Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 9 February 11 February >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Terehova

Irina Terehova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not cited, biased, advertising Sillybillyjilly (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't seem biased to me. I see a few unsourced 2-liners that I wouldn't mind chopping out and maybe slim down the career section (too many division headings), but I don't see evidence of advertising, and not just on a scale of "Some Advertising to Promowank", I don't see it. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 25 references in the article, so to propose it for deletion as "not cited" doesn't make sense. Websites like Huffington Post and Journal de Montreal both have features on Terehova as primary subject about her life and career. She is also a celebrity in Myanmar. AfD is not appropriate in my opinion. I also don't see any evidence of advertising apart from having her official website which is a normal thing on wiki pages. I have also slimed down the career section like proposed. User:Lethweimaster
  • Keep There doesn't seem to be any reason to delete it. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. No consensus on creating a dab page, but if somebody wants to, there's nothing to prevent them from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Un-American

Un-American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is way to close to a dictionary definition (with a lousy historical overview) followed by a list of arbitrary examples. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayano Murasaki

Ayano Murasaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Yorke (1903–1966)

Simon Yorke (1903–1966) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. No claim of notability. Linked reference states he was sheriff for one year which can be verified. [[1]] Still not sure if that meets bio guidelines. GtstrickyTalk or C 22:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Looking at various sources on google books, Yorke's claim to fame was really being a recluse who was the last person to die while owner of Erddig - but the article doesn't mention this so it can't really be merged into Erddig. However, he's covered in many reliable sources on Erddig, which is a really famous house. One example which isn't on google books is The Servant's Hall by Merlin Waterson. I guess that ownership of such a famous house led to his inclusion in the Welsh Dictionary of National Biography, however, is covered by WP:ANYBIO. So I could believe that he is an exception to that guideline, but I'd like to see a more detailed explination why, especially as the article does seem to pass our core content policies. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem a terribly interesting subject to me, but doesn't an entry in the national dictionary of biography, a national library project to cover significant people in Welsh history, establish notability? FloridaArmy (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Didn't do much beyond owning Erddig and being odd, seems that's enough for an entry in the Welsh Dictionary of National Biography as well as quite a bit of coverage evident in google books (note you do have to filter out other Simon Yorkes - the whole line of Yorkes was called Simon or Philip [2] - but quite a bit is still there on "Simon Yorke"+Erdigg+birth or death year).Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an entry in a Dictionary of National Biography such as the Welsh DNB is virtually always taken as an unambiguous indication of notability. Υπογράφω (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:ANYBIO Cait.123 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dovetail Joint (band)

AfDs for this article:
Dovetail Joint (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I recently closed an afd on this bad as delete but Chubbles has contacted to say they had fresh evidence of notability through Billboard charting. I have therefore undeleted and listed to allow this claim to be discussed. Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete One song on the Mainstream Rock chart which is a radio chart, I don't think that enhances their notability to any great degree. They still have trouble passing WP:GNG. For some underground bands you can find an entry in a music encyclopedia book or maybe an article in Billboard Magazine but not for this band. Mattg82 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To closing admin - please note that, after this !vote, another chart placement (Modern Rock) was found, and a large amount of work was done adding sources to the page, including two Billboard articles. Chubbles (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Neutral per Chubbles improvements. Still a bit on the fringe in terms of notability but at least it has some goods sources. Mattg82 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry I'm so late to the party, but this band meets the notability threshold. Charting a hit on Billboard's charts establishes notability per WP:MUSIC (it actually hit two Billboard rock charts). That's actually a really important indication for the noteworthiness of bands from past eras - press coverage from a band from 1999 doesn't always make it into Google. Having said that, some of that press still manages to show up in search engines; the nominator even noted a Chicago Tribune article (they actually got two significant articles in the Trib), coverage by Allmusic (including a full album review), and the Augusta Chronicle. I've also found two articles in Billboard about the band, an article from the Chicago Daily Herald, and a profile of the guitarist in Guitar Player magazine. I am adding more sources as I find them, including some that establish radio rotation - another WP:MUSIC bullet. Chubbles (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Weak Keep - I was the nominator in the first deletion proposal and will admit that I missed the fact that "Level on the Inside" made the Billboard chart. But that is still just one song, while the additional sources found by Chubbles are only slightly helpful in establishing any more notability. That is because the articles, including those in Chicago Tribune and Billboard, are pretty much basic introductions to the band's existence. AllMusic does not get beyond this in its page on the band either. WP:GNG (especially the significant coverage rule) and WP:EXIST are important here, in my opinion. Since I missed the chart entry my vote is now "weak delete" "week keep" but I would not raise a fuss if the admins decide to let an improved version of the article survive. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am surprised that the nominator is not swayed by the work I've done here. The article is, really, a totally different artifact than the one originally nominated. A ton of promotional puff (which clearly seeped into the last discussion's delete !votes) was cut, and no fewer than six independent sources have been provided, some of which covered the band twice, and several of which (including the two Trib articles) discuss the band's backstory well beyond mere acknowledgment of existence (including Allmusic, whose album review is substantial). And all for a band whose hit came in 1999, when virtually all reliable sources were paper-based. The band had a bona fide top 20 rock radio hit record and did nationwide tours; WP:MUSIC bullets 1,2,4, and 11 are all met here, which is beyond what is ordinarily asked of bands at AfDs. The standard in this discussion seems to be higher than it usually is. Chubbles (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Changed my vote above to "Weak Keep." Actually I am usually a Wikipedia inclusionist and prefer articles to be improved rather than axed. I'm still a little skeptical on this band's notability beyond a single hit song, and the articles about the tours are still just brief mentions in my opinion, but kudos to Chubbles for doing the work. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. User Chubbles has done admirable work finding more references to save this. None of them really make much of an argument beyond the original Afd nomination other than add more proof that they received press beyond that originally cited. It is more or less the routine coverage a band signed to a major label gets. This includes recognition by AllMusic. As pointed out, the charts are Billboard radio charts which, in the higher numbers, are often times more reflective of a push by the record company to get airplay rather than a popular embracing of the work. Basically, this is a band that was given their shot, didn’t live up to expectations, was dropped by the only record company that that would release their music (outside of their own self-released efforts) and they broke up. It seems to me this is an article because a band existed rather than attained any sort of notable achievement. And yet, WP guidelines are clear and Chubbles is correct that qualifying criteria is met per the references (in major publications no less, rather than the usual independent, niche pubs), chart activity, and a release with a major label. At the risk of this becoming a protest vote, I think the fact this band merits a wikipedia article is a good case study of why guidelines for qualifying criteria for WP:MUSIC needs to be re-assessed. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as multiple reliable sources have been added so that WP:GNG is passed as well as WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More references to sources have been added, band meets GNG. Sam Sailor 12:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam the Seagull

