Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 January	25 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Goldthorp

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

References only to profiles, non-reliable sources and to passing mention in Vanity. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with nom, sources are passing mentions, profiles, social media (stagefaves). One source appears at a glance to simply be a republication of another. Waggie (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goldthorp neither passes GNG (as previously mentioned, sources contain only incidental mentions) nor WP:NACTOR. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing much to say, I looked for substantial reliable independent sources and didn't find any, I recommend deletion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salting can be requested on WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Fadden

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only has localized regional sports coverage of his WP:ROUTINE transactions and mentions in game reports/summaries for a non-elite junior and low-end minor leaguer, subsequently also failing WP:NHOCKEY. The first version of this subject's article was prodded and deleted in December 2016. Appears to have been created as a WP:MEMORIAL upon his untimely death in December 2017. Yosemiter (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and salt. Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL for folks that fail WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Salt link to prevent a third incarnation of the article. Flibirigit (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and salt per WP:SALT. Non-notable player. AaronWikia (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NHOCKEY, and the media coverage does not suggest a reason why he could be considered more notable than the norm for a junior-leaguer for the purposes of WP:GNG — local media coverage of local players for the local junior league teams is simply expected to exist, so its existence does not automatically exempt a person from having to clear our actual notability standards for his sport. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TIL the word promowank. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This High School Has Closets

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

I nominated this for speedy deletion with a rationale as follows. This appears to be an advert. The two sources by "Rob Christofle" appear to be very much PR/astroturf pieces; the vancouver observer ref was uploaded by a user "desaderal" (see here and see also their vimeo account, where it is all ads for books by this publisher. Perhaps somebody could create a real article but this is a hijacked page in WP and should be nuked.

The speedy was declined with the rationale "decline, not promotionally written, I suggest WP:AFD)". User:Hut 8.5 - Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. Content in Wikipedia based entirely on fake sources posted elsewhere by the publisher is advertising no matter how "neutral" the surface content appears. It has been advertising since the day it was created Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, is a promowank. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find one review (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19361653.2016.1256249) but this is not signficant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: I suggest you review the wording of WP:CSD#G11, which is what you wanted the page deleted under. The criterion explicitly says that neutrally written pages do not qualify. Now granted, this page may well be written in order to promote the book, but the actual text is pretty neutral. Failing the GNG and being based on dodgy sources are legitimate reasons for deletion but that deletion would have to be done through AfD or PROD, and not speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 07:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In WP we define NPOV as accurately summarizing independent, reliable sources; a page about a product based on astroturfed refs placed by the company selling the product cannot be neutral, even if the surface is dull and doesn't say "buy a ginzu knife, get one free!". It is, rather, astroturf itself -- an advertisement that exists in order to raise the visibility of the product. Paid editing companies repeat this in their marketing over and over - "you must have a WP article to gain visibility". This page fails G11. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Customer data platform

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

This is pretty obviously a piece placed on behalf of "The Customer Data Platform Institute" to market the concept. I had already merged what I could independently source from this article to Customer relationship management in this diff and redirected. SPA creator of this marketing material showed up and has been edit warring to restore, calling the redirection "vandalism" (diff). Baloney. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction/Clarification. Clearly the editor clearly misunderstood. The 'Vandalism' was not on the redirect, it was on various edits leading up to the change... see edits prior to jytog. Also, editor failed to acknowledge the subject (not concept) is in practice independent of the one source obsessing over.adtwiki (talk) 20:28, 24, January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill mentions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional 'cruft for a nn concept. Spam and likely a WP:ADVOCACY placement. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If content has previously been merged, do we not need to preserve the history of the source page to allow proper attribution of edits through the edit history? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note to Talk:Customer_relationship_management#Merge_attribution which should cover the legal attribution requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was already covered in this edit note and this tagging of the talk page, but more is better. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 1 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Cashen

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a politician notable only at the local level of office. Serving on a small town's municipal board is not an WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not referenced well enough to claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu: three of the five sources here are her own primary source profiles on the websites of directly affiliated organizations (her political party, her employer and the local chamber of commerce), and the other two are from a user-generated content platform that bills itself as "the local social network". Which means none of them count as notability-supporting reliable sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional references can be found to support WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a member of a town board is just not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interstudent

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

None of the references appear to be independent secondary sources; they are mostly announcements of the various results by every university involved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not establised. Was thinking of nominating for deletion myself. Renata (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known event in Poland. Information about the competition is published on the websites of most Polish universities that accept students from abroad. See Polish Wikipedia --UniquePower (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, additional information and references have been added. This is a Polish competition, so most sources are written in Polish. Please note that information about the competition (announcements and results) were published not only on official websites of leading Polish universities, but also in popular local media--PolskaNauka (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, information about the competition is also placed on foreign sorces (including Ukrainian, Belarussian)--WorldProfessor. (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also wikilinks to Interstudent from other Wikipedia articles (Hugues Gentillon, Love Me Haiti (2014 film)) --WorldProfessor (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to draft. Now at Draft:TopOffers.com. ansh 666 23:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TopOffers.com

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

Very recent history (business started in 2017) and dubious notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non notable, a search shows a lack of reliably sourced coverage- only blogs. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved this to draft space because the user moved her own draft into mainspace. I saw this AfD just now. Please tell if I fucked up, and you would like it moved back into mainspace for this AfD to continue. @Bbarmadillo: !dave 21:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Information Society

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

This is a non-notable music ensemble which does not have WP:SIGCOV significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:RS. Sources include brief mentions but no in depth coverage. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Though it has been significantly edited since the opening of the nomination, I believe a review of this version supports it as an article independent from Joshua Abrams on the basis of dedicated coverage by Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Musicworks, Pitchfork, etc., with more incidental coverage in Spin, The Observer, etc.
The article also used to note a few other items that help establish suitability, but that have since been deleted [1] from the version live of this timestamp; for instance, it used to note that "In 2017, the group was described by NPR as a "staple" of the underground music scene in Chicago". In other cases, uncited information has been added [2] seemingly for the purpose of tagging it "uncited" [3]. In still other cases, sources that help establish notability like Time Inc.'s Uncut have been removed as "unreliable" [4]. A "unreliable sources" tag was added to the top of the page with the edit summary "many sources are unreliable" [5]; at the time the tag was added, the only sources used in the article were: Pitchfork, The Observer, The Guardian, Musicworks, Rolling Stone, the University of Chicago, The Stranger, and Spin. I would respectfully encourage editors, therefore, to review the earlier version of the article (linked above) before indicating their Keep/Delete preference. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment "uncut" reference was removed because it is a BLOG. Blogs are always considered unreliable and cannot be used as references in articles. Please see WP:RS.

Blogs can especially not be used to source information or text in a WP:BLP article about any living person. Speaking of BLP violations, how did you promote and publish this draft through the AFC process, while it contained all those BLP violations? O, this draft You pushed to the main space while it contained "copyright violations"? I see you hurriedly made an edit, and hopefully fixed that. I am just not getting it, plus the other night, when the same thing happened with another draft you pushed to main with copyright violations, that were caught an hour later by a different editor. Yay him! Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in the case of a Time Inc. publication written by a staff journalist, WP:NEWSBLOG applies? Vis a vis the rest of the argument about BLP, last night, the different editor, etc., I apologize - I don't mean to ignore it - but I'm not quite following; it might just be me and the early hour! Chetsford (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per the nominator. 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacypaperclip (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, aren't you the nominator? [6] Perhaps you meant to register this from an authorized alternate account and forgot to switch. Chetsford (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strike duplicate vote. And Chetsford, please try to AGF. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* comment I have seen that done on other AFDs, that is why it says as per nominator. I guess people think it is easier to count !votes accurately. No problem though, whichever way you want it. No worries! Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! AFD can sometimes be a little arcane. Thanks for clarifying! Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks like a promotional, fancruft type article used to promote this "musicical ensemble". This one should have been speedy deleted. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Keep. There's easily enough coverage to meet WP:BAND, lots of which is already referenced by the article. — sparklism ^hey! 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joshua Abrams (musician). Although I do think that the article's creator has demonstrated enough reliable third-party coverage to justify an article, I'm struggling to see exactly where the line gets drawn between the musician and this collective that he leads. Especially so because some of the albums listed in this article's (now-deleted) discography also appear in the discography for Abrams. And so, it seems best to collect all of the information into a single article.
I also must comment on the actions of the nominator here. I get very nervous when I see a nominator deleting sourcing from an article that they have (or soon will have) nominated for deletion. Invariably, the justification is that the sources were not relevant or reliable. But the relevance, significance and reliability of sourcing is precisely what we discuss here at Articles for Deletion. If the nominator believes that some sourcing in the article is not appropriate, then this should be pointed out in the nomination statement. But the silent removal of those sources will lead either to a less-informed discussion or to wasted effort on the part of commenters who spend time recovering sources that had already been in the article just days (or maybe hours) before. And in this particular case, the removal was all the more troubling because of the spurious reasons given by the nominator. At one point, the nominator declared that Ben Ratliff, writing in the New York Times, was not reliable. Really? And you won't see that source in the article right now, because the nominator removed it altogether based on the theory that the same reviewer can't be used twice in the same article (despite the fact that these were reviews of two different albums done some five years apart). (See here for reliability tag and, three minutes later, here for the removal.) And the notion that blogs are inherently unreliable is patently false -- it all depends on who's writing it. And yet, we saw that incorrect application of policy used to justify the removal of a blog hosted on the website of Uncut (magazine) that was by-lined to that magazine's editor. That blog was just as reliable as the magazine itself. But the nominator removed it not just once but twice, with no apparent attempt to discuss the matter with the article's creator. (See here for the first removal and here for the second.)
But even more troubling to me is the nominator's ownership attitude towards an article that they are trying to get deleted. The nominator placed an {{in use}} banner on the article, but left it in place even after their editing ceased. We'll never know how long the nominator intended to leave that banner on the article, because it was finally removed by another editor some 32 hours after it was placed there. But we do know that, when the hapless article creator attempted to work on the article after an hour of inactivity by the nominator, they were met with the threat of an ANI report for something called an "(in use) violation". (See here.)
So what are we to make of these actions by the nominator? A charitable observer might call them unseemly. A less charitable one might call them outrageous. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary - I have similar concerns. In view of them, I've restored the earlier version as it was prior to the edits made by the nominator. This also converts the article from the bullet-point list into which it was rewritten by the nom, back into normal prose. Chetsford (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer: The nominator (Lacypaperclip) and one of the !voters (Bythebooklibrary) have both been indeffed as sockpuppets of each other. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Blandino

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

Two references, one an interview, and the other from the same source lacking the diversity of references needed to demonstrate notability of a BLP. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't show much else. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I do a lot of AfDs, and this wasn't my proudest. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not even close, but beyond that you couldn't be more wrong. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. Carrite (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while poorly worded currently, and setting aside the significant coverage from FoxSports (as non-independent), there is plenty of other significant coverage from other RS: CBS Sports, USA Today, Sports Business Daily (subscription required), Yahoo Sports]. And that's on the first page. Add to that non-trivial (but I wouldn't call them significant coverage either) in ESPN, Sacramento Bee, Patriots Wire, NBC Sports, among many others, and this wasn't a very difficult decision for me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Onel5969. Like his predecessor/mentor Mike Pereira, Blandino held one of the most important and widely-covered jobs in professional football, and he is now a high-profile commentator. Here is a nice ESPN profile from 2015. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This really isn't even debatable. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Obvious WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huge GNG pass for this head of National Football League officiating. Should have been a speedy keep. Carrite (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lerios

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a music video producer, which is not referenced to any reliable source coverage about him. The only claim of notability here is that some of the videos he worked on received award nominations, but in music video (unlike theatrical film) the producer has little or nothing to do with that — Lerios is not named as the nominee for any award that's supported by a reliable source here, and notability is not inherited, so being involved in making a video that got an award nomination is not a valid notability claim if he wasn't personally the recipient of the nomination. And apart from the few reliable sources here that completely fail right across the board to mention his name at all, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources, such as IMDb and Facebook and YouTube or Vimeo copies of the videos he worked on, that cannot be used to support notability at all. There's also a probable WP:COI here, as the creator has never made a single edit to Wikipedia apart from creating this article and adding Lerios' name to others. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow.. I'm with Bearcat on this one. Precious few reliable sources, and none that mention Lerios, can't find anything in Google searches that any better. Lerios clearly does not meet WP:GNG or any of the SNG that I can see at this time. I'm not going to speak to the potential WP:COI issue, as I don't think this is the venue for that discussion. Waggie (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I am always hesitant for giving notability to someone for getting an award nomination. However the way music videos work, the producers are not considered at all in the nomination process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross (Nepali band)

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

Article about a band, whose only discernible claim of notability ("the cornerstone of the alternative rock genre in Nepal") is advertorialized and unreferenced. The only "reference" here at all is a cut-and-paste of their own self-published EPK on the website of a venue where they played once, not reliable source coverage. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with Nepali language skills can locate the necessary quality of sourcing to salvage it, but neither the substance nor the sourcing on offer here are cutting it for an WP:NMUSIC pass. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I think they are legitimately a relevant band in Nepal. See this .gov website that basically says they are a big deal. It says: "Rock 'n' roll is a big deal in Nepal. And Albatross, they are the biggest deal in Nepali rock today. These guys are touring the U.S. for the second time, after playing SXSW just weeks ago." Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this, and the bands website, plus a fair few concert pages that seem to indicate they tour internationally. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has to be supported by reliable source coverage in media, not by primary sources. For example, touring internationally only counts as notability if music journalists write and publish editorial content about the concert performances, and does not count as notability if your source for the tour is the booking calendars of the venues where they played. Media coverage about them is what's required. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is simply not enough written about them for the article to be sourceable and meet WP:GNG, I found no secondary sources and I did search through Nepalese sources and English sources before coming to this conclusion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 film)

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

There is nothing encyclopaedic about this article (which was previously declined a couple times). The creator just took quotes from the film and found the historical/literary source for those quotes. As far as I can tell, this makes it entirely original research, with almost no actual significant coverage of the film or its literary ties. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I totally missed this, even when explicitly asked about it, but now that it's spelled out in detail it seems obvious. I loath to delete something someone has put so much work into, but Prime is right, it's almost entirely original research. I added some of the quotes to the Wikiquote page, but most of them are direct quotes from other sources, aren't original enough a presentation in the movie to be added to the Wonka quote page, and would need to go on the quote page for the original work if added at all. Most of them appear to be famous enough in their own right to have already been added. For example, Mohn Masefield, Ogden Nash, Arthur O'Shaughnessy... it's all already there. GMG ^talk 20:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I spoke with the primary author of this article about this previously, and they've clearly ignored my advice that sources need to be provided that refer to the occurrence of the cultural reference in the film. Simply writing a thinly-veiled essay about things that the film may have borrowed from popular culture is insufficient. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I consider it appropriate and defensible. The work itself is a suitable source. The assemblage of facts without adding interpretations is not OR. Anyway, are we sure they do not appear in the book about hte film? Way back, during the trivia wars of 07-09, I usually supported this material. A key part of the study of films and literature is tracing cultural referents. People here did not understand this then,but perhaps they will now. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I typed this on my talk, but I'd probably be better off posting it here. I did find this, which isn't exactly scholarly work, but it's something. But... most everything else seems to be things like this this, or this, which isn't really the kind of thing to build an article with. Some, but not all of it seems to be taken from Stuart's book starting on page 115, but that only accounts for about a half dozen of them. GMG ^talk 20:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:IPCV, and more specifically the RfC referenced in the footnote, makes it clear that the prevailing feeling at least in 2015 was that if we're going to talk about what pop culture items are significant to a work, we should use third-party sourcing to make that determination. Or as I like to put it, "the question isn't whether the tree fell in the woods, but whether it made a sound when it fell". DonIago (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. This topic sounds too specific for a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a far to specific topic to cover in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I agree with DGG that is a valid topic for an encyclopedia. The point of this project is to inform readers and that includes those who might not understand references in a 30 year old film because 30 years have passed since then. I give you that we might not need the full quotes on everything but still, at least a "cultural references" section in the main article is warranted, so at least merge it there. Regards So Why 08:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the already brought up concerns of OR and trivia, there's also the fact that there is a fair amount of WP:SYNTH going on here. None of the sources here talk about the idea of the "Cultural References" of the film as a whole, and why the concept is notable. Instead, its a collection of sources about each, individual quote, that has been cobbled together to create an overarching concept of the author's own creation. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Staff

