirely would be detrimental to the 45-50 articles that refer to it in-line. The proposed target already refers to the subject some 58 times without providing any history or context. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further review, the Kree-Skrull War section of Kree provides enough context for the character already. I think a simple Redirect is sufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning on Keep. Many news result on the character lately. Such as IGN describing them. "The Kree are ruled by a leader called the Supreme Intelligence, a being who's basically little more than a floating head with almost limitless brainpower. The Supreme Intelligence's will is enforced by a group of powerful warriors/space cops called Accusers." I personally think they are separate of Kree so I don't think they should be merged there. Most of the sources are likely MCU speculations (like Argento Surfer said) or descriptions but still that helps prove notability for the future. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merging fancruft to fancruft still leaves it as fancruft. The Kree article is not in a much better state. This should be deleted as non-notable, Wikia caliber material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD isn't clean up, and a high quality Kree article would necessarily include significant information about the Supreme Intelligence. I think WP:PRESERVE applies here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PRESERVE is heavily misused to preserve fictional minutia. People seem to miss the part about not preserving things that are wholly WP:OR or at least primary sourced with no secondary sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you implying that I'm misusing it here, and that a finished article on the Kree would not include information on the Supreme Intelligence? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that the article relies heavily on primary sources and as such it can be portrayed as original research, but here are two secondary sources, which are also scholarly analyses, that has tilted me toward keeping it: Darowski and Weiner. Den... (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is a major supervillain and so covered in numerous works including the following.Andrew D. (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ages of the Avengers
Marvelous Mythology
100 Things Avengers Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die
The Comic Book Heroes
The Comics Journal
Comic Book Creativity as Displaced Aggression
The Supervillain Book
Marvel Universe

When did TCJ cover the Supreme Intelligence? (I'm not skeptical, just surprised.) Argento Surfer (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005. Andrew D. (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than notable enough. Kree is absurdly long as it is and should not be bloated further. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article on notable comic book character. Merging into another article that is already extremely long does not seem practical. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:14, 17 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 delete. Sandstein 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Horovits

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

Designer that does designing jobs, as designers do. Works are on the kitsch side and do not appear exceptional enough. The single exhibition was in foyer of a theatre. Hebrew page was deleted due to lack of notability dindia (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Dindia: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:BASIC/WP:GNG have not been found. Sam Sailor 08:04, 16 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Aksenov

AfDs for this article:

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

Although additional sources have been added since the last afd, none seem to have any value as references or suggest any real notability to meet. Denis Aksenov been low post and does not comply with policy relevance. --RTY9099 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moscow is (a) a global city whose city councillors are considered notable enough to pass NPOL #2, and (b) a standalone federal city of Russia which is effectively a "state" or "province" in its own right, thus its city councillors actually bump up from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 as first-order divisional legislators. The first discussion is not relevant, as it took place before he was elected to the Moscow City Duma, when being chairman of the youth chamber was still the only notability claim he had at that time — but while this does need some referencing improvement, the base notability claim he has now is a hard "article must be allowed to exist" pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. Moscow city Duma is equivalent to Rhode Island legislature. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPOL is met. Article could do with copy-editing. Sam Sailor 07:13, 23 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 02:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Smetanov

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

WP:POLITICIAN? --RTY9099 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep A member of the Moscow City Duma, a body in which we generally keep local officials (and we must recognize that the Moscow Duma is also a regional parliament) (per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The sourcing appears sufficient for a local official. --Enos733 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moscow is (a) a global city whose city councillors are considered notable enough to pass NPOL #2, and (b) a standalone federal city of Russia which is effectively a "state" or "province" in its own right (which is why its city government is a Duma and not just a city council), thus its city councillors actually bump up from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 as first-order divisional legislators. This does need a bit of copyediting, but it's already got considerably more and better sources than we usually see in articles about city councillors, so even if Moscow didn't get its city councillors over NPOL, #2 would still be in play because of the depth and range of sources anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moscow is one of the biggest cities in the world, so its city councillors are generally notable, plus the city Duma is comparable to a state senate, whose members are almost always notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, though cleanup is needed. As a side note, while it reads as if this article was written by a Russian speaker, there doesn't seem to be an article on ruwiki; it's listed on ru:Проект:Москва/Список_депутатов_МГД_6_созыва as a possible project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Elected member of the governing body of one of the biggest cities in the world. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 14 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 redirect to Baltika Breweries#Baltika. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baltika No. 0

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

Brand does not meet significance criteria. References in the article are not authoritative.--RTY9099 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) --RTY9099 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baltika Breweries#Baltika. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:PRODUCT to Baltika Breweries#Baltika as a categorized {{R from product name}} and {{R to section}}. A redirect in a case like this may always be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. Sam Sailor 21:24, 22 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Pizzle

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article for non-notable music producer previously deleted by AfD here. The sources are terrible, and what few of them could maybe be considered reliable don't have in-depth coverage of the subject. None of the won awards appear to be notable enough to merit inclusion by WP:NBIO instead of WP:GNG.