Sam the Seagull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, unsustained, single event coverage of a bird eating crisps that was filmed and went "viral". Fails notability. Loopy30 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, browse through the “individual animals” categories: absolutely jam-packed full of non-notable articles. Ripe for consolidation articles, if anybody could be bothered. Mais oui! (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh666 07:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neyle Morrow

Neyle Morrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable minor actor with a handful of credits. Quis separabit? 20:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh666 07:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spillane

Robert Spillane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable actor. Fails threshold of notability by a fairly wide marghin, IMO. Quis separabit? 19:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashi Mal

Rashi Mal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thanks, ZI Jony (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stiko Per Larsson

Stiko Per Larsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Simply competing in Melodifestivalen does not make one notable (they must perform well). No charting singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:GNG. WP:MUSIC. Notable musician in Sweden. Has had several charting musical albums. Fully referenced with noted refs. Participated in Melodifestivalen tonight which is the largest song contest in Sweden and highly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do not count as they are not independent enough from the subject to count as WP:RS. The same goes for biographies, which are usually provided by the subject.104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lonehaxagon states that he thinks the subject has recieved significant secondary coverage. I guess that includes other sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Redig

Ida Redig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Simply competing in Melodifestivalen does not make one notable (they must perform well). No charting singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Is a notable musician. Has worked as a noted songwriter for years for soundtracks for films and TV (Små citroner gula, Gåsmamman), touring with other singers. Has had a leading role as an actress in TV series on Sveriges Television. Participaties in Melodifestivalen which is notable and will lead to charting of her latest song. Has been the writer and producer of several commercials for noted brands. Fully referenced. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Agree with what's mentioned above. J 1982 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. According to WP:NEXIST "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." Lonehexagon (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pile it on, I'm sure you nominated in good faith. The article was created by an established editor, so giving the editor a friendly nudge on their talk page to give them chance to improve it is probably what should have happened here, along with WP:BEFORE. Mattg82 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the nom was made in good faith. But adding this article to AfD just a minute before also adding Stiko Per Larsson for AfD seems a bit trigger happy. Anyway the articles are further improved now. BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharptooth

Sharptooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this page meets the notability standards of WP:BAND Enwebb (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Empty Pockets. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Cent Tour (album)

The Ten Cent Tour (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM Enwebb (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This album reached the Top 10 on the Billboard Heatseekers Chart [3] which confers a certain amount of notability, if anyone wants to improve the article and avoid deletion. The article was just created last week by a possibly inexperienced editor; if that person notices the automatic AfD message perhaps they should get the opportunity to improve the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Strandell

Jacob Strandell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that the subject is notable per WP:NACADEMIC Enwebb (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nominator, does not appear to satisfy academic notability. Also, most of the references are his own works. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, per WP:NACADEMIC. Would the subject not fulfill points 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. [4] and 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions, as cited in article - and as mentioned in the page of relationship anarchy. Subject is in relatively new field and is an active contributor, organized courses and continues development. Would meeting one of the criteria suffice as stated in WP:NACAMEDIC?

Chimneydebeauvoir (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. As people seem to be pretty unified on renaming this page, feel free to start a move discussion on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Orthodoxy