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

~~No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG.~~

Considering the article claims Staff was notably one of only two Allied soldiers killed at the Berlin Wall, it is very unusual that a cursory search turns up no sources mentioning his death and the page creator seemed to be unable to find any either. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Joe Aviance

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

Non-notable individual lacking notability beyond WP:1EVENT. Subject is known for losing weight. No evidence of being a notable musical artist. Although he has appeared on TV, none of this appears to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing Aviance has done comes close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Happy New Year everyone and apologies in advance if I make any errors as I'm pretty new on this board. That said, the subject is not only notable for one event (his weight loss) which received plenty of coverage in the media ([14], [15], [16]), but he was initially notable as a recording artist. It was his notability as a recording artist which gave rise to the coverage of his weight loss -, as the catalyst for the weight loss was because of his appearance in Last Night a D.J. Saved My Life (While a DJ Gave Me Trouble) music video and him not liking how he looked as stated in the article. The track Last Night a D.J. Saved My Life (While a DJ Gave Me Trouble) which he appeared in reached number 6 in the Billboards and received plenty of airtime on music stations like MTV and VH1 as stated in the article ("While the musician chose to ignore his unhealthy lifestyle for years, it was a video for his popular 2009 dance anthem, Last Night A DJ Saved My Life that finally triggered him to take action." - "When he saw the footage for the song - which hit number six on the Billboard Magazine Dance Charts and continually played on MTV and VH1 - he couldn’t get over how large he’d become." ; In 2013, he toured the US with his music [17]. He has even been credited on Billboard's publication of 21 Feb 2009 in their "Hot Dance Club Play" list[18]. It's entry kept fluctuating but has been on the charts for 9 weeks according to that source. Along with his music, he has been interviewed on countless TV programmes such as Rachael, The Doctors and Good Morning America [19], [20] [21]. If he was not notable, he would not have been interviewed.[22]. Even IMDb credited him for his filmography - who rigorously go through every footage and credit before crediting individual's bios [23]. A lot of his work are available online for viewing. He has produced, directed, written and appeared in numerous documentaries /films and hosted many shows as stated in his filmography. He has received awards from the City of West Hollywood [24] as well as the American Heart Association which he serves as ambassador [25]. Whatever the community and the closing admin decides, that's fine. I thank everyone for their contribution. Be blessed! CultureCouture (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. The subject passes WP:N with extensive in depth coverage of him from independent WP:RS. CultureCouture (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Only one vote! per person. Far from it, the items you point out above are far from adequate to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was notable enough for them to have him on their shows and talked about him in detail in RS. All I'm seeing here is I don't like it or can't be bothered so delete. I'm also very concerned about the nominator's nomination habit. Going through his log, one finds that he nominate articles on the same day they were created, and instead of adding cats to uncategorized new articles, he rather tag them. This is frowned upon by Wikipedians.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - You obliviously do not understand the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. It is based on the application of valid references as defined by Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with "real-world" popularity. Additionally, I do not believe the references meet the criteria for inclusion. On a side note, if you feel the user's nomination does not reflect the standards of Wikipedia, I suggest you issue a complaint in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or whatever noticeboard you deem applicable. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll tell you what I don't understand: You tagging newly created articles within minutes or few hours of their creation thereby disrupting the project and driving new editors away; not even bothering to find sources; tagging uncategorised new articles when you could have simply added one cat (the time and energy you spent tagging an uncat articles, you could have spent it adding a cat). I can go on forever, but let's not. Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - </sigh> Again, please read my prior comment. Also, do you think making comments such as, "Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack," assumes good faith or does not meet the criteria in WP:UNCIVIL or WP:UIC? reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course we should always assume good faith. However when this becomes a habit going by one's "edit" history, then obviously there is a problem. WP:DRIVEBY without making any effort to improve the article is certainly not helpful to the project. Biting newbies with silly tags within minutes of creating an article which has not even been developed yet causes them to give up and drives them away. This is what you've been doing for years going by your edit history. The facts are the facts, and we can't claim WP:AGF when the facts are staring us right in the face. You want people to assume good faith but you don't want to afford the same to newbies? You can't have it both ways. I rather not derail this discussion any further with silly comments back and forth, so knock yourself out and don't forget to turn the lights off on your way out. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @killiondude and Spartaz Shouldn't this debate be closed (since yesterday by the look of things)? Poor CultureCouture! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom's rationale of WP:1EVENT. Even coverage of that is pretty scant. Some folks do take their 15 minutes of fame and manage to parlay it into a career during which they do rise to the level of notability. This is not one of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree, and actually agree with CultureCouture. He was notable first as an artist which precipitated his weight loss which also received plenty of coverage. There are plenty of sources cited and all I'm seeing is I don't like it or lazy nomination as I have seen before with the nominator of this article since I have had a running with them in numerous articles where they ignored WP:BEFORE. Even if we are to go with your (and the nominator's) one event rationale, a separate article can still be created according to policy as "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one." Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sources would clarify which side of the argument is policy base. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting irrelevant commentary

Comment I thought this discussion was supposed to be closed two days ago and we can't relist thrice in a row? CultureCouture (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my last comment on this dubious and disingenuous nomination and discussion. A clear disregard for policy as stated here. Most of the sources cited are reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, and cover the subject in detail as evident therein. This is merely a ruse in my opinion, and a deliberate attempt to flout policy and enable certain individuals to canvas and vote according to their own biases. The deliberate targeting of Black / African articles is just foolishness. We need editors in this field but some individuals are chasing them away from the project with their foolishness. @ CultureCouture, if you need help to escalate and report this do not hesitate to contact me. Terrible! Absolutely terrible! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO, sources are too sketchy to meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 00:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. -- Begoon 00:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tulku Sangay Yonten Gyatsho Rinpoche

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

No coverage in independent, reliable sources. A Facebook page and the website of a monastery are not sufficient sources to establish notability. Mduvekot (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Tacyarg (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7/G11 Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incentive solutions

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

Non notable- sources provided and online simply don't go in depth enough as well as being from unreliable sources in the first place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional 'cruft on a company with no indications of notability or significance. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greg Fitzsimmons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Greg Fitzsimmons Show

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

Poorly sourced article about a radio show. While this has a potentially valid notability claim because it's nationally distributed on a satellite radio platform, WP:NMEDIA does not hand radio shows an automatic "no reliable sourcing required" freebie just because they exist — a radio show, nationally distributed or not, still has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But all of the "sources" here are primary ones, with the exception of a single deadlinked (and unrecoverable even via Wayback) article whose citation "title" is "Article mentioning 'Gibby'" rather than the real title of the actual article — but coverage mentioning the host is not the same thing as coverage about the host. I've also stripped a linkfarm of blog links in which the host gave Q&A interviews about himself and his show, which are also not reliable or notability-assisting sources. None of the sources here are acceptable support for notability under NMEDIA, and a radio show is not exempted from having to demonstrate its notability via substantive coverage in reliable sources just because it's technically verifiable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Greg Fitzsimmons, which presently has only passing mentions; A functional WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Creede, Colorado. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creede Fork

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

Not seeing any real notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its size makes it notable, and the article shows the fork has been mentioned in five separate sources. There are plenty of similar "largest" articles in Wikipedia. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

No what would make it notable is long term in depth coverage (I am not seeing that, I am seeing a lot of one paragraph mentions, or less), and other stuff is not a valid reason to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2018

Keep This has been written about in Local, State and National publications both in print and online. It has been profiled by a publication every year since installation. Guinness Book of Records is currently reviewing. Please note that a much smaller Fork in Switzerland is profiled on Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_of_Vevey Ksiddel 3:34:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC). — Ksiddel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep arguments must be based upon the article alone, not what other stuff we may have. And again, it is not being written about that matters it is being written about in depth over a very long period of time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Creede, Colorado per North America below. Great catch. Delete per nom. Despite the time period, no good sources are referenced. Blogs and Facebook really don't count. Ifnord (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Ifnord (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Creede, Colorado, which presently has no mention of this at all. This will improve the latter article as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of checking, so it is so notable it is not even on the towns own article. LOL!. Yep merge.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on the town of 290 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus Plaza

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

This article is severely lacking sufficient content. House1090 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that it lacks sufficient content. Also 2 references are dead links and one is link from the developer of this property. Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:32 12 January 2018 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ nominator. House1090 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I've struck the above !vote as a duplicate from the nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid rationale and failure to attempt to improve prior to nominating. I've added more than enough sources to meet GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "failure to attempt to improve" is not a rational argument for keeping or deleting an article, but it's very good practice to look for sources before rushing to nominate something for deletion. Mirror check. Jacona (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My language was not clear and I appreciate you pointing that out. I meant to refer to WP:BEFORE, particularly in that an article which is “severely lacking sufficient content” “can be fixed through normal editing [and] is not a candidate for AfD”. I will endeavor to ensure clarity in my comments in the future. What is a “mirror check”? James (^talk/_contribs) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aqeel Solangi

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Dubious sources,in conflict with WP:BLP The Banner talk 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything dubious or in conflict with WP:BLP about the sources linked in the "external links" section. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a massive vanity page. Sources given are for exhibition catalog essays, which are, but nature, essentially self-published. No reliable sources fond in a web search. suggest delete and salt since this has been deleted befroe and appears to be a vanity project.104.163.153.162 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are this and this, to select just two of the external links from the article, "exhibition catalog essays, which are, but nature, essentially self-published"? They are independent reviews of this artist's work. Of course the article is currently written in a very promotional way, but the subject is clearly notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page written seems like promotional prose and it needs to be rewritten, however it meets WP:GNG as search found here [26], [27] and [28]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you are right, but seeing this sockpuppet investigation is not adding to its reliability. Three of the four main editors were sockpuppets (the other is the file_delinkerbot). The Banner talk 15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per WP:TNT and failure of WP:NARTIST. Not enough coverage and clear COI. Störm (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional BLP containing OR created by a blocked sock puppet. --Saqib (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Company

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

Organization has not received WP:Notable coverage by WP:Reliable sources. Seems to be nothing but a Puffery#Puff_piece. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of this company might be Notable, but the company itself has not received any notice in reputable WP:Sources. (https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=jacob+leinenkugel+brewing+company&FORM=HDRSC6). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above, plus numerous other sources such as an entry in the International Directory of Company Histories. Toohool (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User Toohool; Jacob Leinenkugel Brewery Company is one of the major businesses in Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG per a source review. Below are some more sources found in Gbooks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red, White, and Brew: An American Beer Odyssey. St. Martin's Press. pp. 63–80.
Breweries of Wisconsin. Univ of Wisconsin Press. pp. 142–146.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shafi Bin Khalid

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

Being the editor of a short video and the leader of a student council does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 18:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DreamsCloud

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

Creation of paid editor and then a 2nd one, who initially was ab undisclosed paid editor who then semi-disclosed. Draftified then passed to mainspace via a rookie AfC reviewer. I worked this over extensively and it was still tagged for N (diff). The company is marginally notable in my view, but we should decide if we are going to keep this or not. I could see this going either way. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV is upcoming and has raised funding but it is not notable at this point a case of WP:TOOSOON.References are routine coverage with discuss the appointment of a person ,funding it has raised for future expansion ,its future plans including claims about the future ,launch of an app.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also fails WP:WEB. Ifnord (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per PotW above. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project Baikal

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (the Russian Science Citation Index strives to include all Russian-language journals, ROAD is not selective either), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence that this new-ish journal meets any of our notability guidelines. Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources, and is not indexed in any selective databases (at least AFAICT). Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Saeed

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and sources are extremely unreliable. Never heard of an occupation called Internet Ninja. Also note that the page creator is an SPA account. MT Train^Discuss 18:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the cited source is reliable or credible enough. --Saqib (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not credible enough for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games. bd2412 T 04:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Eraser

(Find video game sources: "Sonic Eraser" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Is there a template for "citations don't exist"? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion and stricken !votes

Probably redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games. From what I can tell, OP on the Help Desk is correct, and basically everything I'm seeing is patently unreliable. Like I said there, it's possible that there are some ~1991 era print video game magazines that cover it, but which haven't been digitized, but until someone digs them up, there nothing to write an article with. GMG ^talk 17:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. Sonic Eraser is mentioned in the following publications:

 Underrated Retro - Sonic Eraser Review
 Tech Raptor - Sega Meganet: Yesterday's Digital Future
 The Games Machines (Wikipedian) - Sega Meganet

Additionally, it is the third game (second original game) in the long-running, extremely successful Sonic the Hedgehog franchise. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 18:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TechRaptor is currently marked as failing the reliable sources criteria for video games. The Underrated retro site appears to be a glorified blog, and an inactive one at that. It appears to be sufficiently obscure that VGRS doesn't even cover it, which isn't a great sign, since in my experience VGRS is pretty good. The book is from PediaPress, who apparently just publish fan crated wiki content, and so is less than unreliable. GMG ^talk 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog, but have its section considerably expanded. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 18:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not "considerably", considering the lack of sourcing to verify content, and the fact that it's a largely inconsequential entry in a massive 25+ years multi-media franchise. Anything more than a brief mention would probably be an WP:UNDUE issue. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either of the aforementioned possible targets given the lack of evidence of notability. Expansion of existing content, as suggested above, could be be problematic given the lack of WP:RS, but that's not really a matter for this AfD discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment It might be worth calling for a Japanese speaker to check for references given that if they exist they are likely to be in Japanese publications. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion and stricken !votes

Well crap Dorsetonian. You just made me realize that... I'm dumb ...and completely overlooked the doggone half dozen non-English versions, including a GA in Russian. They seem to have non-overlapping non-English sources to boot. ~~So... probably keep, stubify and slap on an expand template.~~ GMG ^talk 18:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... at the very least it should be a redirect with possibilities. I'm conflicted over it if you can't tell. GMG ^talk 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I've listed the sources below and their reliabilities.

I left a note at WP:VG. I would be really helpful to have a Russian speaker around. I know that GA criteria can vary pretty wildly across projects, which is why I'm so conflicted. GMG ^talk 02:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per my rationale when I redirected it three years ago. Lack of sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: What of the sources listed below? ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion and stricken !votes

Keep. The reliable references listed below meet WP:GNG. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think every single one is a fansite (Sonic Cult, Sonic/Sega Retro, GHZ) or a database entry (Gamespot). Also, the GiantBomb is a wiki, so it fails WP:USERG, and Sega.jp is a first party source because it's Sega's website and they made the game. None of the below are reliable sources that discuss it in significant detail. Sergecross73 mme 00:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I meant only the ones that have ticks next to them. I realise that sega.jp is a first-party source, hence why I labelled it that. I realise some of them might border the too-fanlike criteria, but I think Sega-16 and the Spanish website should be considered reliable secondary sources; Sega-16 is listed as reliable in VGRS, and the Spanish site is a valid review of the game.

theghz and the Sonic Cult look to be more fansites, so they should be considered unreliable. This leaves a first-party reference regarding the release date and a non-English review from another potentially unreliable website. I don't see how this is enough to keep the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, with my reasoning above. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion regarding sources on other projects

P*h31 source analysis

This is a reference library for all refs used in international Wikipedia entries on Sonic Eraser. Please keep this at the bottom of this page as a reference for partakers in this discussion.

The French, Korean, Polish Wikipedias have no citations for verification. The Portugese Wikipedia redirects to Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game).