Note: It was also speed-kept the first time it was nominated for AfD, but this was because the nominator was banned for sockpuppeting (amusingly, the one editor who managed to speak in defense of the article before it was procedurally closed then was also banned for socking). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment It appears that the article's creator has attempted to blank this page, but has not made any arguments about why it should be kept. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a recreation of a previously deleted article by a new author. In the recreated article there are reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject and passes the standard for WP:N and WP:MUSIC respectively.

Note: The first time it was nominated for speedy deletion, the concerns were it lacked references and independent sources of the subject. The second time it was nominated for speedy deletion, was to contest the deletion why it should be kept because it was previously deleted by a consensus decision. view log. The admin later removed the nomination tag when the article talk page was updated with the reasons why it should not be deleted. Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the publications currently cited appear to be reliable sources, and several of them are named as being outright not reliable. The only reliable source that I see is the Vanguard News article, which is a mere mention of a song that the subject produced, with no mention of the subject. A significant amount of these articles are similarly mere-mentions of projects that the subject has supposedly worked on. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sources have been added to the article and there were over 7 reliable sources that were in reliable sources already cited in the article that made mention of the subject as a Notable act. Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO, as I always say, being nominated for awards like City People Awards and Nigeria Entertainment Awards does not confer notability, especially when such category is not primarily for the subject, but a song he has produced. He was not even listed in the credits by the awarding body. "Run Mad" will be a notable song for Wikipedia, but does not mean everyone on the crew for a notable song deserves an article. His nomination for the The Headies 2013 would have conferred notability, if it was for him, but its still for the song. Same way, we can have a notable film, in which all the actors are not notable or a notable actor that acted in a non-notable film.HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment the subject was nominated for Nigeria music Producer of the year in 2016^[1] and 2018^[2] this category is primarily for the subjects. the articleJay_Pizzle clearly contains references to other Notable awards he has been nominated for. He has been a featured subject on reliable broadcasting networks ^[3]^[4] Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mawuli, David. "Nigeria Entertainment Awards 2016: Stonebwoy, Shatta Wale, Abraham Attah, Sarkodie, others nominated". Retrieved 2018-08-31
^ Oluwafunmilayo, Akinpelu (2018-09-12). "Davido, Wizkid, Tiwa Savage and others bag nominations at NEA 2018 Awards". Naija.ng - Nigeria news. Retrieved 2018-09-21
^ Ohunyon, Ehis. "Watch Producer of Kiss Daniel "Wait" speak on making the beat". Retrieved 2018-09-05.
^ "Ace Producer Jay Pizzle Talks About The Making Of CDQ's "Fine Boyz Like Us" – Silverbird Rhythm FM". rhythm937.com. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HandsomeBoy. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 17 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Servelec

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

inadequate evidence of notability - -refs are PR and notices only. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Times and the Yorkshire Post thought it was notable enough for a story. It's become a significant player in the computerisation of health services. Digital Health carries lots of reports about deployment. Staff of Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust quoted are not PR. Rathfelder (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven different independent sources cited. Rathfelder (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient sourcing to meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Financial Times devoted a substantial article to the company. I think that meets WP:CORPDEPTH.Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 25 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 delete. Sandstein 12:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Kunakey

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

not notable-- the references are mere gossip DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very weak article but the person in question is a well-known, notable model in Europe. I don't know if leaving it in its present state and hoping someone improves it is preferable to deleting it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only two reliable sources are only about her marrying Vincent Cassel. Inherited notability doesn’t work around here. Her only notworthy job was Jean-Paul Gaultier so this obviously doesn’t pass WP:NMODEL.Trillfendi (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NMODEL failure. Per above, sources are needed to show that the subject meets NMODEL criteria, and said sources are lacking.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appears to be riding on inherited notability from her marriage to Vincent Cassel. That won't fly here. Kerberous (talk) 04:46, 15 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 keep. Tone 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhtar's return

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

Non-notable Russian TV serial. --RTY9099 (talk) 00:59, 8 October 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 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a TV series that ran for 11 years on Russian national television. Unless the nominator can come up with a meaningful rationale for deletion, I think we should close this now. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 11 years, so what? Links, reviews, awards?--RTY9099 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Russian article, it is still running. You think a popular TV series that has been running since 2004 is not notable? Why? Where did you look for 'links' and what did you find? There's plenty in Russian news sources. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an eleven year running nationally broadcast television series is almost certainly notable as per WP:TVSERIES, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:33, 18 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 delete. Sandstein 12:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth (singer)