Anti-Orthodoxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article that has been tagged for some time as lacking decent citations. In particular, it has no citations to any text using the term "anti-Orthodoxy", leading me and other editors to conclude it is a neologism not used in the real world. Searching Google Scholar, Google Book and Google News generates no instances of the term being used in anything like the way the article suggests. Therefore the material in it can only have been included in the article as a result of original research and synthesis. No articles link to this one, except via the many sidebars it has been added to tendentiously. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo @Bobfrombrockley: you forgot to add your own vote! --Calthinus (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In this edit at 02:49, February 15, 2018 Calthinus altered their vote below from Delete or rename to Rename. This may change the apparent interpretation of comments below which preceded this change. Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed back to avoid confusion as apparently I violated something... --Calthinus (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and replace with a disambiguation page. Here's what I observe based on google, earlier posted to the Talk page:
 a lot of 3000 or so Google results [[5]] seem to suggest that the word has a different definition -- meaning "sentiment that opposes established thought", not the Orthodox Christian faith. These seem much more common in books and other preferable sources actually [[6]][[7]][[8]]. Results are also including a large percentage of links about hostility to Orthodox Judaism (like this [[9]][[10]]). And the main actually reputable sources that are using this term use it in the Soviet context it seems where you have atheists of the same ethnicity and nationality persecuting Orthodox Christians for clearly non-national reasons, which is curiously entirely absent from this page. --Calthinus (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... as you can see the phrase "anti-orthodoxy" seems to refer to anti-establishment views most of the time, or it can mean hostility to Orthodox Judaism, with some rarer uses actually against Orthodox Christianity in obscure academic papers that discuss the Soviet Russian context. I thus propose replacing this page with a disambiguation page that points to anti-establishment, anti-Judaism, and perhaps Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#Policy_towards_Orthodoxy. --Calthinus (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is not a single reason for DELETING this article. The subject of this article (persecution of Orthodox Christians) is quite valid. We have similar articles for Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism, so why should we DELETE article that deals with negative sentiments towards Orthodox Christians? Besides that, explanations offered above as "arguments" for deletion are 100 % focused on the present TITLE, but issues regarding titles are not dealt by deleting entire articles. Since the term "anti-orthodoxy" (with small o) is actually quite common and widely used as technical term for various negative attitudes towards any kind of orthodoxy, I think that present title of this article (Anti-Orthodoxy) could be improved. Since we have general article Persecution of Christians, the title of that article could be also used as a model for possible solutions in this case. For example, present title of the article in question here (Anti-Orthodoxy) could be changed to "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" or something like that. Sorabino (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree the current title is not ideal, "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" yields plenty of significant results [11]. I thus suggest keeping the article and renaming it to Persecution of Orthodox Christians. After all, "Persecution of..." type articles seem to be all the rage these days. Khirurg (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the topic is notable, article could be better structured, agree that the name Persecution of Orthodox Christians would allow for more scope to deal with Orthodox Christian persecution, as other Christian denominations have articles like Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism etc. However the claim made here that Persecution of articles in wiki are "all the rage" omits that some of those wanting to keep this article initiated a AfD process to delete [12] a wiki Persecution of article when it comes to Muslims. Just sayin' Resnjari (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with Persecution of Orthodox Christians, while this page becomes a disambig page. Preferably with a lot of the stuff on this page removed as much of it does not actually refer to persecution of Orthodox Christians. And also with all its little POV catchphrases like "persecution by Roman Catholicism" removed. There's plenty of stuff that is actually relevant that is not here (like Communism which is astonishingly unmentioned...)For some reason, I had thought such a page already separately existed when I voted, I remembered seeing one, but now it seems to redirect here...--Calthinus (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look up antiorthodox in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Keep and rename – The current title is not only not ideal, it is highly surprising, and has an anti-least-astonishment effect. Reading the section title for this conversation in the ToC, I just assumed it was about ideas or people who were antiorthodox, in the dictionary definition of the word. Wiktionary gets it right; it should be renamed, but the subject is certainly notable and has sufficient sources. WP:AT says, The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles, but this article title doesn't do that, so to that extent, I agree with Calthinus; and I can't separate the Keep part from the rename part, which is why I bolded them together. If consensus is to keep the current title, then I change my !vote to Delete. Mathglot (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and rename to Persecution of Orthodox Christians for the same reasons Calthinus and Mathglot provided. The current title is awful, ambiguous, and not clear at all. Rewriting/removing some parts of the article might be needed, too. byteflush Talk 03:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename: As Calthinus pointed out, I neglected to add my own vote when nominating. However, I think that renaming would probably address my concerns equally well.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename: The article name is problematic, and those arguing against it, got a point. It should be renamed in the same way the other articles are named. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename If the article is renamed, some of the current stuff should be deleted. The persecution of some people of Orthodox faith might happen for a variety of reasons, and not necessarily because of their faith. It appears this is the case with some of the events described in the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this debate categorized as an AfD about "Games or Sports"???--Calthinus (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is highly anti-orthodox categorization! Vanjagenije (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing the correct title clarifies what the article is about; hatnotes are not fixer-uppers for bad titles. (Also, "anti-Catholicism" is unambiguous and about religion, thus sufficiently precise, whereas "antiorthodox" is unambiguous and not about religion, thus incorrect.) Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note There is no such thing as "Delete or rename". These two terms are mutually exclusive (if an article is deleted, it cannot be renamed, if an article is renamed that means it was not deleted). I notice all 3 "delete" votes are essentially that, but it can't be both ways. It's either delete or rename. And this is not a move request, but an AfD. Khirurg (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: I didn't vote that way, but saying that "the two terms are mutually exclusive" does nothing to invalidate the logic of a "Delete or rename" preference, the way I see it. Voting "Delete and rename", would be a different story, of course. Putting my mind-reading cap on, I think it's basically a Not Keep-as-is vote, and leaving it up to consensus whether that means Delete, um, or Rename; but I take your point about that not being strictly among the options on an Afd discussion. Mathglot (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Bowles

Nellie Bowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are media outlets making announcements about their own employee. There is no independent reporting about the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More sources found such as Dame magazine discussing Bowles' reporting at length.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.marketplace.org/2017/09/29/tech/not-all-men-agree-silicon-valley-has-gender-problem
  2. ^ https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/314369/strings-theories-connecting-dots-a-cryptic-col.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INH 24x7

INH 24x7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable news organization. MT TrainDiscuss 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources and no sign of passing WP:NMEDIA. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through WP Media which states a Television Channel is a notable media owing to its public interest. It is a regional TV Channel and has a significant coverage in the state Chhattisgarh. It has about 40k followers and subscribers on FB and YouTube, constantly serving its viewers from over an year (UserID @inhnewsindia). It is a satellite television and has a distinct mention on in LyngSat.com. --G.swapnil (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources that can prove it passes WP:BCAST. Social media indicators are insignificant here. MT TrainDiscuss 06:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out sock vote by confirmed sock puppet account. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. All railway stations are kept, That aside the nom clearly hasn't done BEFORE eitherm Obvious keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akita-Shirakami Station

Akita-Shirakami Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No references since 2006. WP:BEFORE turns up no independent, reliable references. All original research. Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eustachiusz (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love Like Blood (band)

Love Like Blood (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage for this band or any of its recordings. The page was Proposed for Deletion in 2011 and the tag was removed a few hours later with no discussion, with the edit summary "6 reviews at Allmusic suggest prod isn't suitable here". This might have been a valid reason back then, but I don't feel it would be now. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Of course there's significant coverage, you even mentioned the Allmusic coverage in your nomination, which is still plenty to make prod unsuitable. Three albums on Rebel Rec. is also probably enough to satisfy WP:NBAND. Further coverage in German print sources seems highly likely. What sort of discussion would you expect when a prod is removed? --Michig (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per CSD G5. Ben MacDui 22:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joél Filsaime (rapper)

Joél Filsaime (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A lot of effort seems to have gone into making this article. Many, many attempts have been made to create this, or similar, articles, and none have ever met WP:MUSICIAN, resulting in their contributor, who has characteristic editing patterns, being blocked many times under many different account names. See User:Prince-au-Léogâne, User:FloridaFinest, and the edit histories of J-Pimp, Joél Filsaime, and many more for background. Filter 738's logs are also a useful source of information on this.