Italian Wikipedia

No.	URL	Site	Reliable?	Direct mention?	Notes	Final
1	https://segaretro.org/Sega_Meganet	Sega Retro	Wiki (unreliable)	No, refs. Meganet	EN	N
2	https://segaretro.org/Sega_Game_Toshokan	Sega Retro	Wiki (unreliable)	No, refs. Meganet	EN	N
3	https://www.giantbomb.com/sonic-eraser/3030-23076/	Giant Bomb	Situational (sit. unreliable)	Yes, directly	EN	N
4	https://web.archive.org/web/20040319232959/http://sega-gamehompo.jp/game/MD_SONIE/	Sega GameHompo	Primary (ext. reliable)	Yes, directly	JP, webarchive	Y Can be used for multiple things
5	http://www.theghz.com/sonic/eraser/eraser.html#gameplay	Green Hill Zone	Independent (needs check)	Yes, directly	EN	Y PLEASE CHECK

Dutch Wikipedia

No.	URL	Site	Reliable?	Direct mention?	Notes	Final
1	http://www.sonic-cult.org/dispgame.php?catid=1&gameid=9	Sonic Cult	Independent (needs check)	Yes, directly	EN	Y PLEASE CHECK

Russian Wikipedia

This article is GA-class.

No.	URL	Site	Reliable?	Direct mention?	Notes	Final
1	https://sega.jp/fb/segahard/md/soft.html	Sega	Primary (ext. reliable)	List of Mega Drive games	JP	Y Can be used to verify release date
2	http://www.theghz.com/sonic/eraser/eraser.html#gameplay	Green Hill Zone	Independent (needs check)	Yes, directly	EN	Y PLEASE CHECK
3	http://www.sega-16.com/2006/11/disconnected-the-telegenesis-modem/	Sega-16	Situational (sit. reliable)	Yes, section	EN	Y Can be used to verify Sonic's inclusion\
4	https://uvejuegos.com/analisis/Sonic-Eraser/El-Sonic-mas-desconocido-de-todos-los-tiempos/4378/21799	Uvejuegos	Independent (needs check)	Yes, directly	DE	Y Can be used as a review for Reception, NEEDS CHECK
5	https://www.gamespot.com/sonic-eraser/	GameSpot	Reliable	No, empty	EN	N
6	http://www.sega-16.com/2013/04/teddy-boy-blues/	Sega-16	Situational (sit. unreliable)	No, refs. Teddy Boy Blues	EN	N
7	http://www.sega-16.com/2012/04/reader-roundtable-vol-75/	Sega-16	Situational (sit. semi-reliable)	Tiny reference	EN	Ultimately unusable

~ P*h3i (talk to me) 00:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Serge. Of the sources offered at this AFD from the Russian wiki: The first is sega.jp, which is a primary source and therefore doesn't support notability. The second, GHZ, is an unreliable fan site, with no credentials listed or history of fact checking. The third is Sega 16, an article by Ken Horowitz which is generally considered reliable, but we have a single paragraph on the topic in a broader list of various games. It's not really indepth coverage. Fourth is a spanish site, which I cannot evaluate because it appears to be offline and is not stored on Wayback. 5th is a Gamespot directory listing, no good. 6 and 7 are Sega 16, but not by Ken Horowitz, making them unreliable by current VG project consensus. From the Dutch wikipedia, we have another fan site with no credentials, and which doesn't even contain any information just some screenshots. From Italian wiki, we have Segaretro, an unreliable fan wiki, Giantbomb, another open wiki, a Japanese Sega site (which is a primary source, so doesn't count towards GNG), and the same GHZ fan site from Russian wiki. So from all this, we have a single reliable secondary source with a single paragraph dedicated to the game. The game definitely exists and passes WP:V, but there's no coverage that shows it passes WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Consensus nearly reached. It’s pretty strange how the Russian Wikipedia entry is GA but I can’t even get a stub. It speaks more to the disorganizedness of the Russian entry than anything else, though.

We’ll wait max. three days for @GreenMeansGo:’s finalised view, and after that, an additional 24 hours in the case that any other Wikipedians would like to contribute something meaningful to this discussion. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 04:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? AfD was opened today. Will be closed in seven days or more. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there isn’t much more room for debate, unless someone presents more resources. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 04:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that there might somehow be a limited space or room for discussion in an AfD is fundamentally mistaken. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this isn't even an AfD. Someone nominated it for deletion even though no parties actually want it deleted, and this just happens to be the place we're holding this discussion, instead of its talk page. So yeah, I'm pretty firm when I say I don't think there's any other topics for discussion or rational and useful debate on this topic unless more references show up. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 08:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you're talking about, it's very much technically an AFD. Someone nominated it for deletion. The resulting discussion is pointing towards "Redirect", which is a perfectly valid outcome for many AFDs. AFDs run a minimum of 7 days generally. You're free to stop engaging in the discussion and repeatedly re-voting and wait for the conclusion. -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this. This is WP:AFD in every sense, technical or otherwise. As a participant, you have no say in when it ends, that's up to a uninvolved admin or experienced editor evaluates it for a consensus. They usually don't do that until 7 days have passed. Sometimes they are close it early, but I kind of doubt it'll happen here, with the formatting nightmare that's been created in these discussions (the continual changing stances, crossing out comments, adding massive charts, etc. - I doubt anyones chomping at the bit to evaulate this one when it's such a mess to read through.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my aggressiveness to conclude this discussion. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 01:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and merge what can be reliably sourced_ to Sega Meganet#Game library, or alternatively if it turns out there is sufficient SIGCOV in non-English RSes, weak keep. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(saw on WT:VG) Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The key point here is reliable and in-depth, as none of the above sources (including the ones from the Russian article) reach this mark. They are mostly short and directory-like entries. The only lengthier ones are GHZ and Uvejuegos and neither looks reliable. Russian article simply uses sources we don't consider reliable. I don't oppose a redirect to a likely target. I'm not sure we can merge due to lack of reliable sourcing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hellknowz: But, it still is a video game in the Sonic the Hedgehog series. Because of a lack of reliable resources, Sonic Eraser instead should act as a redirect to the main Sonic the Hedgehog series page. Have you any arguments on why it should be outright deleted instead? ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 01:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect is the same as delete and redirect. You don't redirect notable topics. And I said that redirect is fine. It is implied in AfDs that a deleted page can be redirected regardless if it's a likely search term. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (Again.) Sorry for being wishy washy on this one. I just didn't want to make the hugely myopic mistake of redirecting an article that could have been legitimately improved to a GA on another project. But if there's a pretty solid feeling that it's an anomaly then I'm fine with it. No problems redirecting to Sega Meganet#Game library rather than List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games. GMG ^talk 13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog games. Though sourcing is incredibly weak, the game is a possible search term. It could also be mentioned at the main Sonic the Hedgehog article. JOE BRO 64 20:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. With the gamehompo (which contains useful info about gameplay), and The History of Sonic the Hedgehog (which can be used to support the basic info (developer, publisher, platform, release date etc) and the inspiration and re-release info) sources, we still have some good info to put in List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games#Other spin-offs or Sega Meganet#Game library. Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like an interesting possibility. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 01:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the Ken Horowitz Sega-16 article, which is also reliable. Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing -- it has now been cleaned enough DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BigBasket

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

Advertising. Only content is list of products, list of investments, and minor notices. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. This article can easily be copy edited to address concerns with promotionalism, such as pruning its Products and services and Funding and acquisitions sections, which would be a functional alternative to deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep --the countries "largest online grocery" is a sufficient claim of significance. this edit removed the "Product and Services" promo content, so the article is acceptable at this point. If promotionalism persists, then a renomination would be feasible. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kehrt

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a borderline create for the Boston Red Sox' minor league page in the first place, and that page has a lot of bad choices. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable minor league player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Dahlstrand

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

Non-notable minor leaguer who seems to be on the declining side of his career, meaning that the prospect of future notability is low. Lepricavark (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable minor league baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied. ansh 666 19:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of petitioners to create Gillespie County, Texas

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

List of not notable people. A petition drive can be notable, but in most instances a list of signees isn't. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be of limited interest on a genealogy site, but doesn't meet any sort of notability guideline for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of mostly non notable people for a non notable cause. Ajf773 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a nightmare just waiting to happen. We do not need this for everything that was successfully petitioned for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved this out of main space to my user space. It was an old error of mine back in the days when I was figuring out the mechanics of Wikipedia. It was only meant for my use as a reference glance when I created some articles in that area of Texas. And I did create a couple of bio articles from the list. Don't even remember why I put it in main space, but it should have stayed in my personal user space all along. I kept meaning to go back and correct that mistake ... but one thing and then another ... Anyhow, I hope I haven't broken the rules by moving this back to my user space. Let me know. Or, otherwise, you can close this AFD to however that works out. — Maile (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charbel Haber

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

"Charbel Haber" was deleted as a redirect to a previously AfD'd article about one of his bands, "Scrambled Eggs. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scrambled_Eggs_(band)). This bio was recreated a few months ago. There are two references that might meet WP:RS ([29] and [30]), but neither has non-trivial coverage about the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fireworks policy in the European Union. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks policy in the Republic of Ireland

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

largely copy-and-translate from the second source. Might by a copyrights violation. The Banner talk 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does seem to paraphrase the Trouw article quite closely. Concur it may be a copyvio (and hence susceptible to CSD-12). Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it to avoid a copyvio, and added a specialist book on the topic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fireworks policy in the European Union- There's not much to say on the topic, it can be covered there.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~~Comment~~ With the issue of copyvio fixed, and on further evaluation, I have a hard time seeing that it could be effectively merged to the EU article. While this may only be stub-class, I don't think that necessarily restrains its notability. This is a nice addition to the series of articles that include Fireworks policy in Belgium, Fireworks law in the United Kingdom, etc. I hate to see articles with incredibly niche, albeit valuable and meaningful, content like this deleted. On the other hand, I find it difficult to argue against Rusf10' rationale for merge. I hope that the content of this article gets preserved somewhere, either in its original form or at Fireworks policy in the European Union. Chetsford (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fireworks policy in the European Union. This standalone article is unnecessary, considering that there is very little to be said on the subject. CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Health Sciences (Syria)

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

No independent sources given and I've been unable to find any. Having encountered the author's other contributions for this academy's director, his publisher, the publisher's owner, and his other business (also an academy) I can't see this article as anything other than spam. Cabayi (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Walker III

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON having not played a regular season game in one of the specified leagues. He was a training camp cut in the NFL, who played at a large college program at UCLA but was average at best and went undrafted. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. WP:BEFORE nominating this, I only found one more significant, independent source that was not already in the article (the others were from the Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register). This fails WP:WHYN, which states that we need ample coverage so "that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", and they need to be independent so the article is "fair and balanced". —Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Articles from The Orange County Register and LA Times are good sources - the rest are not independent (e.g., student newspaper and football team websites). What Bagumba found is also good, so puts it at three sources (WP:GNG says multiple, but I have seen three be the limit elsewhere). Also found this from LA Times [31] and some things from what appear to be his hometown newspaper [32] and [33]. I have some WP:GEOSCOPE concerns leading me to say weak keep over just keep, but UCLA is a major team and wide receiver is a well covered position, so in light of that and the fact that there are sources I say weak keep. RonSigPi (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hometown paper comment The Richmond Standard sources are short game recaps of a hometown native, whose length makes it routine coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Source summary The Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register, which were mentioned in the nomination, had college coverage. The Los Angeles Daily News, though now merged with Orange County Register, technically qualifies as another source as the merger took place in the middle of Walker's UCLA career. The Mercury News and ESPN coverage were from his high school days during college recruiting. The firstcoastnews.com (mentioned in nom) and jacksonville.com source are about his NFL tryout.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Type of coverage @RonSigPi and WikiOriginal-9: For the record, I'm a UCLA alumni who has created articles on other UCLA players that met GNG but not NGRIDIRON at the time (e.g. Jordan Payton, Thomas Duarte). I know there is a lot of local coverage in Los Angeles that a UCLA player can receive, even if they are an average player with little national recognition. I'm not going to be too bothered if this article is kept. Of more interest is whether this is a precedent for keeping an article about an average college player who received some high school coverage about their college choice, got a bit of college coverage mainly from being in a large market, and then received local coverage in an NFL city from being in training camp. Is WP:WHYN met where this can be a decent sized article?—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football.—Bagumba (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage to date is routine/local coverage that we know comes with anyone playing college football in the US, and we are supposed to avoid indiscriminate information, which is why NSPORT sets a bar of at least actually playing in a pro game. While one can argue the sources may meet the GNG, their routine and local nature does not make them independent, which is needed for the GNG. --Masem (t) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "anyone playing college football in the US" receives this type of coverage reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Each year, there are roughly 10,000 student athletes participating in college football in the US. Only a tiny percentage of those college football players receive the kind of in depth coverage we see here. That is why GNG has been such a robust tool in deleting articles on players who do not receive such coverage. See, e.g., Noel Phillips, Eric Liles, Lawrence Erekosima, Taveres Bowens, and Sha-ron Edwards. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not every college student gets detailed coverage, but the bulk that do are only coming from local sources (college newspapers, papers local to the school). There is definitely a separate narrower tier of college players regularly captured by ESPN and other non-geographic sources, those that are likely Heismen or top draft picks (probably on the order of 500 ppl each year), and that's the type of people where I would argue the GNG is met even if NSPORT is not. But everything here looks like a mid-tier college player: did well enough on their HS and college team to play often and thus come up in the discussion of the college team, but not to the level of being one of the top players. --Masem (t) 15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:GEOSCOPE is a concern to consider, which is why I made sure to mention it and it swaying me from keep to weak keep, I know of no policy that says GNG can only be met by non-local sources. In other words, local sources are good sources in general for GNG unless there is a policy I am missing. RonSigPi (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that GNG recommends multiple sources rules out most local topics.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Masem's contention that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE is baseless. The coverage here includes feature articles in major news outlets that are the antithesis of routine coverage. Such coverage includes this from the Los Angeles Times (the fourth largest newspaper in the US) which provides factual background on his childhood and his track career and provides a solid basis to construct a decent article. Here is another feature story from a major metropolitan daily providing depth of coverage. With in depth feature stories like these, I'm not sure how/why WP:WHYN would be a concern. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The LA Times article is specifically filed under the "UCLA" column of the sports section (UCLA being in LA, of course). That's local coverage. If the story was a non-column sports story, it might be different. Just because a paper has a global following does not make every story non-local. And OC register is Orange County, again local. We know college athletes get lots of local coverage, that's why a bar is set higher at NSPORTS to get past college athletes - this is not that college athletes can't be notable, but the sources has to be more than routine and local. --Masem (t) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem - No. There is no policy suggesting that we disregard local or regional coverage for college football players. Even Bagumba rejects that argument. Coverage in a small-town newspaper might properly be discounted in a GNG analysis, but the LA Times and OC Register are major metropolitan dailies which are fully entitled to be counted as reliable, independent sources. You also fundamentally misconstrue NSPORTS which has from its drafting and inception been recognized as an inclusive standard, not an exclusionary one. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we are rightfully going to consider the small town local coverage as improper, but allow a larger metro paper's local coverage, that's a systematic bias that we do not use. This is exactly something that is avoided at other pages, for example, for NCORP, local reviews of restaurants even if by the NYtimes or major newspapers are discounted for notability. If the story appeared in a non-metro section, that would different, but local coverage (as is here) fails the test of independence needed for GNG. --Masem (t) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to cite the policy or guideline saying we are to disregard local and regional coverage in a sports context (restaurant reviews are a red herring). In any GNG analysis, an in-depth feature story in the Los Angeles Times, a major regional newspaper, is highly significant. This combined with the OC Register feature story and the other stories referenced above by WikiOriginal-9 are enough to surpass the GNG bar. Further, the assertion you appear to be making that the LA Times (a multiple, award-winning newspaper) "fails the test of independence" is unsupported. As for college newspapers, we don't count those at all in GNG analyses, so your concern about such publications is unwarranted. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papers that are local to a geographic region will lack the independence needed by the GNG; I'm not saying they're wholly dependent sources, and if you had an ESPN article atop the existing one that goes in-depth about him, I'd accept that the GNG is likely met. but if you can't show in-depth coverage from outside that region, that's a problem, we don't see independence here.