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

very poor article. fails WP:Music and GNG. Created by an editor blocked for long term COI abuses Rayman60 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSIC. Very promotional and made by COI. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 8 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 speedy redirect to Glory By Honor XVI. Tone 17:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glory by Honor XVI

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

Redundant - event already has an article Vjmlhds 00:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Question Are you going to make us guess which article that is? That aside, if there is a duplicate article, are you aware of criterion WP:CSD A10 for the speedy deletion of duplicate articles without requiring a discussion? Largoplazo (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the CSD entry Sakaimover (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails A10. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Glory By Honor XVI, which appears to be the same event with different capitalization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... why was the speedy delete removed. We have another editor above acknowledging that it fails A10. Sakaimover (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is a likely alternative capitalization -- at least, likely enough that someone created a duplicate page for it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (now that I know what the duplicate page is): No need to delete a title that reasonably lends itself to redirection. Largoplazo (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/snow redirect. Duplicated content, no point in maintaining two articles, but the title may be a search term.Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 8 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.

[1] ttps://www.indieshuffle.com/atlas-vapor/

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(musician)#/media/File:Atlas_in_2016.jpg

[3] ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vexation

[4] ttp://www.facebook.com/atlasmusic

[5] ttps://www.allmusic.com/artist/zachary-jarrett-king-mn0003746331

[6] ttps://www.sesac.com

[7] Staff writer (July 1800). "Art. 35". The London Review and Biographia Literaria. Vol. 3, no. 19. p. 89.

[dh82-8] Haifa Doar HaYom, 8 February 1923, Historical Jewish Press (in Hebrew)

[9] Maccabi Haifa First Final Loss 24 May 2016, Kaduregel Vintage (in Hebrew)

[hebcup-10] The Football "Hebrew Cup" Doar HaYom, 11 May 1923, Historical Jewish Press (in Hebrew)

[11] The Hebrew E.I. Cup in Football Doar HaYom 3 May 1923, Historical Jewish Press (in Hebrew)

[12] The Football During the British Mandate Era Asher Goldberg, 28 September 2010, IFA (in Hebrew)

[13] ttp://www.facebook.com/labbayk/

[14] ttp://twitter.com/labbayknasheeds?lang=en

[15] ttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7oYY3yXJKw7ZU7ORlNOF2A

[16] "DNA Mumbai Anniversary: Indulgence is now on a roll". 28 July 2018.

[17] "Amrapali opens first store in Pakistan - The Express Tribune". Express Tribune. 4 December 2015.

[18] "Tarang Arora: The story of Amrapali". The Week Portfolio.

[19] "Amrapali launches 'Baahubali' jewelry at Hyderabad store". financialexpress. 28 April 2017.

[20] "Tarang Arora on history and journey of Amrapali Jewels : Luxury Market: Business Today". www.businesstoday.in.

[21] "Amrapali Museum Pays Tribute to its Heritage". Outlook. Retrieved 1 October 2018.

[22] "This beloved Indian jewellery brand is opening a museum in Jaipur". 19 January 2018.

[23] "In Homage to India's Jewel Culture". New York Times.

[24] Stephen, Rosella (11 December 2017). "Amrapali Museum to open next January in Jaipur". The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com.

[25] Business, Outlook. "Star Jeweller - Amrapali Jewels". Outlook. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[26] Chhibber, Vatsala (23 February 2018). "Fancy a ruby-studded back scratcher?". Livemint.

[27] "Jewels from a museum". Livemint. 25 March 2018.

[28] "Treasures from the past". Deccan Chronicle. 1 April 2018.

[29] "A home for heritage". New Indian Express.

[30] "The 10 pieces you need to see at Jaipur's Amrapali Museum". 1 March 2018.

[31] Mawuli, David. "Nigeria Entertainment Awards 2016: Stonebwoy, Shatta Wale, Abraham Attah, Sarkodie, others nominated". Retrieved 2018-08-31

[32] Oluwafunmilayo, Akinpelu (2018-09-12). "Davido, Wizkid, Tiwa Savage and others bag nominations at NEA 2018 Awards". Naija.ng - Nigeria news. Retrieved 2018-09-21

[33] Ohunyon, Ehis. "Watch Producer of Kiss Daniel "Wait" speak on making the beat". Retrieved 2018-09-05.

[34] "Ace Producer Jay Pizzle Talks About The Making Of CDQ's "Fine Boyz Like Us" – Silverbird Rhythm FM". rhythm937.com. Retrieved 2018-09-05.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]