Alas, I still can't see anything that meets the WP:MUSICIAN criteria: spot checking suggests that references are either not about the article subject (for example, the Haiti earthquake references), or written by the article's subject, or directory listings or items on self-publishing platforms, or links to dead content, or other sources that are do not seem to meet the WP:RS criteria. A case in point: the "news story" that is hosted on a wordpress.com site. Note also the claimed Billboard nomination for top independent album, which cites two references, neither of which seem to support it per WP:V; my attempts to check this claim independently came up with nothing.

Also see hu:J-Pimp, which seems to be essentially the same content. as well as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20080352 , and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:J-Pimp . -- The Anome (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Despite the large number of editors !voting to keep, I don't see a single argument which is supported by policy, nor any sources analyzed which meet the definition of WP:RS. Most of the arguments here are based on Alexa rankings and the like; these arguments have no place in a WP:N discussion.

The Dawn reference (Facebook provides free internet access to Pakistani citizens) certainly seems like a WP:RS, but doesn't even mention UrduPoint, so I don't see why it was brought up.

There was some shenanigans, as described on the talk page. I've largely disregarded the comments from both editors involved. I'm also assuming there was some canvassing going on.

With all that, we end up with, other than the nominating statement, nothing I can use to base any kind of consensus on. In theory, I suppose I could close this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but I'm sure somebody will ask for it to be WP:REFUNDed almost immediately, so that seems like a waste of effort. If somebody wants to bring that back for another look, WP:NPASR. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UrduPoint

UrduPoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in depth coverage in RS. globally ranks 1,082 on alexa. namechecking is not enough to satisfy the notability. The page on Urdu Wikipedia cites similar sources and nothing substantial so I assume there is no in depth coverage in Urdu RS as well. Saqib (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Global ranking of every site goes ups and down on different times. UrduPoint is the Pakistani based website. Sometime ago Urdupoints's global rank was also 419 but this time it's global rank is 1073, as per Alexa this site is 6th most visited website of Pakistan. In Saudi Arabia this is the 93rd most visited website, in the United Arab Emirates, this is the 57th most visited website. As per web traffic in Pakistan, Google.com.pk is 1st, YouTube.com is 2nd, Google.com is 3rd, Facebook.com 4th, Yahoo.com 5th, Urdupoint.com (Subject site) on 6th and Wikipdia.org (this platform) in on the 9th number. This stats show UrduPoint is Number 1 Pakistani Website in Pakistan, with 8.4+ million Facebook follower (if you consider facebook followers). Alexa is the most reliable source on Wikipedia, every website template has also an entry about Alexa rank. The subject website is also considered an RS on WP. As far as about coverage in other news sources, I think nobody can show me coverage of Daily Jang in Nawa-i-Waqt or some other newspaper coverage in other newspaper. Hope you will remove the deletion template soon.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan two cellular companies, Telenor Pakistan and Zong Pakistan, are providing free internet access to the people of Pakistan living in urban and rural areas with the partnership of internet.org / freebasic.com. User of both companies can freely access only two and three dozen websites. Urdupoint is among these sites. UrduPoint can access free with freebasic by Zong and Telenor. These external links show that subject site has in-depth coverage across all Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of UrduPoint has already discussed and Contested on Talk:UrduPoint. Further, I want to say that above-mentioned tools like JSTOR etc., does not support the Urdu Language, while UrduPoint.com is world's most visited Urdu website, so this is unjustified to check this website with tools that do not support the Urdu Language. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)--Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a second-relist to allow this AFD a full span of seven days, due to the now-voided premature closure.Participants are reminded to read WP:ALEXA which states:--Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. :O  M A A Z   T A L K  18:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  samee  talk 17:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hemdean House School

Hemdean House School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. Tacyarg (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have been told that merely being a secondary school is not to be taken as sufficient note, and of the souces you give, three are local paper coverage and the other is a publication of the school itself. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By whom have we been told? And why should three different local papers not count as independent reliable sources? Qwfp (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(a) By WP:SCHOOLRFC, specifically the first conclusion listed; (b) I only count two different local papers, but in any case it has generally been held that merely local notice is insufficient. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced, including The Times, and government sources. Passes WP:GNG.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even a primary school can be notable, if there are good enough sources, as here. . And this was also a highschool in the past, & therefore remains notable as one. The most recent schools afc held that there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping all genuine highschools (it also said that there was no consensus that quoting schooloutcomes was enough, which is what has caused the confusion. I interpret that has saying that we have to give the reason why we have the practice of keeping all high schools, which is not that they are intrinsically notable , but as a convention to treat them as is they are notable to avoid incessant debates--debates which were giving no better result than random.) DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if there were consensus on what the current consensus actually was. I personally would keep high schools but have been told several times over of late that such default notability no longer applied (.i.e, was always wrong). Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wollongong Mustangs

Wollongong Mustangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG Hack (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The subject of the article doesn't seem to be notable, but there is a split on whether WP:SPINOUT requires notability. It'd be better to have that discussion on WT:Article size than here. ansh666 05:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen

Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Preliminary round for Miss America's Outstanding Teen where the topic has been successfully covered for many years. Spinouts are not a move in the right direction. Merge back into the parent page. Legacypac (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. If there is concern that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article should not exist, then let that page be nominated for deletion. But given that the article does exist, and given further that it reached a "keep" decision when nominated in 2015, it is now time to face the fact that it is becoming too large for a single article. Spinning out separate articles for separate sub-topics is appropriate, and using "by state" as the criterion is a reasonable way to do it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Splitting isn't the appropriate approach if the spun-out subtopics aren't notable. See where WP:Splitting still requires notability of split-out article topics:

    In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia).

    Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split. [boldfacing in the original]

    Consideration must be given ... to notability of the offshoot topic ... before proposing a split. If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article.

The underlying idea is that if an existing article is too large, it may mean that there's enough material to support notable subtopics, but it may also mean that the article is loaded with more detail than a Wikipedia article needs to have to cover its subject and needs a good pruning. Largoplazo (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: Thanks for commenting. But WP:Splitting is a "how to" essay that really can't be used as a statement of guidance. You'll do better by looking at the provision of WP:SPINOUT that tells us Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. That's all that's been done here. Also note that WP:CSC doesn't require that the entries in a list be notable, so long as it is intended to be a complete listing of the relevant people.

Back when this list was included as part of Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants, the community accepted it (twice, at deletion nominations). Nothing has changed, except that the parent article is getting to be too large. As noted by others here, WP:SPINOUT is an appropriate solution to that problem. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. This is a stand-alone list? It looks like a normal article with several lists within it. If it were just a list, I wouldn't have said anything.
Pursuing this as though this is a standard article and not a list: As for your characterization of WP:Splitting, I see what it says at the top of that page, but
Food for thought. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How?BabbaQ (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, ridiculous. It’s perfectly normal to nominate a list for deletion even after nearly identical lists and the parent list have been nominated and kept with overwhelming support multiple times. It’s perfectly natural to want to repeat that entire process on a slightly different list. It no way indicates anything but an evenhanded dedication to principle. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ever notice how sometimes, when you respond to what someone has written, their subsequent response to you has nothing to do with either your response or their own earlier comments that you were responding to? It feels almost as if they've realized they can't defend their earlier remark but hate to give up a good fight, so they change the subject and hope the other person keeps participating without noticing that it's no longer the same conversation. Largoplazo (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors keep giving you justifications for editorial discretion in keeping these lists, and you're haranguing each and every one of them that they can't escape the requirements of the notability guideline. "WP:N isn't waived!" Yet in that very guideline, WP:LISTN explicitly says that the kind of editorial discretion they cite -- WP:SPINOUT -- is valid. It says WP:LISTPURP is sufficient, even if a list looked at in total isolation wouldn't necessarily be proven notable. So what do you want? Editors post valid keep !votes, and you reply to each of them with an invalid counter argument. It's an unattractive look, and it doesn't have a SNOWball's chance of success. It invites speculation, maybe something else is going on. I speculate, is all. You should either cite a definite and valid reason why keeping a state-level Miss Teen list violates any policy or guideline, or you should (silently) defer to editorial discretion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said to New York Actuary, it never dawned on me until they mentioned it that anyone considered this a list. It looks like an ordinary article with lists at the end of it, not qualitatively different from, say, 75th Academy Awards, with an infobox and everything. What makes this a stand-alone list?
As for "You should either cite a definite and valid reason ...", gee, I wasn't aware that WP:N isn't a definite and valid reason. If it turns out that I was misapplying it, that's one thing, but to talk to me as though I weren't in good faith providing what I understood to be "a definite and valid reason", as though I were being oblivious to what's involved in contributing responsibly and constructively to a deletion discussion—well, .... Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to remove your comments above claiming that others have not cited valid reasons, then. You accuse them of skirting or ignoring WP:N and that is false. The reasons they gave fall well within the guidelines. I provided you with a direct link to the text that says so. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't seen how this is a list. Largoplazo (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see how the page it's been split from is a list of lists, more or less. But there's a problem when the dispensation from individual notability for lists that have been broken out from a large one is used as a pretext to turn the sublists into bona fide articles while evading the notability requirements that should then apply. Is that what has happened here? Largoplazo (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Bratland: agree, not to mention Legacypac suggested at ANI that I was "building towards a topic ban" for my comments on these AFDs. @Largoplazo: yes it is a list. Think of the article as both an event and the name of a specific title. The article is a list of people who have held that title. Does that help? I've even changed the lede to make that more obvious (the same change was made to both the Ohio & Rhode Island Teen USA afds which closed as keep). --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you write "think of it as", it's as though you're trying to hypnotize me, to persuade me not to notice what I can see with my own eyes. The article is called "Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen". The Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen pageant isn't a list, it's an event, certainly one that one can imagine there being a full article about, whether on Wikipedia or somewhere else. The lead of the article is indistinguishable from what it would be if there weren't even a list in the article, relating what the event is, where it's held, and the name of the most recent winner. What would lead me to "think of [this article] as" a list? What quality does it possess that leads you to think of it as a list? Largoplazo (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable state-level pageant; WP:SPINOUT does not apply as the subject is non-notable. Coverage is routine and / or hyper-local, not meeting WP:AUD, as in:
  • "Miss Thurston County's Outstanding Teen Wins First Runner-Up". Thurston Talk.
  • "PAGEANT: Kennewick's Renard crowns sister as Miss Washington Outstanding Teen". Tri-City Herald. Etc.
The article is nothing but a list of nn winners, not meeting WP:LISTN either. In general, this is an indiscriminate amount of information that fails notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where the Keep voters failed to address the stated reason for nomination ie violates WP:BRANCH ams WP:CHAIN. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are non-notable winner lists. Just list the winners of the national contest on the national page and note that there is a system of feeder pageants in various states. The state winners are only participents in the national contest and should not all be listed anywhere. Cite it all. Be done. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to be civil and struggling. For the nth billionth time, you're welcome to your opinion but the results of previous AFDs, most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen closed only today begs to differ. I'm not sure why you have such a personal vendetta against this topic but seriously dude, give it a krispie. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have it on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katee_Doland reliable authority]] that state level pageant winners are not inherently notable. Therefore this is a list of non-notable winners ans should be deleted. Results of other AfDs don't establish that any reliable sources cover this event/business in depth. Generally the best that can be found is "local girl won the event" coverage. If you want pages for every state each state company needs to pass [[WP:NCORP or WP:EVENT on its own because notability is not inherited. Legacypac (talk)
That argument fails per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your point nicely sums up why we can discard every argument that this specific non notable company/business/event/title should have a page because similar ones have a page. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also fails WP:CSC, which does not require individually-notable entries if the list is intended to provide an exhaustive listing of all members of the group. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"List. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (Apologies to The Princess Bride.) Largoplazo (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NMODEL does appear to be irrelevant. There seems to be no consensus as to whether this is a holder of a major award. There is also no consensus as to the reliability and depth of coverage in the sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Brown