For a major paper like the LATimes (same would go for NYTimes, WaPost, etc.) is that they have some sections that are written as global news, and some sections written as local news; it's easier to see the line on the physical printing of the paper, but the website still maintains these headings/by-lines. Anything in the global news section - even if it is covering an event in LA - can be treated as independent, and I have never seen a case of a LATimes "global news" story that cannot be corroborated with another non-LA area major newspaper. So as long as it appears in the global news section, that's fine. But LATimes has their various local sections, and in this specific case, they have a column in the sports pages dedicated to each of the major colleges in the region (of which the LATimes article here falls inot) Anything that appears there is a local story for the purposes of evaluating independence. So it is not the case that the LATimes should be treated as local, only a subset of its stories that appear in their local sections should be considered local and thus not independent for the coverage of the topic when considering the GNG. If you can prove out a truly independent source, the LATimes and OC stories are great additions to flesh it out, but alone it is not. It's needed to avoid setting a very low bar for the mass inclusion of high-school and college athletes before they have had any type of career, barring those that are considered exceptional to the sports world. --Masem (t) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually some national coverage in ESPN. See here. Your position that no articles should be permitted on college athletes unless there are in-depth feature stories in national media outlets is simply your opinion, a minority view that is neither policy nor practice. The notion that regional and local sports coverage should be disregarded is not even supported by the nominator on this AfD. As noted, GNG already provides a robust bar to avoid mass inclusion of college athletes. Cbl62 (talk)

That ESPN article is not significant coverage, though; it's just a news blurb. That doesn't help. And actually going back to how NSPORT was developed, they were very much concerned about flooding articles with non-pro players to start. It was developed recognizing that finding coverage of nearly any college football players is trivial if one is just looking at that they played the game; going pro was a factor that elevated them. This is setting a very dangerous level. --Masem (t) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ESPN piece is 1500 characters long, not just a "blurb". More fundamentally, you are misstating history. I was involved in the debate over the development of NSPORT, and it was very clear in that debate that NSPORT was intended as an inclusive standard and that college athletes could also have articles if they passed GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the internet age, I consider HS recruit coverage to be WP:ROUTINE for notability purposes. Wikipedia:Notability asks for articles that are "worthy of notice". I don't believe the encyclopedia is improved if a player's notability needs to be dependent on details of their recruit process.—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I do understand your point. Walker may have received more press/hype than his collegiate record warranted. But I think that what you're really arguing for here is an override to WP:GNG where the actual performance is underwhelming relative to the press coverage. Such an override/exception would IMO inject an undue level of subjectivity into the analysis. GNG provides us with a sufficiently robust basis to weed out the truly unnotable college football players such as Eric Liles and Lawrence Erekosima. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I don't look at it as overriding GNG. GNG is part of WP:N, which states that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." WP:FAILN allows that "for articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." So this is more like the last option, but still a valid one. Another thing to discuss is if we are too lenient with WP:ROUTINE. Perhaps college announcements by high school students is routine? Finally, do we need to be capable of writing a decent sized article per WP:WHYN? I'd hate for an encyclopedic article to have to resort to fluff like talk of the wide receiver being made into a college punter (WP:NOTDIARY)[43].—Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If GNG is satisfied (as it is here), and you are looking elsewhere (WP:WHYN) for a reason to overcome the presumption of notability, then you are seeking an exception to, or override of, the GNG presumption. I'm not arguing that Walker was an all-time great, but he did appear in 44 games at a high-profile position for a major program and generated abundant, significant press coverage. I believe a reasonably rounded article can be supported. I further believe that this type of AfD encourages a deletionist approach by those who seek to disallow regional coverage and limit coverage of college football players to "those that are likely Heismen or top draft picks". Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to short circuit GNG in general. For college basketball, I created Tony Parker (basketball, born 1993), a serviceable college player at UCLA, but he had more sources for GNG, and writing a full article was not a problem. I had thought of creating Walker before, but it failed my own checks for GNG. Your expansion of Walker's bio to its current size is about as large as I honestly imagine it can get without resorting to trivia or digging up game-by-game stats.—Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cbl62 arguments. Pretty marginal case though. Jhn31 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A dedicated piece in the LA Times would normally qualify in my book. But since it's within the geographical area of UCLA (and even has a column dedicated to UCLA sports) I'd say the Times is not entirely independent here, so that knocks it down a few notches. This column would never be written if Walker played for, say, Notre Dame. Perhaps it'd be written in the South Bend Tribune, in which case we'd be disregarding it. All the other sources are either routine or local. Lizard (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's arguments. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read the WP:N intro again in view of the conversation here. Is states "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." LA Times has a daily circulation of 650,000+. As a contrast, the Chillicothe Gazette has a circulation of about 15,000 (picked random small town newspaper with wikipedia article - here for Chillicothe, Ohio). Even if of local interest, a subject featured in the LA Times would make the subject far more famous than in the Chillicothe Gazette. The teams, games, and players of a Power Five conference school is far more important than a Ohio Regional Campus Conference school. Likewise, the general popularity of UCLA and its sports teams is far greater than the Ohio University – Chillicothe's sports teams and this flows down to the athletes of those teams. Even just thinking about the concept of something being "worthy of notice", this will slant towards major population centers. All this considered, I think that also favors keeping (though still not moving from weak keep above because I would like to see a greater number of sources). RonSigPi (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dilemma If we take off our Wikipedia editor hats for one moment, does this subject really pass the real-life "worthy of notice" test that Wikipedia:Notability poses? The bio is also about as long as it can constructively ever get.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I took off my Wikipedia hat, I'd see a guy who is laughably irrelevant to college football. I'd be surprised if a majority of UCLA football fans would even recognize his name. If we were using a real-world metric to determine if he was "notable for his college career," this would be a no-brainer delete. But here we are, on the cusp of keeping an article on a guy who was never higher than 3rd on the depth chart. Lizard (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I take off my Wikipedia hat, I think that pretty much anything having to do with My Little Pony is not "worthy of notice". But here we are with our Wikipedia hats on, and we ought not apply our subjective opinions. Instead, "worthy of notice" is properly viewed from a more objective standard, and the fact that the fourth largest newspaper in the US (and the OC Register as well) deemed him worthy of detailed feature stories means that he has been found, objectively, to be "worthy of notice". Also, it's incorrect to say he was "never higher than 3rd on the depth chart." He was actually a starter at wide receiver in both 2015 and 2016. Cbl62 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Assuming they lined up with 3 wide receivers it could potentially be true.~~ What I meant was that he was never higher than the team's number 3 receiver. Maybe he was, I was just assuming based on his numbers relative to the other receivers on the team. But anyway, the above rant was me "taking off my Wikipedia hat," so it should be taken lightly. Obviously I recognize that Wikipedia has different standards than real life, and those are what I took into account when I made my !vote. Lizard (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep starting FBS Division NCAA wide receivers normally get enough coverage that is far beyond WP:ROUTINE, such as those listed in the article and in this AFD. Many of these are well past the "sports scores" requirement given in WP:ROUTINE and therefore are WP:NOTROUTINE. Subject passes WP:GNG easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lizard's arguments Kobra98 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- If he didn't play at UCLA he wouldn't have had this coverage. I'd like to think the standard for inclusion is a little bit stronger than that, but this is definitely a very close case I could see going either way. Do we really want to set the precedent that someone could be notable just because of the market they played in? --Church ^Talk 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the "market" but the coverage that passes WP:GNG. If he wouldn't have had the coverage, then he wouldn't be notable. If playing for UCLA was either directly or indirectly responsible for the coverage... then yes, the subject is notable. I see nothing in WP:GNG that says it doesn't apply if the subject played at UCLA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Church is not citing GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Paulmcdonald I'm not arguing that, per GNG you are 100 percent correct that with those sources he is in fact notable. My question isn't so much a fact of is he but should he be notable? If the article stays then I am one hundred percent fine with it, but I don't think someone who did very little of note on the football field and who's coverage mainly exists because he played for a large media market should be eligible. Respectfully, --Church ^Talk 21:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Kobra98 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Kobra98 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Comment - I can't agree that the coverage Walker received can be disregarded because it is local. The LA metro area has a larger population than most countries. It is one thing to give little or no weight to the local paper in a town of 500 doing a profile on the local high school team's backup center. But the LA Times has thousands of amateur athletes within the LA area it can profile, and if it chooses to focus on a particular one that is a significant editorial decision by a reliable source. And if other reliable sources, even within the LA area, make a similar editorial decision that is also significant towards establishing notability. However, although this particular subject meets our notability criteria, I am sympathetic to Bagumba's argument that to date he has not done anything of particularly lasting significance, either by playing in the pros or by some lasting amateur achievement. So perhaps our criteria don't quite work in this case, and given that it is a BLP I can see an argument to delete this in spite of barely meeting notability criteria to avoid the possibility of future mischief. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Gray Miller

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

Unelected politician who is not notable. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a candidate for the Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018, which, by itself, does not meet WP:NPOL. All of the existing sourcing of the subject is in the context of that election. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in pending elections — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he already satisfied an inclusion criterion for some other reason besides the candidacy, then he has to win the seat and thereby hold office to get a Wikipedia article because of the election in and of itself. Rick Saccone, by comparison, does not have an article for being the Republican candidate in the same election; he has an article because he's held office in the state legislature. But this makes no claim of preexisting notability at all, and is filled with advertorialized nonsense like "If elected, he would be the first Libertarian Party candidate ever elected to U.S. Congress" — which is technically true, but any other Libertarian running in any other congressional seat could also make the exact same statement too, so it's not evidence in and of itself that his candidacy is any sort of special case. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he actually manages to pull it off, but nothing here entitles him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, it comes across as campaign literature. Would need a major rewrite to stay. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless Miller wins the election he will not be notable. If he wins the election, we can recreate an actually well written article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have been through all this so many times. If he hasn't been elected, then he is not notable as a politician. If he is not notable otherwise, then he is not notable at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 17:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, no notability outside of candidacy. Mélencron (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aashna Shroff

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

Non-notable blogger, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Few passing mentions can be found but there is no significant coverage in reliable sources to support WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business contract hire

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

No independent coverage supporting notability. And does not pass WP:ORGDEPTH, which is also perhaps appropriate. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the nom has misunderstood the article. While article is in bad shape atm, this is a well known financial term used to describe a particular way of leasing vehicles. Mattg82 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate that it is a well-known term in UK finance, but I think is more appropriate to cover it as a section in vehicle leasing or define it in Wiktionary. There does not seem to be enough encylopaedic content to require a standalone article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with vehicle leasing is a reasonable outcome for this afd. Mattg82 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed (in fact merge looks unanimous, even the nominator seems to favor it). --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Hold the horses up. There are not enough independant sources to advance notability for a stand-alone article. I am pretty sure current evidence will show that not only is this article and claims that ...this is a well known financial term used to describe a particular way of leasing vehicles., not as notable as claimed, or someone determined that sourcing is a thing of the past with Wikipedia. I will contest my first ever closing "if" it is advanced that we merge unsourced (a good sign of original research) content to another article. Consensus is not just a head count (straight vote) but please note the included: "Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted.". I would suggest that "if" someone has interest in keeping the content (merge) then surely for such a "well known term" at least on proper source can be included. Personally I would think sourced content can be a plus to the suggested target and that article can be expanded to include world-wide coverage. The alternative would be to consider the content WP:OR, possibly synthesis, certainly violating content policies and guidelines, and the recourse would be to just delete. Otr500 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the "policy" section of Wikipedia:Closing discussions. A HEY! would be some sourcing then a possible merge. Otr500 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I share this opinion. And just to clarify, my earlier reply about potentially adding a section to Vehicle Leasing would be for referenced content on the topic, not merging it in its current form. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the term was well known enough to meet criteria for notability, it would be seen in reliable sources. Ifnord (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Saxon Spelling

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

Non-notable spelling system, as far as I can tell. I've Googled "new saxon spelling", "nysassiske skryvwyse", and the names given to this system in the Dutch and German Wikipedia articles about it. (It's undergoing a deletion discussion on the latter.) I also searched for the name of the stated predecessor, "algemeyne schryvwys", and even "warkgruppe as2.0" and "werkgruppe as2.0". All searches yield practically no evidence of coverage in any context. The "literature" and the sole reference provided all seem to deal with the language(s) that this spelling convention was created for, but not with the convention itself. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 02:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 02:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 02:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given lack of references and nom's inability to find confirmation, this seems like original research.--Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This spelling is being used actively or rolled out on a variety of websites, such as www.wearldsproake.nl, as well as on various types of social media. This New Saxon Spelling is intended to unite writers of this language for both sides of the border, with intent to unite the two existing Low Saxon wikipedias into one. It is fitting you can't find anything on it, because that's precisely why this spelling has been developed; most people write in their own local variety, so whatever you Google, it won't come up. This spelling seeks offer better indexing options. Woolters (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so: under Wikipedia policy, article topics must be notable, which, in Wikipedia's odd use of the word, basically means having already achieved note. As stated in the general notability guidelines, that generally calls for substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, not only on websites that have been set up to promote or disseminate the topic. Even if a number of websites are using the spelling, Wikipedia doesn't make its own observations as to whether something is being used—it waits until appropriate sources have reported on that phenomenon, and takes its cues from them. (Also, social media don't usually count as reliable sources.) Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for rolling out a new initiative. This is in no way a judgment on the merits of the initiative, nor a prediction that it won't spread and become notable some day, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if a topic may meet the notability guidelines some day, we wait until that time comes to have an article on it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response, the new spelling has been covered in the latest edition of Taalpost, a mailing of language-related news by the Dutch official Genootschap Onze Taal. On their Facebook page, The Reur Foundation, a Low Saxon language-related festival, have expressed interest in implementing it. Woolters (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone traveling the Low Countries, know the need for this and understand it's usefulness. Wish it was expanded to compare to the West Frisian language as well, but perhaps with time. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To supplement my earlier comments, however useful something is, or however useful it is to have information on it, topics here have to be notable. See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Largoplazo (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "Usefulness" is not a criteria and underscores that this is probably not mature enough, if not original research.--Rpclod (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic articles that show the overlap and intersections between languages are notable and also useful as any other comparison of West Germanic languages (including English). Ask any speaker of one of the High German languages about the differences and similarities to Barbantian or Pomeranian. It is notable for showing these overlaps and the odd phonetic spellings, that remind me a bit of Scots. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about well-studied and documented comparisons among a family of related dialects languages, which are already covered at Low German. This is an article about a new orthography that's been proposed for them. Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the link you provided on usefulness, here's why this article is useful: it describes in detail what the orthography is about, why it is needed, what the arguments were for its conception, it provides examples of how it should be used, and it makes comparisons to other orthographies. Not only is this orthography proposed, it is being used actively, and has been noted, as I have tried to show you. Woolters (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point of that essay section is that showing that something is useful doesn't cause it to meet the criteria for inclusion. As I have tried to show you, notability is the requirement that is not being met. You did provide a couple of links above, but one is just a Facebook page and the other has a four-line blurb saying that users of the Low German/Dutch Wikipedia are working with a new spelling system designed with readability, not pronunciation, in mind. This is fairly light coverage, lacking the required depth.

Also, it sounds as though you might intend for the article to serve as a vehicle for advocating for this new spelling system. Wikipedia articles aren't for advocacy. Largoplazo (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not question the motives of others, this is not good faith. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A mere "it sounds as though you might ..." followed by guidance to a person who might have been unaware that there would be a problem with advocacy if advocacy was what that person had in mind, in a context in which that user and another have been repeatedly advocating the use of this spelling system, making it seem a not unreasonable possibility that that might be a motivation for having the article, is not a failure to assume good fait. It's reacting in a commensurately tentative, conditional fashion to what I see going on in front of my eyes. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you were familiar with Low Saxon, you could read that the Facebook page I linked to legitimises the new spelling and aims to start using it. The Wearldsproake.nl link shows a gradual implementation throughout everything they've published over the last few months. Not by explicitly mentioning it (though there is one article that does by calling it the 'Algemeyne Skryfwyze', see last paragraph), but by simply writing everything they publish in it. Strong enough coverage, in my opinion. I think the summary of an article's validy is: when the subject is out there, and settled in. Well, it is. And increasingly so. Woolters (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've attempted to explain, simply being "out there" doesn't qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. I haven't been debating with you whether this spelling convention is "out there" or not, whether it's "legitimate", whether one or two or three websites have adopted it for their use (by the way, why do you assume I can't read the announcement on that Facebook page? I made most of it out pretty well.); I'm not doubting any of that. Nor is this a discussion of what Wikipedia's inclusion criteria should be. This scope of this discussion is the disposition of the article based on what Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are, as set forth in its policies and guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is so wrong with an article charting the local evolution of spelling and doing it in real time, this article ain't aboot the French language that is strickly governed, but the Low-German/Dutch overlaps of spelling and speach. Like English, it is much more fluid and like Scots, it attempts to spell it as it sounds. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to try this one more time, and then I'm going to unwatch this discussion: This is not about the merits of the writing system. I am not questioning the value of this writing system. This is about WP:Notability. I know the article was written in good faith, in sincerity, and with enthusiasm, and I understand that, for that reason, this is discouraging, but, as it happens, Wikipedia topics have to meet the WP:Notability guidelines. Language is one of my favorite subjects (which you can probably figure out from my earlier remark that I was largely capable of reading the Nedersaksies, having studied and spoken both Dutch and German, which probably isn't true of most Americans who don't have an interest in languages); I agree that the common writing system is a great idea; and I would love to have this article here if the writing system were to turn out to meet the WP:Notability guidelines. But I can't find any sign that, at this time, it does. Can you? If you or someone else can and does, then the article will remain, and that'll be great. Largoplazo (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Largoplazo, but just want to re-iterate that notability must be supported by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is not my language or that of Largoplazo - that is from the definitive Wikipedia page. Find those, add them to article as references, and I for one will be satisfied. But they are not currently there.--Rpclod (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear my grandpa saying, "A staigh air an dala cluais 's amach air a' chluais eile." as I read through these responses. When is the changing of a language or dialect, not notable? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about an evolving language or dialect, though. The language(s)/dialect(s) in question are already covered by another article. This article is about a recently invented writing system proposed for them and adopted by perhaps a few websites. Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I have to admit that sourcing leaves much to be improved. It's obvious that this article does not meet the notability criteria for a standalone article. However, the subject is significant enough to merit elaboration on the Low Saxon language page, and from that point of view, I'd rather treat it is a subsection that was (or rather: could have been) split off from the main article for reasons of balance. Since not every piece of information in an article has necessarily to be run through all notability filters, the same goes for such sections-turned-articles as well. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite mistaken, actually. "Notability filters" provided under the guidelines that don't have to be applied to an article section do have to be applied to an article. If they aren't applied to articles, then what would they be applied to? Per WP:CONSPLIT, "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." In other words, if a main article is so long that even sections about topics that aren't independently notable should be removed from it, then they are probably too low a lever of detail even for that topic. Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure that I would categorize the sourcing as "leaves much to be improved". There's a grand total of one source for a rather long article. I agree that a lot of enthusiasm and care went into the creation of this article, however it just doesn't meet WP:GNG. I do agree that a short summary (based on the one source offered) at Low Saxon language might be appropriate. Waggie (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahma Riad

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

Virtually unsourced for over 10 years. Searches turn up very little on this person, using any of the variations of her name. The only real source I found was on Waleq.com, which is simply a press release put out by her fan club calling her an "Iraqi Rising Star". Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly a "rising star" in her home country years ago, but hasn't progressed beyond "rising" anywhere in order to merit a WP article. She has appeared in a few news sources but they are about her self-promotional activities, and this WP article also reeks of self-promotion with a strategically-placed link to more of the same. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cozi TV

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE --wooden superman 14:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The general standard of these list of program(me)s articles is generally indiscriminate and poorly sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, examples of the network's content can be given in the main article Cozi TV, an exhaustive list is indiscriminate in this particular instance. And it should have been clearly stated in this AFD that the real reason this list is a problem is that this network has no original notable programming, but instead just repackages reruns of old TV series. This lineup is obviously subject to change and is not unique as plenty of stations have and will broadcast the same reruns. Without that explanation we just had a WP:VAGUEWAVE, or even the incorrect implication that it is never appropriate to list notable series by broadcasting network. Please address the specific article at hand in these discussions so we're not left guessing at your analysis. postdlf (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current programming aired can be described briefly in the main article. Almost all-rerun network; this list isn't needed. Nate • (chatter) 06:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the network has no original programming, and a few examples of their syndicated programs could easily be included in the main article for Cozi. Nanophosis (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KredX

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article describing a start-up company's proposition, referenced to sources which are routine announcement coverage and brief mentions. I am not seeing a substantial claim to attained encyclopaedic notability or the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- corporate spam on a nn company; likely a paid contribution in violation of TOU. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Amelia Spencer

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

Subject does not meet royalty and notability guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. She is only mentioned in passing as the "niece of Princess Diana". Notability is not inherited. Should redirect to her father's Wikipedia entry. CookieMonster755 ✉ 14:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

clear BLP delete since really the only thing we can say about her is tabloid stuff that nobody would print about someone who isn't a (very minor) celebrity. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep trollantrag (unsigned comment by 217.92.235.144)

Please, no personal attacks. CookieMonster755 ✉ 21:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm also going to nominate her twin sister Lady Eliza Spencer for deletion as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo meeting WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Lightweight Crew

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

Non-notable, non-NCAA sanctioned club team. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources found. James (^talk/_contribs) 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Lightweight Crew has been a state university-sanctioned club sports team at the University of California, Berkeley for decades. The fact that the team is not NCAA-sanctioned is irrelevant to the current significance of this team’s history or future. Please define ‘notable’ and ‘reliable’ in your nomination. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickthebcket (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defined: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

"'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." James (^talk/_contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I see James' point, I agree with Kickthebcket that "...the team is not NCAA-sanctioned is irrelevant to the current significance of this team’s history or future". Best, House1090 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I agree with Kickthebcket as well. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Kickthebcket and Bythebooklibrary. = paul2520 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that NCAA sanctioning is neither here nor there. However, there is no significant independant coverage (keeping in mind WP:ROUTINE) that establishes notability. And the topic does not pass any of the 3 requirements in WP:NCOLLATH. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick search turns up little coverage suggesting notability, beyond the Daily Cal piece. [[44]]. Most of the current sources are race results. Amateur organizations fall under WP:ORG, and under that, race results are excluded per WP:ORGDEPTH. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: That part of the nomination statement is irrelevant is not a good reason to keep an article. Anyways, let's give it another week to see if anyone can find WP:RS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see a sufficient number of independent, authoritative references to support notability. Competition results do not qualify.--Rpclod (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National High School Center

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sourcing found. Prod declined Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought going in this was going to be a clear keep, given the organisation existed for 8 years, but there just doesn't seem to be any independent coverage out there. Tacyarg (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valdosta Yacht Club

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

Doesn't appear to be much more than a run-of-the-mill sailing club. Doesn't appear to be any kind of event with lasting significance associated with this club that could be used as a yardstick for notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are tons of articles about small ice hockey, baseball or basketball teams. Sailing deserves the same treatment as any other sport.--Banderas (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible reason to keep and that comment should be discounted by the closer. Club utterly fails GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of adequate coverage to justify notability. Wikipedia is not about how the world ought to be, but about how it is, and coverage follows sources, not "what is deserved".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sussanne Khan

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable individual. Pure promotional cruft. Quis separabit? 22:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... Some sources are ok, but she doesn't seem notable for anything beyond the divorce.104.163.150.32 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete only "notable" as ex-spouse-of, which just doesn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 11:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huaptec

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, a search indicated only routine coverage. The creator is a likely COI/UPE editor. Wording like "mobile signal enhancement solutions" and "offers a variety of solutions" are texbook advert language. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a corporate brochure for a nn company. Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Bananovaya, who likely has COI for the subject. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May Tha Hla

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

Another case of someone who became notable because she was put on the BBC 100 Women list. No coverage of her outside of the brief coverage of being on that list. The other references presented are connected to her website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The BBC honor is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The above !vote was typed in and saved only a 1 minute after the user's previous !vote in another deletion debate.--Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extensive coverage on the BBC Radio program Outlook and the Huffington Post as well as the BBC honor. [45][46] --Oakshade (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be within the BBC sourcing as they were the company that produced the special interest story of the person in order to make them notable and place in the 100 Women: the special was released in 2013 and she was on the list for 2013. The Huffpost article is also UK-based, but not immediately tied directly to BBC's research. Huffpost also covered her work in 2014 in which she was also placed in 100 Women in 2014. This should be added to the article as part of the WP:HEYMANN as the description as it currently is does not even have these references to justify its notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a confirmation that this topic passes WP:GNG. The BBC is a reliable source that's independent of the topic and that coverage is in-depth. If the person wasn't notable, the BBC wouldn't have done a story on them. You seem to have the concept of notability backwards. The topic is considered notable if a reliable source gives in-depth coverage to them, not the other way around. As for HEYMANN, WP:GNG makes it explicitly clear notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that BBC Outlook vs. BBC 100 Women shouldn't be counted as two separate sources, given the timing of the publication of the video and the list. It's also a case where the Outlook is but a segment of the program, not the full video. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC) updated 08:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG makes no discrimination of in-depth coverage that comes from a "segment" of a work from an independent reliable source. If 60 Minutes did an in-depth piece on a person, there would be no negation of in-depth coverage simply because it was a "segment." --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC 100 Women list is populated with relevant women chosen by the BBC. If this person is important enough for the BBC to feature her several times on their national state-sponsored platform, then she should be important enough to be written about on Wikipedia. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the BBC 100 Women list is not enough to be notable. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women discussion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is about someone else, who was only featured once. There was no binding judgment, just a few people makes vague comments about how just being on the list is a WP:BLP1E issue of some sort. Now this person is different because she was on other BBC programs, not just featured on the list, she was even featured on the world service. She is talked about in the huffington post. Also on various charity sites [47] that are unlikely to count. She was on two BBC 100 women lists, at least according to the article. I think all of this should be considered separately from the decision made by you and the policy department on that other person. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is about whether being on BBC 100 Women and having related articles around that event is enough to show notability. At this point only the Huffington Post article is counting as the second of multiple sources independent of the subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My logic is that two is multiple^[48], so if all the 6 or 7 BBC sources are one, and the Huffington Post article is the other, then that is enough for the requirement of multiple sources. And this should be acceptable because the BBC is very important and reliable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Question is whether articles from these two major sources are good enough to establish notability for the person, or whether others are still needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'comment I was asllked by AngusWOOF to comment on the HP. (I may give a !vote later). I think the curent consensus is consider the Huffington Post worthless for notability, because it has no editorial controls and deliberaately lets the contributors print what they like -- that policy is their major innovation & what makes it interesting to read, a sort of cross between a blog and a newspaper; it therefore doesn't matter how many times it refers to something. Number of times mentioned wouldn't be a factor in any case, as we do not decide notability just by counting references, but by assessing them. And I'm really suprised at saying the BBC1000 deserves special credit as a government-related source. There's no such policy, and in general I'd say that state-sponsored media might even be less trustworthy than independent ones. The BBC is indeed a special case of long time reliability in its news coverage, but I don't think its opinion in making a list of that sort should have special cosnideration. It's time we stopped using such list placement as evidence of anything at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. on the basis of my comment above: looking at history of this and related articles, the entire basis of this is the attempt to use the list for notability and to write articles on everyone included. This is mistaking publicity for encyclopedic notability , DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned on the WT:WIR discussion page. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Also note that she does not have an entry in Burmese Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be astounding if she did, with their 81 users and the tiny collection of articles they have, barely 0.5% of what we have here. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to prefer not to delete articles in general, but cannot the article be improved? it basically amount to two sentences, I'm sure that, with a little effort, info about education, family background and so on can be found, cannot be? It would help people deciding on the keep. I tend not to write on living person, otherwise I would do it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa.rolle Yes, see WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Shekshnia

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill academic. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to showing the passing of any notability guideline for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrnch

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to section of Paul Kruszewski where the same material is already included. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Fails the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable startup. I don't see a reasone for a merge / redirect, and the name is unlikely to be a viable search term and the proposed target, Paul Kruszewski, is tagged for notability itself. No need to preserve article history as it's 100% promo, so a delete is the best outcome, IMO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GripHeavyIndustries where another of the Kruszewski's startups has been deleted. Appears to be part of a promo walled garden, so it's time to raze it to the ground. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltav Resources PLC

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

Subject lacks notability. Possible merge/redirect to ARA Capital. Meatsgains (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no effort has been made to add even a single source. We should expect better. If the company is indeed notable (of which I'm not convinced), someone will create a better article in the future. there's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 shopping malls in Malaysia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in East Coast, Malaysia

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

Indiscriminate list of non-notable malls in a particular region of Malaysia. Most of the notable malls are already listed in List of shopping malls in Malaysia. Currently, this list is not required. Hitro talk 12:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of shopping malls in Malaysia per WP:CFORK as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Klang Valley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Penang Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Southern Malaysia and List of shopping malls in Kedah and Perak. Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Lake Winter Classic

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

Event fails WP:GNG, and is unreferenced. PROD contested by anonymous users without comments. Flibirigit (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any published sources about this tournament nor its participants. Based on what I have found, this is either a local beer league or senior hockey event, with maybe more organization than a backyard game. Even so, I would like say it fails WP:NEVENT under WP:GEOSCOPE for being highly localized coverage to Barrie. Likely also falls under WP:NOTNEWS original reporting with only local figures as participants and unverifiable results. (Not to mention the article currently rides the edge of WP:PROMOTIONAL.) Yosemiter (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources anywhere that indicate any notability. I am pretty sure this is a case of some guys who created their own little tournament one day and have made a tradition of holding it. Very much fails WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Djsasso. I spend a fair bit of time in the area and know the lake well, and I have never heard of it.18abruce (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Thomas (businessman)

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

It's quite a tough case. From one side, he looks quite notable, but from another, I didn't find any reference, not related to Hippodrome, London casino and taking into account that article exists and being problematic itself, I don't see any other supportive information that makes him notable beside the casino. Hence, I think we need the better review and discussion. I am happy to reconsider if someone points me to information I missed. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph article calls him a prominent businessman and he's quoted in articles about political issues and regulations that affect the gaming industry and his business. Based on the coverage and his influential role as the leader of a large gaming establishment I'm a weak keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One can be prominent businessman, but still not notable. I am looking thru the article more deeply and I still see it as an article about casino and Simon Thomas. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable content to the Hippodrome article. Not otherwise notable. Tacyarg (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn businessman and CEO. I don't see a reason for a merge / redirect, as I'm not a fan of redirecting BLPs to businesses. In this case, the suggested target is actually a sub-section in a larger article: Hippodrome,_London#The_Hippodrome_Casino. The BLP content would be undue there, so "delete" is the best option. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Sherrell

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

Even thought Rob Sherrell received coverage from reliable independent source for being the first college student to "major" in stand-up comedy, however, the article might be better to merge with Stand-up comedy as believe the weight of being first person to be majoring in stand-up comedy doest not give enough weight to meetWP:BIO1E criteria as famous and coverage do not mean notable enough to receive a stand alone article in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the first graduate does not seem to me to make Sherrell notable in itself. It might make the course or the institution notable. Tacyarg (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rob Sherrell here! One of my friends sent me a text about seeing some page issues on here. I don't want the page to cause any problems or anything. Feel free to just delete it. Trust me when I say, I am not worth debating on. I don't even know whoever made the page. Bless that guy or gal because MAN! This stuff is HARD! Like, how do yall do this?! I don't even know if I'm typing this right or in the right spot. It took me 15 minutes just to even find the place I was supposed to comment! Hats off to yall. This place is really an encyclopedia of the freaking world and now I know how hard it is just to type a paragraph with all the little symbols and stuff. You think we'd know half the stuff we know without yall! The wikipedia community lowkey keep the world turning. Aye, I was geeked to have a page on here but it aint worth all of this. Love yall though!

Wait did, I type that in the right spot? Is this the relisted one or the regular one?