AfDs for this article:
Allison Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NMODEL and WP:ANYBIO. Coverage limited to her name and city in a short AP story likely generated by a press release after the WP:ONEEVENT and a short blurb in what appears to be local paper in a small town saying her reign was over. Winning a contest as a high school student does not make someone wikipedia notable and even the minor press received is very light on biographical details. Subject is best covered in a list WP:NOPAGE or within the page on the event as our guidelines specify. We routinely reject pages at AfC about people with a lot more coverage in RS than this subject. Multiple mentions in papers tracking back to an AP release naming her as a winner are not substantial coverage. I also note the AfC a year ago was largely derailed by an editor now topic banned from deletion discussion. AfD is indeed not cleanup - it is a place to consider the wisdom of having stand alone pages for subjects. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I also learned she changed her name to Allison Brown Young (I'm assuming after she was married).[1] Lonehexagon (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw that too when I posted the article when she hosted '95 pageant. I also think I saw another last name somewhere else, I'm trying to find it, not sure if I might be misremembering. Also @Legacypac:, I moved paged back as she is more well known as Allison Brown, per WP:MAIDEN. WikiVirusC(talk) 03:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. From the book recently added as source,[2] and from their Inn's Website, the more recent marriage with a Marin Starr. Don't have a RS of a name change though, and both those are primary sourced information as well. WikiVirusC(talk) 04:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The refs you provided are passing mentions and routine coverage. She fails NMODEL. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GNG, a person is notable if they receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is an entire page about her from 1987, a year after her win.[3] Someone only needs to pass WP:GNG to be included in Wikipedia. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's a pageant titleholder, not a model. There aren't any more specific guidelines, thus we fall back on WP:BIO, which I believe she passes, although you clearly see that differently. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage everyone to check the linked books. I find the charactorization of these references as misleading. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://newspaperarchive.com/beckley-register-herald-aug-16-1995-p-10/
  2. ^ a b https://books.google.com/books?id=-6miAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&dq=%22Allison+Brown%22+miss+teen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiekcTN_qHZAhVT7mMKHUJFChQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Allison%20Brown%22%20miss%20teen&f=false
  3. ^ a b https://newspaperarchive.com/clovis-news-journal-jul-19-1987-p-80/
  4. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=y34B0sb3ZmoC&pg=PA11&dq=%22Allison+Brown%22+miss+teen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiekcTN_qHZAhVT7mMKHUJFChQQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=%22Allison%20Brown%22%20miss%20teen&f=false
Correct, this was due to the talk page notice, do you want me to notify the nominator for deletion? Jdcomix (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Shepheard

Ryan Shepheard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maine's Got Talent

Maine's Got Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. Local competition with little significance; it is not "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance"; not "have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group"; not "significant or in-depth coverage" as well as no indication of wider-spread coverage. Only sources I found were basic announcments. Two of the sources in the article do not exist. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have discounted the comments made by the two ‘keep’ !votes as the users have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts or as sockpuppets and I can’t be sure that these !votes were made in good faith. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Kirnalli

Nihal Kirnalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has insignificant mentions in various reliable sources. There's no in-depth coverage available in any reliable source. The article fails to clear the WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN threshold. Lourdes 11:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say you found better sources, because anybody could say that about anything if they didn't have to prove it. You have to show the sources you found, so that we can review whether or not they're actually reliable or substantive, before "I found sources" means anything. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After the above comment, I tried to find some local language links and it seems to me that there is substantial coverage on this subject and this article is currently poorly sourced. This article can be further improved with time and research and as far as I can see, it clearly passes the WP:GNG. RDB2017 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — RDB2017 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cabayi (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polyák Péter

Polyák Péter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was rejected at AfC for lack of notability but published by the creator anyway. The reason for rejection was "What helps for artist notability is either permanent museum collections or significant news reviews and I'm not seeing any here." The creator has since blanked his talk page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt No notability established, seems to be one of the tens of thousands of non-notable artists. Article created for pure self-promotion. This article has already been created and deleted once (by the same account), and also been proposed and rejected. This is the third effort of the SPA to get this article into Wikipedia. As he will no doubt try again, I recommend we salt this page after deleting it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I could not find the first creation, just this undeletion of a draft.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dolor

Dr Dolor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This vanity biography was created by a single purpose editor with a likely CoI. I do not believe the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. It also contains some minor copyvios of this site. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Park (Lancaster, Pennsylvania)

Crystal Park (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable municipal park, fails WP:GNG. The article is full of original research and goes off on a tangent about restaurants in the area (WP:NOTTRAVEL???). Rusf10 (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 08:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karaan

Karaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability outside a game book. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, as it already had been prior to the redirect being reverted. As far as I can tell, the Kotaku article is the only non-primary source discussing the deity at all, which is not enough to establish notability, as that requires multiple reliable sources. In addition, that single source itself is not substantial at all. The section on "Reception" in the article is a direct copy and paste of the entirety of what was discussed in the Kotaku article, which quite simply, is not even close to being enough to meet the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House of Reeves

House of Reeves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being destroyed by arson in a riot is an insufficient basis for notability; the relevant policy is NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. SmartSE (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Serpa

Marcello Serpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreliable sources. Fails GNG. Mar11 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - After the improvement by The Mighty Glen, the subject seems notable now. - Mar11 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to IT operations analytics. Sourced material can be merged. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AIOps

AIOps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tech buzzword. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for terms with 91 GHits.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello PinkAmpersand, I've noticed that AIOps stands for both "Algorithmic IT Operations" and "Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations" (in the IT field, these two terms apparently mean the same thing and are used synonymously; for example, this Deloitte document will provide more clarity). Having seen sources like the Deloitte one and others like [23][24][25][26][27] I don't quite feel it's simply a non-notable tech buzzword. What would be your views on the sources I've listed? I'll await your view before taking a call here. Warmly, Lourdes 12:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the sources, Lourdes, but I don't think they change my !vote. That said, at this point I wouldn't object to a redirect to IT operations analytics. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response PinkAmpersand, appreciate it. Quick clarity required (ref my query above: "What would be your views on the sources I've listed?"). In my view, the sources I have provided seem reliable and discuss the subject significantly. Do you feel that's not the case with any of the sources I have provided? Thanks, Lourdes 00:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes: I don't deny that the individual sources cover the subject in depth, but I don't think that the sources, taken as a whole, comprise significant coverage. I just don't see the evidence that this is a concept with any real notability within the tech field. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks once again. You mention you agree that the "the individual sources cover the subject in depth". Our notability guidelines mention that that defines "significant coverage" allowing a topic to have a separate article; which leads me to one final query. When you mention again that you don't feel that "this is a concept with any real notability within the tech field", is this your personal opinion? Thanks, Lourdes 00:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Our notability guidelines mention that that defines "significant coverage" allowing a topic to have a separate article That's not my interpretation of WP:SIGCOV. I interpret SIGCOV as saying that there must be a significant amount of coverage, not coverage that discusses the subject in a significant way. If we included every concept that had a dozen or so mentions in RSes, we'd have an encyclopedia ten times the size that we currently do. And no, that's not a personal opinion, at least not any more than any XfD !vote is. It's my interpretation of policy upon review of the sources provided. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your view. Warmly, Lourdes 00:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator agrees that the "the individual sources cover the subject in depth". Multiple reliable sources as I have listed above, from Gartner to Deloitte to The Register and others discuss the subject significantly within each source. With due respect to the nominator's interpretation of SIGCOV ("I interpret SIGCOV as saying that there must be a significant amount of coverage, not coverage that discusses the subject in a significant way"), that narrow differentiation is not what the guidelines presumably intended. The topic here in my opinion has been discussed by multiple sources and has significant encyclopedic value. Lourdes 00:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting, final attempt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AIOps is a neologism coined by Gartner so it can sell more reports. Gartner originally referred to it as "Algorithmic IT Operations". Gartner subsequently referred to it as "Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations". The reality is that AI and algorithms are two very different items.--Rpclod (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to IT operations analytics where AI is already mentioned. Lourdes has done good work in finding a number of sources. The discussion of the use of AI or machine learning on IT operations is clearly out there in the trade magazines and company whitepapers. The issue is whether editors believe those sources to be reliable. Some do, some don't. Perhaps a compromise most of us could live with is to merge this into the analytics article, as most of AIOps coverage seems to be about analytics anyway. That way, readers could learn what AIOps is and as more substantial sources become available, a standalone article could eventually be spun out. --Mark viking (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rowland

Andrew Rowland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion because unclear what the subject's notability is. Tóraí (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist for further comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Authority

Sixth Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV found. Not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist #1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Entrepreneurs' Day

National Entrepreneurs' Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable and promotional--designed for the very purpose ofadvertising. Getting a presidential proclamation about it is just another form of PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1st relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Sawchuk (musician)

Terry Sawchuk (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While he did co-write a successful song I couldn't find any significant coverage about him specifically in reliable sources to pass notability. Mattg82 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1st relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has worked in the music industry and has writing credit on some successful songs, but no references are given to support notability. Doing your job well is not enough to be notable.--Rpclod (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are potentially valid notability claims present here, an article doesn't get kept for claiming notability — it gets kept for reliably sourcing that the claim of notability is true, which is what's missing here. And furthermore, the article has a decidedly advertorial slant to it, so even if it were properly referenced it would still have to be significantly rewritten for neutrality anyway. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write something much more objective and much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthieu Charneau

Matthieu Charneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article created by the subject himself. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. Rare sources. Some too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being neutral and verifiable. Orphan article. WikiMeWiki (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WikiMeWiki 17:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. We do not allow people to create articles on themsevles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. This is a LinkedIn / IMDb promotional page. Among 7 mere references, 3 are for the same cameo credit on The Bastard Executioner (cameos, not an actual lead or supporting role), 2 promotional acting agency pages (one of the agency no longer has an operating website), 1 promotional IMDb biography (almost identical to this Wikipedia page), and 1 promotional Facebook page (marked as "offcial website"). Other credits mentioned, zero sources. Hardly notable overall. Seems to be more prominent as a model, hardly notable still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMeWiki (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canlan Ice Sports – York

Canlan Ice Sports – York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable ice hockey venue, claims to be used by NHL, but not verified. Previous AfD made absolutely no policy based arguments. Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just since this afd doesn't link to the old one due to a name change here it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrice Ice Gardens. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to PlaNet Finance. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlaNet Finance China