I'm back, and still lost so I don't know if this is the right place to comment, but hopefully the right people see that. This place is huge man! Like a maze of texts and hyperlinks. Yall are some talented folk on here! I'm deeeeefinitely about to start donating every time I use one of these. Making this account opened my eyes to how much work this is. Yo, and you're telling me there are THOUSANDS of these things?! 😅

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) !dave 12:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poema (musical group)

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

Fails WP:NBAND, the sources seem kind of unreliable to me. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, Sing It Now, an album by the group was reviewed by four sources listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources while Once a Year: A Poema Christmas EP was reviewed by one, but has references from a second. The latter could be deleted. As a result, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Cooper & The Stampede

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

The references are either to interviews or mere passing mentions, seems to fall short of WP:MUSIC, a WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as AfC reviewer, who reviewed this new article within the last few hours. I'll confess that I'm relatively new at AfC although I've been around for many years and have fair record in deletion processes. IMHO the nominator doesn't do these sources justice. I believe this subject meets GNG and section one of WP:BAND. Citation #1 is in fact a YouTube interview with a staffer conducted by and published by the Marquette University student newspaper (Oct 2017). The source has been used to document the band's existence and the names of the band members only. #2 is nothing special, a review of a single song by nobody meeting RS. #3 is a one paragraph review of a single song by NPR radio, All Songs Considered, a national source directly detailing the subject, not merely a mention (March 2017). #4 is a feature article about the band's upcoming performance from the Baltimore Sun, a major market media outlet. While the moderately long article does contain some quotes, the story is mostly a "local girl makes it big and comes back home" piece, and again, directly details the subject at length (Aug 2015). #5 is a longer "get to know the band" piece from ANCHR magazine, which does include some quotes but directly details the subject at some length, a Chicagoland-based online professional music publication though I'd never heard of them myself (Oct 2017). #6 is Nashville Scene, another professional website which is covering a music fest, somewhat routine music news but directly details for an entire paragraph (July 2017). So we have zero mere mentions, we have ~~zero~~ one articles which ~~are~~ is purely interviews. What we do have is several independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject which originate from six different parts of the country. NPR and Baltimore Sun put this past WP:BAND, ANCHR provides lots of detail, the rest of the sources aren't as strong but verify this band is doing well in a wide variety of settings. A reasonable before might have found a bit more than a bare mention at Seven Days Vermont, a long paragraph from connected BMI, and another long profile with quotes from Native Magazine. This isn't that close. I passed the article through the reviewing process based on NPR, ANCHR and the Sun and the sheer diversity of source locations. I stand by my review accepting this brand new pagespace for inclusion in an online encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Page creator has incorporated Native Magazine source. BusterD (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Coverage not really sufficient to establish notability. May become notable soon, but if they split up now and never did anything else they wouldn't really merit an article. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the basis of the latest uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Padgett

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

Absolutely no sourcing found whatsoever, fails WP:V Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oodles of sources, historic photos, and documentation of his racing motorboat and naval career on Google Books. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FloridaArmy: ^{[citation needed]} Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was trivial to find sources for his racing boats in Motorboating, Power Boating, and the Rudder. Anmccaff (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff: So trivial that you didn't even add them to the article. Because you clearly believe that saying "I found sources" is the same thing as adding them to the article right? They will just magically add themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that no sources are available, the explicit basis of your AfD, is disproven with two minutes spent on Google; that is enough tp end the subject here. Anything further belongs on the article, its talk page, or ANI. Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://www.idaillinois.org/cdm/ref/collection/qpl/id/1865, https://books.google.com/books?id=lcywsU36sEEC&pg=PA33, http://www.whig.com/article/20100416/ARTICLE/304169975, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

first link: a photograph, not a source. Second and third links: one sentence mentions. Fails SIGCOV.198.58.168.40 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Again, finding the source means it automatically adds itself to the article, right? Nothing more has to be done here? It's automatically turned into an FA just because you found that? If you're going to argue notability and dig up sources, then how much harder is it to fucking add them? I see this all the time: people scream their heads off that it's notable, argue that it be kept, but no one ever adds the sources, so 10 years later the article is still an unsourced trainwreck. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenpoundhammer what stops you from adding sources to the article? Are you too busy wasting peoples' time at your rotten afd? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from adding them? AGain, are you expecting the article to magically turn into an FA overnight just because you said keep? If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Not that fucking hard. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know whether some of you have personal conflicts with each other or what, but the rest of us editors also have to read this stuff in order to participate properly, so we'd really appreciate more Wikipedia:Civility and less sarcasm and gratuitous obscenity. Thanks. --Closeapple (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The PROD mentioned that it is a possible hoax. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as mentioned repeatedly above, is obviously false to anyone who actually checks for references. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating this — absolutely NOT A HOAX. Whether he was a notable boat builder and racer or a non-notable boat builder and racer is the question. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there is no in-depth coverage of the subject of this article. The sources that were found do not include more than a sentence each about him.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a side note, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather, it is based upon the existence of reliable sources that provide significant coverage. See WP:NEXIST for more information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's true that he is mentioned often in a Google books search, however if you look closer, all of the sourcing there is in the form of trivial mentions. I looked for a good amount of time and could not find any sources longer than a single sentence. Non-notable, for lack of in-depth sourcing.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and, surprise, surprise, an SPA shows up. CU, anyone? Anmccaff (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anmccaff, I think if you take a little more time to actually read my contribs, you will see that I am a genuine well intentioned user like most other editors. While you are at it, you could read WP:AGF, which talks about how you should not assume ill intentions of an editor. Have a lovely day.198.58.168.40 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine well intentioned users seldom have fourteen of their first fifty edits centering around an AfD. Others appear to have noted this as well. Genuinely new users seldom show such a grasp of wiki-cant; someone who discovers templating in their first 100 edits is usually off to a very bad start. Anmccaff (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, My IP reset. I count fourteen different articles edited in my first 50 as 198.58.168.40, plus another dozen or so AfD's. Also, I'm not sure you know this, but for someone whose IP resets frequently, there's no "first edit". That's why they are called dynamic IPs. So basically everything you have stated is incorrect. Why make things up? In any case, the "I'm superior to you" attitude is at the heart of why Wikipedia does not attract more new users, as it reflects the battle-hardened cynicism of a whole generation of territorial users. It's a sad attitude. Have a nice day.198.58.169.1 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am hampered to some extent by paywalls in the Newspapers.com links, but it does appear that this individual as a former world record holder and successful local racer narrowly meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Setting a world record in a significant sport is notable. If that were done today, there'd be oodles of easy-to-find sources, but due to our recency bias older ones like these are harder to find. I'm willing to accept the sources we have as demonstrating he meets GNG.Jacona (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a surviving blood relative of the late Cliff Padgett, I would like to help preserve his legacy. To that end, here are a few other sources that confirm his history:

^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

References

^ “Miss Quincy Establishes New Record: Clifford Padgett’s Boat Breaks World’s Mark At Palm Beach,” The (Quincy, IL) Herald, Feb 25, 1924
^ “Show of Boats and Equipment at Boat Club: Three-day Open House Starting Tonight Honors Cliff Padgett,” Quincy Herald-Whig, May 29, 1943
^ “Tribute Paid Cliff Padgett, Boat Genius,” Quincy Herald-Whig, May 30, 1943, page 12.

I have many others and will try to improve the Cliff Padgett Wiki page as time and understanding of the Wiki protocol permits. QuincyBoatMan (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a source and added it (October 1920 article in Power Boating magazine). I used the magazine citation format. Felisse (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has sources now. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's fundamental disagreement here about the quality of the sourcing. Given that it's already had two relists, I don't see much point in a third, but WP:NPASR if anybody feels strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macoun Developers Conference

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

References almost entirely one, seemingly niche, technology blog. The rest of the references seem to be to non-notable sources. A preliminary WP:BEFORE seemed to confirm that. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources don't have to be "notable". They just have to be reliable - which they are. Non-English sources are allowed and the subject meets WP:GNG. – by AdA&D at 05:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very unique understanding of the GNG (which, given how horribly it is written, I can understand for a user new to dealing with new content). If the blogs are niche and don't have a wide audience, we typically don't could them towards notability, even if they are reliable for the purpose of verification. I'm unsure of the German press, but this appears to me to follow a similar pattern in many Anglophone subject areas where people load the article with sourcing from sources that are famously easy to get into in order to make it appear notable when it isn't. Being a German source doesn't change that this tactic is harmful. Kudpung, would you mind doing an analysis of the German sourcing cited in this article if you have a chance? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I created the Draft, I asked for help in the AfC help desk (see Help desk entry), outlining why I think the article is worth to be in the Wikipedia. I also knew it could be a border case because the conference does not target English speakers and thus the press coverage is in German.

Regarding the significance of Heise Online: It is one of the most visited IT news sites in Germany (^[1]). Daniel Höpfl (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The long list of sources is deceptive - often a ploy to hoodwink less careful New Page Patrollers. The vast majority of them are to the Heise organisation, but different pages on their website, usually a page for each year's conference, so those multiple sources being about the individual conferences could really be considered as being one only . Only this one is more general about the conference. Heise however appears to be reliable. Not so for most of the others which include at least two private blogs. Without additional sources to German mainstream press such as Spiegel, or Chip (magazine) or business pages of the daily SDZ, FAZ, Handelsblatt, or Der Tagesspiegel, I would be hesitant to say this article is notable as it stands. I haven't had time to look for other sources, but if there is something in Chip it would probably clinch the deal..Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there is converage on other publications (giga.de, MacTechNews, MacLife, MacWelt, MacGadget, MacNotes, ...), none of these sites is as important as Heise, so I preferred links to Heise Online. If it helps to show notability, I can replace (or add?) some references using these sources.

The articles on Mac & i often are reports about the conference, they are not just short mentions. When I wrote the article, I tried to back all claims and as many numbers as possible with references from secondary sources (Obviously nobody outside the Macoun team counted the visitors so there is no real secondary source here. I still included references here because the (lack of) size was a topic in the German Wikipedia). I added references only when needed to back a claim, not to just have another source (e.g. A podcast episodes by Tim Pritlove also discusses Macoun).

Even WWDC does not get coverage on chip.de, Spiegel, … that goes beyond the product news: I quickly checked the 103 hits regarding WWDC (highlight is hit #2, a tumble dryer) on chip.de: None of them seemed to give the developer part of WWDC attention. Do academic conferences get coverage in end user magazines (as chip.de) or (business) news papers (Handelsblatt, Spiegel, SZ)?

So, why is it notable?

Continued coverage on Heise Online on a sign of significance. Heise Online is not just one ot the most visited pages in the German IT szene: The German equivalent to slashdotted is geheist). As you can see above, other sources are available, too.

With 500 attendees, it gathers a significant part of the Apple developers in Europe. I'm not 100% sure (no reference but my own extensive search) but as far as I can tell, it is not only the biggest Apple developer conference in Europe but also the third biggest (behind WWDC and AltConf) world-wide. Apple developer conference might be a niche but one with a Category. Even in the next bigger category Computer Conferences, 500 attendees seems to be above average.

The speakers are well known in their field in Germany, most in Europe, and some world-wide. (References could be better here)Daniel Höpfl (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable "workshop" that fails GNG, using multiple instances of a single source and other Vendor and e-commerce sources with advertisement (WP:NOT) and promotional tones. I read the article and looked at references first for my own assessment before looking at comments. The article is by far sourced with "Heise online" and a problem is that "many mentions" from the same source all count as one for notability. I started going through the sources, that are mostly just product news, which is mentioned in a "keep !vote above, "Even WWDC does not get coverage on chip.de, Spiegel, … that goes beyond the product news.". Another "support" comment stated "So, why is it notable? Continued coverage on Heise Online on a sign of significance. Heise Online is not just one ot the most visited pages in the German IT szene (sic):". This is a boomerang and reasoning that coverage in multiple reliable sources not connected to the subject is required. The subject is a yearly workshop "conference" that charges attendees for participation. "Speciality" sources reflect advertisement (WP:NOT) such as a link from a list of links source that promote the subject with, "Also new is a discounted rate for students, students and trainees (99 euros)" and words like "According to the organizers". Some such as this source are self published and some are self-published blogs that begin with "The video of my Introduction to Games Programming", or this source; "It’s the time of the year to write a recap about the things I’ve done this year.". What can appear as a well sourced article can actually be refbombing if the references from the "same" are attempted to be used as evidence of notability, or to pass WP:GNG that states "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so we don't end up with an article that "looks" well sourced but is actually not. There are also WP:BLP issues. Otr500 (talk) 09:08, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synthea

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

Obvious commissioned work for non-notable software that was an inappropriate AfC acceptance. It is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM on it's face, but also fails the sourcing requirements found in WP:N. The sourcing is either primary, WP:SPIP, or press release churn and interviews. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue with this. It was a bad acceptance, I apologize. I'll be more careful in the future. – by AdA&D at 16:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Initial Author

Apologies if my formatting is off. I am the initial author of the page and I wish to address the cited concerns WP:NOTSPAM and WP:SPIP.

Was this commissioned?

First as to whether the page was commissioned or whether the authors have a conflict of interest. I am user of the software. While participating on the issues board of the software project, I was contacted by User:Exception e who has been contributing to the page Talk:List_of_open-source_health_software. A letter was posted to the issue discussion board (text of the letter appears on the Talk page linked) asking for a wikipedia page to be created so that it could be included on the List_of_open-source_health_software. The maintainer of the Synthea project replied stating that he felt he could not initiate the page because of conflict of interest policies. As a user of the platform, I volunteered to write the page.

As stated, I have used the project in the course of my work as a data scientist in healthcare. I was first introduced to it when it was presented at a MIT conference in 2016. Shortly after that conference, I had lunch with the maintainers to provide feedback on some issues. I am not a contributor of source code nor do I have a financial interest in the success or failure of the project but I am user. I have reviewed the WP:EXTERNALREL policy and I do not think that would exclude me as contributing to the page but I will trust the editors judgement on the issue. In writing the article, I did contact a maintainer to request that an image used in the documentation be placed in the wikimedia commons such that is could be included on the page without a copyright issue.

Is the sourcing Press Release Churn or Interview?

The article does use a quotation from a article describing the project. However, the sourcing came from a peer-reviewed journal, Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Informatics_Association. While that source is fact-checked and reviewed, It was authored by the project maintainers and thus should be considered a primary source. Other sources included HIT Analytics.com, which is a secondary source. The project was covered by a named reporter and included outside perspective. The publication includes a clear masthead and is a known online newsletter.

The project and issue of synthetic health data has also gotten attention from other secondary sources, that are independent of the project, including:

HIStalk A daily news site that does not accept paid content well known in the HealthIT space. Huffington post Where the author summarized the industry challenges and stated the case for having synthetic health data. a 2017 paper accepted at the digital health innovation conference had heavy reliance on Synthea and was not authored by any of the project maintainers. I consider this article to be secondary as to its use of Synthea but primary in terms of the research presented.

There is also a book on the subject anonymizing health data that presents the issues plainly but was published before the Synthea software, noted here, was created.

I am happy to edit the article to make better use of these other sources

Is this software Notable?

This is the area I struggled with and I admit that I did not review WP:N prior to authoring the page.

I would argue it is notable for the following reasons:

it is authored by a company that clearly is notable Mitre Corporation.
the software is tied to a notable issue in the health technology space. Specifically Data anonymization and Health Informatics.
There are other software methods for synthetic health data already in wikipedia. Specifically, Datafly algorithm
Sources discussing this project are reliable and independent as stated above.

Alternatives to Deletion

I'd also like to propose three alternatives to deletion for discussion.

1. This article could be moved to the drafts space while we work to change the tone and update the sources used.

2. This article could be eliminated but some of the content moved to the Talk:List_of_open-source_health_software noted above.

3. This article could be merged with another article in the health informatics and software space.

Kindofluke (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC) comment added by Kindofluke (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - don't believe WP:NOTSPAM applies here, but there are few secondary sources available to prove notability. I suspect this could well become notable within the next couple of years but there aren't currently any published papers using the software in research. It may be worth moving the article to the creator's user space to be revived if it becomes notable. I suspect it would stay in the Draft namespace for longer than is appropriate if we moved it there. PriceDL (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to Deletion / My 2 Cents - Hi everyone. I helped author the article as a person heavily involved in open source healthcare. I am not involved in Synthea but I am actually considering using it in an open source project that I help to run. I appreciate the discussion here so far, agree with Luke's points, and only wish to contribute these 2 cents:

I don't believe this article is spam or an ad. I agree that the article would benefit from being placed in a draft form where Luke and I can add more references for notability, which is good and practical feedback.

Thanks, Matthew Exception e (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It must be really, really frustrating for the editors, having worked to get a new page through WP:AFC successfully, to have it immediately put forward for deletion. But I'm really sorry, I don't yet see this quite meeting WP:NSOFT. Maybe it is WP:TOOSOON for this product. On Google News, all I can find is articles about Synthea, the robot sex doll! Some good medical journal articles reviewing it might have cemented it. I see no reason why the editor shouldn't take a copy back to their sandbox to retain to be worked on for later. Any editing should aim to shorten the article and keep it factual, and less promotional in tone. I should also comment that I learnt more about what Synthea offers from the references than from the over-complex Wikipedia article. Sometimes less is more. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Per request above. During the rewrite, besides adding more sources, please do try to rewrite things a bit to describe better what the product does. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DotComGuy (company)

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

De-prodded by the author. Appears to fail WP:NCORP by a wide margin due to lack of substantial third-party coverage. Not to be confused with the person having the same name. Rentier (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I posted my feedback on the wrong page. I thought I had to add it to the article's talk page - I didn't realize there was another talk page specifically for the discussion of deletion.

I believe this article meets the criteria for inclusion on the basis of its reliably referenced content and notability. There are two citations from reputable news sources about this company and its activities and the article is written in a neutral way. Additionally, its history evolves out of the activities of The DotComGuy (person) and the subsequent branding of the DotComGuy company, going back (as of 1/9/2018) 18 years, providing it with a basis for notability both as a documentation of the history of the evolution of the DotComGuy brand (first as a person, then as a company that purchased the brand) and as a company in its own right.

With regards to the assertion that there is a lack of substantial third-party coverage, I would challenge where the line should be drawn to define whether third-party coverage is substantial or not - what is the established criteria for defining what is and is not substantial? If evidence can be presented as to what the established norm within the Wikipedia community is to define substantial, then I agree that this is or is not substantial in accordance with whatever that established norm is, however I have been unable to find any documentation of what constitutes substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbeasley (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobbeasley, the notability criteria for companies are laid out at WP:NCORP. The DotComGuy person is covered in another article and does not confer notability on your company per WP:NOTINHERITED. We normally require multiple reliable sources intellectually independent from the company that discuss the company in some depth. Both sources present in the article clearly fail the independence criterion. Unless better sources can be found, the article is likely to be deleted. Also, please be mindful of our conflict of interest guideline. Thank you. Rentier (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RentierWhat aspect makes the existing sources not independent? These organizations are both independent news organizations. Is it because they are interviewing DotComGuy representatives? I believe this does meet the cited criteria in WP:NCORP because there are multiple reliable sources that are independent from the company. I do see your point about depth, however I believe at around 750 words the Sun Current article does offer some depth, though if your point is that any articles that involve interviewing a representative of the company are not intellectually independent enough, then I can see your point. Just looking for clarification on the principles because when I submitted this article I believed that we met WP:NCORP because I cited multiple independent sources and that is the only requirement I see in WP:NCORP. I see no definition nor requirement of "intellectual independence" nor "depth" in WP:NCORP, so I do not think it is fair to assess that these sources "clearly fail the independence criteria". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbeasley (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobbeasley: Interviews do not normally contribute to the notability of a company since they are primary sources. See WP:ORGIND, which explicitly excludes other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself. Rentier (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and in general WP:TOOSOON -- the company has not achieved anything significant just yet. Sources listed in the article are local, not meeting WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the significant third party coverage needed to be regarded as notable. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Datarock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fa-Fa-Fa

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

Does not meat the guidelines. 333 -blue at 12:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep far from an ordinary run of the mill song release this song from a Nordic band has been used in popular American television shows. Seems to be very notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from those notable topics. Can you reason based on something more guideline based, such as WP:NMUSIC ? Widefox; talk 22:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC (as presented) - not in charts, and many primary sources. Additionally, I find it curious that a new editor (not quite an WP:SPA) User:Javiera Mena Mon Laferte created this on their second edit, so with advanced edit abilities. Widefox; talk 22:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it curious at all. It's a hit song. Their edit history shows they were reading about the band where this is noted in the lede as one of the group's two biggest hits. Recognizing and appreciating the song as many do they made an article on it. Obviously they're not a first time editor but assume good faith. Apple and the popular U.S. television show Workaholics used the song so it even has an international following. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of the many sources discussing the song very subatantially. The Prime Minister and other officials rocked out to it as is noted in the article and seen in the video. At worst this would be a merge, bit why so why so many editors want to violate Wikipedia's cornerstones such as WP:Before and wp:preserve is disheartening. We have a real problem with wp:bias and trying to delete sibjects like this instead of improving them is why. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know that another account "were reading about the band" etc? Either that's hearsay or you should explain how you know that account. None of the above addresses it a) failing NMUSIC (that source is WP:PRIMARYNEWS), or b) account activity. Widefox; talk 10:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is coverage of the band performing this song at a concert with the Prime Minister and 400 children performing it done by NRK News primary? You also say it is suspicious that a new account would create an entry on a hit song. Why is it suspicious? People are interested in hit songs, like to know about them, and are willing to write about them. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link explains..."Reports on events" is an example. It's primary for the event which is about the song (live), arguably primary/secondary for the song. (NRK News is a distraction: independent and primary/secondary aren't to be conflated.) NMUSIC has the bar set at a national chart, there's nothing about that so it fails that doesn't it. Widefox; talk 13:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ It's tough when you don't understand the language. This [49] looks like significant coverage of Datarock, some of Fa-Fa-Fa. I think we've got to watch for language bias on this one.Jacona (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Google translation works on it.) Widefox; talk 13:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NMUSIC. A non-charting single that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The link above is about the album, with a passing mention of the song (the album itself should be probably redirected to the band itself as not independently notable). This is insufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's a fine song, but no reason it needs its own article, per NMUSIC. It is best covered by redirecting to Datarock Datarock.Jacona (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Euryalus (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nyaya Ellide

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language film from early 1980s. Not sure how many of the sources would be online but I see it mentioned in the Hindu. At any rate, it can easily be merged to a section of the article on the original version of the Tamil film by the same director if it isn't kept independent. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the source you found. It would certainly help. Meatsgains (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a source.Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Have added the sufficient information about the film , so i request wikipedia to add this page , which would help others in knowing about the movie Nyaya Ellide. Manoj sv —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. based on analysis of translated sources. open to revising close if farsi speakers can clarify the nature of the sources on my talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cancer Period

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Coverage in reliable sources not found. This article was recreated after an expired prod, but no new sources have been added since then. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All necessary resources were added Sheydai (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification: Considering that all sources are in Farsi and that nominator does not understand the language, I do not know how the coverage in the currently included 11 sources was evaluated, let alone asserted to be unreliable. But please walk us through each and every source; {{Assess table}} can be used for this purpose. Sam Sailor 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the references are in the article. I read them in Persian. Do not delete the article. Solist5 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would nom either please respond or withdraw? Sam Sailor 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sam Sailor: To determine reliability, I can use Google translate. For example, translating [50] shows that it is an interview. But this AfD will likely be closed as no consensus anyway. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I am a Persian language user on Wikipedia. The resources available in Imdb and the Persian Wikisedia and the resources found in the article indicate that this article is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and should not be deleted.Sheydai (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm in a quandry here. On the one hand, I would like to put my faith in the opinions of our two Persian translators, who believe this meets WP:N. On the other hand, their comments lead me to believe they do not understand how WP:N works. For example, we don't use IMDB or other language wikis as sources to establish notability. I looked at three sources myself. I'm at a serious disadvantage here because I had to rely on the automatic translations, and you lose a lot doing that. However, [51] is an announcement that the film will be released at some point in the future. [52] looks like a routine listing that doesn't go into any details. [53] similarly seems like a very shallow treatment. There may be better stuff in the other sources that I didn't look at, and I may simply not be getting enough out of the translations to adequately evaluate the sources I did look at, but from what I can see, we don't have enough here. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 1 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) 13:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infotainment Television

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

Does not satisfy WP:NCORP, though the founder appears to be quite a significant person. The article has been unsourced since 2008, still unable to find reliable sources that cover this topic. MT Train^Discuss 13:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train^Discuss 13:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article has "This article does not cite any sources" since 2008. 10 years is plenty of chances to demonstrate notability which has not happened here. Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Bencosme

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

fails WP:ANYBIO nothing found in a before search Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polanoid

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

Alexa rank of 2,519,232 and nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Some mentions from when manufacturing of Polaroid ended but probably not enough to describe it as significant coverage, also not much else since then. Mattg82 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not a notable web forum. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mattg82. I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. gongshow talk 16:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

League Lab

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

Lack significant coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; there's nothing in the article's that's not promotional, with copy such as: "League Lab is designed to simplify the management of ..." and a list of features. In addition, the company is non notable; sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forum of Azerbaijani Students in Europe (FASE)

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's actually a very interesting and notable subject. The government of Azerbaijan sponsored youth and young adult group in Europe to advance Azerbaijani interests in Europe. The organized group then launched Azerbaijan's first internet television station. But the station and its founders were a little too independent and the government had them arrested (and likely beat up). After being released they now live in Europe. Article needs work and development not deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BGT BioGraphic Technologies

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subatantially covered in reliable independent sources. Several quality cites already in article. This was an influential technology company in the fiom industry and article needs updating on its acquisition. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a directory-like listing on an unremarkable business, acquired by another nn business. Sourcing is routine corporate announcement and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing. One CBC article, and a lot of merger reports. Nothing of real depth.198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing fails WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:03, 1 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) !dave 12:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Evergreen

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

Not one single source of notability and history shows WP:PROMO Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is existing precedence that being a student newspaper at a major US university is sufficient notability as evidenced by pages in Category:Student newspapers published in the United States. @Jamesharrison2014: A mere lack of sources in the article is not a sufficient justification for AFD (see WP:BEFORE) and the potentially promotional content here should be handled through editing, not through article deletion. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Bob. James, you need to do some due diligence before nominating an article for deletion. A Google News search readily reveals that The Daily Evergreen has received significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Spokesman-Review and the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. There is no doubt that the article needs significant work, but it definitely doesn't call for TNT. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Blue (record label)

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

No substantial third party coverage available, appears not to satisfy GNG. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I suggest that we Keep it. Seeking Blue is attributed to MrSucideSheep, a channel with over 8 million subscribers and is the 233rd largest channel on Youtube^[2]. Fairly notable acts such as EDEN (who just this week released his debut album, with ads paid for by Spotify advertising the album put up around Time Square, New York^[3]). Illenium is another act associated with the label, who has opened for acts like The Chainsmokers and ODESZA, as well as recently being billed on the 3rd line of this years Coachella lineup^[4]. I'd argue that in the Electronic scene, Seeking Blue is one of the largest independent record labels. This is my first time contributing to an AfD so if I have done anything wrong let me know. Mattymooz (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The signed acts (or most of them, didn't check) may be notable and some have articles, but the question is whether the label itself is. There seems to be no reliable coverage showing this; and in fact your additional sources above all fall into the "unreliable" camp and can't be used to establish notability (see WP:TWITTER). Notable acts don't confer their notability to the label (see WP:NOTINHERITED). So I think we are still stuck at "notability not shown". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that in the Electronic scene, Seeking Blue is one of the largest independent record labels. - There are SIGNIFICANTLY bigger Electronic record labels (some of which are still not notable enough to have an article). Seeking Blue have 15 releases over 3 years, only one of which hit the Billboard 200 - For some more notable record labels (often but not always those with good critical coverage of their releases, or relevant/popular/pivotal releases in an 'underground' genre) this wouldn't be an issue, but combined with the general lack of notability currently demonstrated (as Elmidae mentioned, see WP:TWITTER), I feel this is a case of WP:TOOSOON more than anything else.

If MrSuicideSheep was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (which I don't believe they are) I'd suggest this article be merged into MrSuicideSheep's, but in this case I'd support a deletion per WP:TOOSOON. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 12:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tshepo Ramodisa

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

Subject doesn't meet the notability guideline for biographies. A quick google search of his name only brings back generic results, no articles about him. MaejorM (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. A Google search fails to identify any in-depth or non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurajada Kalakshetram

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

Failing WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i all ready mentioned a reputed national paper source and government website source if still its not correct u may can further proceed its not a imaginary article you may can google it even i given source of google location all so Jeevan naidu (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just mentioning is not enough. Per WP:GEOFEAT - Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, which I don't see in this case. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable building. Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

these all are news about this mentioned article on reputed news papers http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2017/jan/17/gurajada-kalakshetram-renovation-works-to-be-completed-by-march-1560446.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/visakhapatnam/new-vuda-vc-to-fast-track-projects/articleshow/58582286.cms http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/vuda-to-organise-nineday-childrens-day-celebrations/article2597458.ece http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/category/2016-02-12/VUDA-Children-Arena-by-Ugadi/206694 https://www.yovizag.com/visakhapatnam-open-air-auditorium-gurajada-kalakshetram-reopens-brand-new/ http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/gurajada-kalakshetram-to-get-facelift/article8402568.ece http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2017/jan/17/gurajada-kalakshetram-renovation-works-to-be-completed-by-march-1560446.html

and its one of the notable auditorium open auditorium in Visakhapatnam City ... its owned by government urban development authority http://www.vuda.gov.in/ i given source for this all so . how can u simply mentioned its non notable or not a significant building . by the way gradually we may can develop this article. Jeevan naidu (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review the criteria for WP:GEOFEAT. It does not fall under any of the notability guidelines. Just being owned by the government and having mentions of events or renovations in media does not establish notability. Hagennos (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intan Aletrino

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

I really don't think winners of obscure beauty pageants should have a place in Wikipedia, especially when they have done nothing else notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she didn't even actually win the beauty pageant. she was runner up, which qualified for a second place crown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. The article fails WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) !dave 12:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honō no Tōkyūji: Dodge Danpei

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - MrX 04:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Megadrive Video game is reviewed by Megadrive Advanced Gaming, and a Japanese review of the NES version. There's also a mobygames and Giant Bomb links for the games, but I'm not sure that all makes it pass GNG. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you really think that a media franchise that consists of a television series that aired on a major network, and seven video games would fail GNG? What does need to happen is for the cut and paste move to be reverted; the article previously existed at Honō no Dōkyūji: Dodge Danpei, and it can be moved afterwards if necessary. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The seven video game releases is a bit of a misnomer, as it's one game released for several platforms, and an expansion labelled as a sequel. Not that it makes it any less notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Online coverage for the series will probably be hard to find considering its age, but surely a show that aired on national television for a year passes WP:TVSERIES? Also, there does seem to be reviews for the game, so there's that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regalix

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable marketing agency; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, interviews / quotes to the media, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of major references to this company from credible sources such as Bloomberg, BusinessWeek, and also they are Inc5000 company. Passes Wiki criteria for notability. WP:ORGCRITE WP:ORGIND WP:CORPDEPTH Expertwikiguy (talk) 2:40 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps I'm missing something. You've stated that the references pass WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. But, obviously, this reference from CIOReview doesn't have an attributed journalist and fails WP:RS. It is also extensively relying on an interview with the CEO and is not intellectually independent, therefore failing WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND. I've also looked at the other references and found issues with each. Do you mind posting the links for two specific references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability so that I can determine if my !vote below needs a revisit? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, Wikipedia is not a business directory or yellow pages. References are either run-of-the-mill business listings in the likes of Bloomberg and inc.com or rely on quotations/interviews with company officers. Topic fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prohaska Consulting

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. promotional tone constantly talking about 'growth and 'due diligence'; reads like an advert. Sources are typical press release cruft, or brief mentions. We must be especially wary of companies that are involved in PR and marketing, as they can Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_article_detailing_Tony_Ahn's_editing_process easily plant articles into the press. Not strong enough sources for CORPDEPTH — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere brought up several important points to review the article. Upon further review, there was substantial room to remove wordage that could read like an advert. Revised to comply with WP:MOSWTW and avoid potential for attributed bias WP:SUBSTANTIATE. In regards to Due diligence, this is a common service provided by consulting firms, and is listed as a service of this company to provide context to the area in which the company operates; thus is in compliance of WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Linked to other articles for specific consulting services. Deleted sentence describing launch of OpenLeads, as source was regurgitated press release.