PlaNet Finance China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Started by affiliated SPA. Nothing significant about this chapter. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Youth for Understanding. There was an alternative merge target mentioned, Student exchange program. I'll leave it up to whoever performs the merge to figure out which of those is the better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Educational Exchanges – Youth for Understanding

European Educational Exchanges – Youth for Understanding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. See related Youth For Understanding. Störm (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra The Beginning

Rudra The Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film sourced entirely to iMDb and Facebook. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sourcing does seem to be an issue, but I would bet that being that its a Bengali Language film, most sources are going to be in Bengali. Do we know the Bengali title to better look for sources? --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TeaDrinker This is verging on A11 territory...take a look at this... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if sources can't be found. But there's nothing wrong with looking for sources, and I worry that without the Bengali name of the film, none will be found. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This film is registerd under Bengal Film and Television Chamber of Commerce ( B.F.T.C.C.). Please check this link http://bftcc.org/ .Here you can find the Rudra The Beginning Film Title. And also the film's motion poster and teaser are available in youtube[1] (Bengal Film and Television Chamber of Commerce ( B.F.T.C.C. ) has been incorporated Under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as Non Profit Organization with objective to Promote , Develop , Encourage , Create , Provide , Manage and Maintain the Nature , Condition , Infrastructure , Peaceful and Healthy Atmosphere for its Members and Associates with the Bengal Film and Television Industry in present and future.)

Here you can check the Authenticity of this Film Rudra The Beginning. You can also check the websites for details,

Absolutely this film available in evry where of the Internet wheather its facebook or twitter or Youtube or Imdb and also BFTCC official website.Specially in youtube it is visible clearly.

If any further issue arise, please tell me how will I solve it. Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benupss (talk • contribs) 12:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the film Rudra The Beginning will come very soon.If any further issue arise, can you tell how will it solve ? please also let us know if there is possiblity to fix this , please. Thanking you in advance.

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaEKOA3gTEECo-s6BNnzoeQ
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Dragon Promotions. I'm going to do the move, but leave it to others to sort out whatever post-move editing needs to be done. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Williams (promoter)

Charlie Williams (promoter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources (just the billiardsdigest.com article amounts to anything) - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to delete for insufficient in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. But Dragon Promotions should exist (the company is notable), and some of this could be summarized in there; we like to have some background info on founders and leaders of companies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesokhimik

Lesokhimik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, inadequate content for verifiability, created by same CU blocked user that created Metallurg Bratsk which is also at AfD. Atsme📞📧 02:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - this is a 2nd tier team, not the "top" as required per WP:Notability (sports) - there is nothing else that qualifies under GNG, and there are no indepedent sources for WP:V. Atsme📞📧 19:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, they used to be a top tier team before 2008. Second, I am not sure why you continue to maintain there are no independent sources after I explained to you why all sources are independent of the team.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an organization (club) - see WP:ORGDEPTH which this organization fails, particularly Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. I've looked at the sources and translated the information, and what I've seen falls under except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: - it is also a defunct organization. If I see sources that convince me otherwise, I will not hesitate to withdraw the nom. Atsme📞📧 20:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am afraid your understanding of WP:GNG is very far from consensus, and I hope the closing admin will take a correct decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Notability (sports) - the cited sources have to be independent and "articles about sports, must be verifiable." This article doesn't meet those requirements. Atsme📞📧 02:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WikiProject Russia & WikiProject Sports Atsme📞📧 16:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the sources are clearly independent of the team (the sources are the Russian Bandy federation and the main bandy internet portal in Russia), and the article must be kept, but I just added two more sources (major Russian sports portals, not specifically bandy-related).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:IIS for an in-depth explanation of what I'm referring to as "independent" sources. Atsme📞📧 20:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think www.bandysidan.nu. doesn't have an interest in wanting the teams to succeed? Atsme📞📧 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the same as removing from the articles of the Olympians references to IOC protocols because IOC may want some of them to succeed. Or removing from the articles on performers of classical music sources in journals specialized on classical music. Such understading of WP:GNG goes completely counter to the established practice.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No...the Olympic competition is world-wide and the athletes who compete typically have won numerous national championships. There is no comparison. Atsme📞📧 23:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously disagree. Let us wait for the closing admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RChain

RChain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Jace

AfDs for this article:
April Jace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia:ONEEVENT, and Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL. Has not received significant news coverage outside of her death. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - We are back with the same NOM as the previous AfD, which resulted in a Keep. Obviously he is not satisfied with the previous decision so he is making us re-litigate the previous decision. OK, mom said no, so lets wait and ask dad. What we established previously was that Jace was a world champion masters track and field athlete prior to her murder. She obviously is not going to keep generating news on her athletic career. Her subsequent murder by her actor husband overwhelms a simple google search, but like the previous AfD,WP:ONEEVENT still does not apply. Since the previous AfD, the trial of her husband/murderer occurred. While we did not keep the article up to current news, the story was not stagnant. I have added additional sources including two quotes from the trial where her running career was a factor in her husband's jealousy, which led to her murder and the pre-meditated methodology of the murder. Trackinfo (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The murder itself was another unfortunate incident of domestic abuse, but was not notable as murders go. The reason why the murder received coverage was because of the murderer's identity. Since notability is not inherited, neither the murder nor the victim are notable. If the event is to be covered anywhere, it should be in the murderer's article assuming that the murderer is in fact notable. A section already exists in the murderer's article regarding "murder conviction" and perhaps that could be supplemented if it does not already suffice.--Rpclod (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While nptability is not inherited, indeed, it is gained by coverage (for whatever reason motivates the media and academics). In this case we have significant and lasting coverage of the event - so it is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Scott (choreographer)

Christopher Scott (choreographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_February_10&oldid=1142616683"