Revised research sections as well, to include only necessary research numbers important for the development of further articles in digital advertising.

In regards to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_article_detailing_Tony_Ahn's_editing_process easily plant articles into the press, this particular company is not a PR or marketing agency, they are a technology strategy group that serves the Marketing/Advertising industry. Wikipedia currently lacks needed information around programmatic advertising, and the research and work this company facilitates in the advertising space is necessary for providing context for future articles that discuss growth of automation in advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmguru87 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... its not a PR company, it just works closely with the Marketing/Advertising industry... thats not the same thing at all when it comes to opportunity to plant stories in these sources (sarcasm).

Even aside from that, looking at the sources we find:

[54] is clearly not a reliable source, and is a press release type source. The article is basically an advertisement for a bunch of companies pretending to be news.

[55] does not mention the company, also not a reliable source.

[56] press release/interview with the company. Not independent of the subject, so cannot contribute to notability. Also not a reliable source.

[57] only a brief mention. Also not a reliable source per THIS and THIS where they offer "On-site sponsored content/native advertising"

[58] same source as previous, brief mention and not reliable source.

[59] brief mention (does not contribute to notability). Not a reliable source per THIS.

[60] a report prepared by Prohaska Consulting, obviously not independent.

[61] brief mention AND not a reliable source (are we seeing a trend yet?)

[62] Same source as the first one, also the article isn't about Prohaska Consulting and just talks about a report they made.

[63] brief mention and not reliable per THIS and THIS.

TL;DR: Literally nothing here points toward meeting notability (see the golden rule). We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This doesn't have that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, conflating the PR industry with the advertising technology industry shows that you don't have substantial knowledge of this space, and thus the need for more wikipedia content that reflects an in-depth knowledge of the industry is strong.

Happy to address these to help those unfamiliar with these publications understand how/why they meet notability standards WP:GOLDENRULE.

[64] I don't understand how this could possibly viewed as a press release. This is a story on the role of consulting firms in the advertising technology space. AdExchanger is a well known neutral trade publication. It clearly meets wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, having strong editorial standards and a chief editor who oversees all content published see WP:RS; and has frequently been used as a reputable source in articles including Sell-side platform Pubmatic and Smaato.

[65] You are correct, does not mention company. This source provides context to the 1-year hiatus the company underwent during the founder's short time at the New York Times.

[66] this is clearly an interview, not a press release. I'm not sure you understand what exactly a press release is, and how it differs from an interview; please see Press Release.

[67] this . Also, while Digiday offers sponsored content as do many other reputable publishers (Including WSJ, New York Times, and the Washington Post), this particular article is not marked as sponsored. For example, this [68] is how Digiday formats articles that are sponsored. When posts are sponsored, they are clearly identified as such both on the page, and within the URL; this particular source referencing Prohaska Consulting is not labeled sponsored, either in the post itself or URL. The source also proves to be relevant and substantial, providing context to the research published by Prohaska Consulting. Concluding, the source proves to be Significant, reliable, and independent of Prohaska Consulting, fitting within the standards of WP:GOLDENRULE.

[69] again, same situation as above. Source validates itself with three principles of WP:GOLDENRULE.

[70] upon further review is not relevant and should be removed.

[71] while this is a brief mention, it independently validates the importance of the industry research listed in this section.

— Dmguru87 ^{(or here)} 11:24, 16 January 2018 (CST)

[72]As for source number 1, Prohaska Consulting's part in that article has clearly been solicited from the company as it is far too promotional in tone to have been created independently. The constant quotes throughout that article indicate that Prohaska Consulting had a significant hand in determining the content of the article, and it reads like an advert/interview mashup.

[73] Interviews are not independent, so they don't count for notability per WP:42, and are almost always solicited by the subject.

Digiday may be a reliable source if they clearly mark their sponsored content, but neither of the sources from Digiday are significant coverage of Prohaska Consulting (the company itself), they just briefly mention a study that Prohaska Consulting did and discuss trends in the industry. This is not 'significant coverage' of the company itself per WP:GOLDENRULE at all, so these sources do not count for determining notability.

While a source might be suitable for inclusion within an article to support some fact or another, that does not mean it contributes to notability as a reference. Sources that contribute to notability must be high quality in all three of the areas of 'significant coverage', 'reliable source', and 'independent source'. None of these sources meet all three criteria. Additionally, meeting notability requires multiple sources like this, independent from one another. I'm just not seeing that here sorry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intent for creating an article for the company was to supply industry context to the firm for the research it commissioned. Since this primary issue seems to be establishing notability for the company, perhaps the research stats should be moved to other articles? For instance, sub-heading Digital Advertising could be merged into Online advertising? --Dmguru87 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds like it could work. Note that while articles are required to meet the notability guidelines, content is not. Content must still be reliably sourced, but with the Digiday source, I think you might be alright with a section over at Online advertising. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article that suggests any notability. Its a run-of-the-mill consultancy firm that produces its own research (presumably in order to sell more services). None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability which, as has been pointed out above, must be "intellectually independent" ... that is, the references must provide in-depth analysis and/or opinion on the company. None of the references do that. While there may not be much "marketing language" in the article, I note that the article still manages to insert (as references) links to "research" published by this company. I would argue that in the context of the paucity of references in general for this topic, those links could be construed as promotional. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "run-of-the-mill consultancy" is about right. Nothing worth salvaging here; completely non notable. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eric Chou. (non-admin closure) !dave 09:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Chou discography

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

An artist with 1 EP and 2 studio albums. An independent discography page is not necessitated. Hitro talk 10:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eric Chou as per WP:ATD-M. Easily mergeable into the main article as per WP:SIZERULE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Eric Chou. Vorbee (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with so few releases (and none charting?) there's no need for a split yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the above. --Michig (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esmeralda Rego de Jesus Araujo

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

Not significant career for an encyclopedic entry. Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the offline sourcing in the article appears to be strong enough to merit inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources seem to be passing mentions, not substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you searched and looked for the offline coverage? Per WP:NPOSSIBLE this needs to be considered, and there is strong evidence already in the article that such coverage likely exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article has plentiful sources, and googling for "Sister Esmeralda East Timor" shows more potential sources. Clearly notable. PamD 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyBallioni, article passes V, NPOV, NOR, and NPOSSIBLE if not N. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ANYBIO. I added and repaired some sources. Article should be expanded. She has had a notable impact in East Timor. Sources can be difficult to find because she has several names including Sister Esmeralda, Madre Esmeralda. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the requirements for N with verifiability in multiple RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well cited with good sources. She might not have immediately passed notability if she was in an enormous country like China. However, in a small country like East Timor it's a different story and she's clearly made an impact. Scanlan (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of the two users arguing to keep, one is an IP, the other a relatively new user with an extremely limited editing history. Neither provided any policy-based reasons to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EBOX

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

The article does not feature a single piece of SIGCOV in independent sources. Of the four sources, three are primary (2x own website + 1x press release), and one a listicle/directory on CanadianBusiness.com ; article does not seem to meet WP:NCORP (WP:CORPDEPTH) or even WP:GNG. Should also be noted that article was created and almost entirely written (and dePRODed in 2014) by WP:SPA JohnnySouche who has never edited any other topic, who has removed {{advert}} tags at least twice, who uploaded the EBOX logo as a "self-made file", and whose edits summaries when updating the EBOX article (such as updating their services or employee number) raises strong concern of undisclosed paid editing by an employee. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding independant source wasn't hard and I think this article have this place on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.138.164 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already much better (I didn't find these because I was Googling with the old name "Electronic Box"). Thanks Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically this company has reprinted 70000 articles from Wikipedia in a public ad campaign this fall. Keep. --QultureQc (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the references that are already in the article (including those added and mentioned above) and the fruitless seaching I have performed, this is a run-of-the-mill company with no indications of notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam, with a listing of its products and services. No value to the project; Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion for non-notable companies. WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mistabishi

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

The subject of this article is currently in the middle of some social media drama, which has been reported by a few reliable sources cited in the article like Mixmag and Clash, but those seem to be the only sources giving him much non-trivial coverage. Delete as a borderline WP:BLP1E. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His most notable tune is called "Printer Jam" 1.7M view on YouTube but I can't see any press coverage. Without that it makes this a WP:1E and deletion seems appropriate.--Salix alba (talk): 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: This was the above editor's second delete vote within the same minute.Jacona (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't support notability, they are a mix of discography lists, a WP re-post and facebook 'news' articles. Szzuk (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I do not support this person's frankly racist comments about Englishness, my girlfriend would not fit his description of being English which is ridiculous, he is notable for his use of a piece of musical equipment called the Korg Electribe, a music production station. I believe that he was brought in by Korg to help redesign the second generation of the Electribe and many of the instruments' demo pieces were created by him. The Korg Electribe is a quasi-musical instrument in its own right and a pretty well known piece of kit within digital music circles. The racist comments made by this artist are abhorrent and really put me off him, but I am a great believer that racists can gain notoriety and support through censorship and that sometimes it is far better to leave traces of what they have said so that they can be seen for what they are, rather than being allowed to become martyrs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.31.138 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2018‎

Delete. Doesn't meet requirements for notability. Smells like content (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Tacyarg (talk) 00:44, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpit Veerval

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

Creating on behalf of user TheodoreIndiana whose AfD process was incomplete. Failure to meet notability (with which I concur) Sirlanz 11:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I earlier mentioned in the talk page, I believe the subject is notable and there are numerous sources. Here are the facts:

Subject got a first-time 100% score in the nearly 6-decade long history of the IIT-JEE examination, as per the sources. It is not about topping an examination (as it may seem first to any editor), which happens every year or season. IIT-JEE is regarded one of the toughest examinations in the world, especially due to the sheer scale of competition and need for elimination. Getting a first-time notable score is a highly notable feat, at least within India.
Subject earned an entry in the 2018 edition of prestigious Limca Book of Records. This itself is a major achievement for his age.
Most IIT-JEE toppers come from a privileged background. Although I purposely omitted to mention it in article (since I consider it too personal information), I understand from sources that he is from an under-privileged background and could have secured admission under reservation quota, he worked hard to earn the 100% score which even students from privileged background and resources could not achieve in the decades long history of this exam. Therefore, many students, especially from under-privileged backgrounds, found his story inspirational (you can find such in social media/blogs, which are not considered official sources for WP). From my experience, I expect that any Indian IIT-aspiring student who would hear about the subject would be naturally inclined to know more about him, wherein this WP article can help them exactly; this has been my main motivation behind preparing this article.
Subject has become notable through his major achievement in 2017 and is still a teenager. Of course, we don't know whether his future life or career will be notable or not. However, he has excelled consistently in previous years (although humbler achievements) and I would expect only the same in future. However, WP editors should be concerned about whether what has happened so far is noteworthy or not. I believe subject is highly notable, in the Indian context.
Numerous sources exist, beyond what you find in the article. In case if you want to find more, please check previous revisions such as here. Since there was a proposed deletion earlier today, I had tried to add several of the vernacular print newspaper sources from across India (Tamil, Bengali, Malayalam, Kannada, Hindi) to highlight pan-Indian notability, although these were removed by the AfD nominator as he reported them as overciting (which was a new concept to me, anyway).

That's all I want to say. I am glad this discussion happened again, and I leave to all of you enlightened folks to decide the merit of this subject and the destiny of this article. Together with the other painful AfD process experience this nominator has put me on another article last week (which ultimately passed with a unanimous 'Keep' verdict, but triggered an open review request on the Admin noticeboard), I am now personally convinced that I should most likely keep my hands away from this WP article creation frenzy for indefinite time. I have better things to do or volunteer, than create candidate articles for time-consuming deletion discussions like this. Sahrudayan (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete top marks on a test are not a sign of notability. Veerval may well go on to become a notable engineer, but that outcome is not gauranteed, and until it actual happens, or until he becomes notable in some other way, at best this is a violation of the not news guidelines for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suggest a reexamination. I agree with Sahrudayan. Not only his achievement was unprecedented, he belonged to a scheduled caste. There is a widespread belief that that a scheduled caste student can never excel and can get into a prestigious institution only be exploiting the reverse discrimination quota system. Malaiya (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as this page was deleted to make way for a page move. (non-admin closure) Domdeparis (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Priory Pembroke Academy

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

this article is the new name for Cherry Willingham Community School it closed and reopened under this name. My idea is to delete this page and rename the cherry willingham page with a page move and have cherry willingham as a redirect to Priory Pembroke Domdeparis (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does not appear to be what AfD is meant for, as it seems that the nominator wants to merge the two articles. Hzh (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope it's not a merge because it is exactly the same subject but under a different name. The edit history should stay on the main article and not on it's redirect, if I merge the Cherry article to this one then I lose the edit history, and if I merge this one into the cherry article I can't rename it unless this one is deleted to make way for a page move. Hence my delete request. Domdeparis (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 - School articles follow the organization, not the building (or the name). If the school still serves the same students with mostly the same staff, even if there is some changes in corporate details, it's the same school. Therefore, this poorly written article should be deleted as a duplicate, and the other article moved over redirect to this title, and appropriate updates done. John from Idegon (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be misapplication of WP:A10, since the request is to recreate the article as the main article. Merge or move seems to be more appropriate. Hzh (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! it's a speedy WP:G6 I think. Domdeparis (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether it has "a non-trivial page history" or not. Hzh (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Looks pretty trivial to me. Domdeparis (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call my article "poorly written" when you move the Cherry article over to Pembroke's name and many of the details on there are blatantly wrong as they refer to the predecessor school rather than the newly-established Academy! Such as the article stating that the Pembroke "closed in 2017" (I know, this is in reference to Cherry). I have made the changes now so it makes sense but please don't call an article "poorly written" if such a shoddy job is done of merging the pages... Mynameajeff89 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally and please don't refer to it as "your article" as you do not own it. The article has been deleted to make room for the page move. You can now work on the newly named article that has kept all the edit history of the previous article. There was no merging done at all simply a clean up because you created a new page instead of renaming the old one by making the page move.Domdeparis (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Then move Cherry Willingham content to this namespace, same school with different name. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jami (director)

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

It appears that this topic is relying on the "Films" section to pass the criteria for notability but it doesn't appear to me that either O21 or Moor meets WP:ARTIST point 4. "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the body of work is just not enough to show notability for a filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yesubai

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

Has little to no notability, and no sources. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced since '09 Agricola44 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. --Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Voldemort: Origins of the Heir. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gianmaria Pezzato

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

The film which this individual is 'known for directing' (Voldemort: Origins of the Heir) is imo borderline notable at best; I see no reason why it shoul;d make the director notable TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw the article seems to have been created by an unregistered editor. Didn't think that was possible?TheLongTone (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the abandoned creation via Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages and the content didn't seem too problematic so instead of trashing it with G8 I mainspaced and wikified it a bit. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voldemort: Origins of the Heir as the director's only notable work and a plausible search term to the article which contains some info about Gianmaria Pezzato. Frankly, this could have been BOLDly redirected instead of AfD'ed.... (I was still thinking about whether to redirect or PROD it when LongTone AfD'ed it. Oops!) The film is somehow unreferenced but has been kept at AfD? Anyways a quick search shows plenty of coverage to include if someone feels like cleaning it up, not a good candidate for a second AfD. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure that a YouTube film is often going to be notable. To put it in perspective Studio C has youtube posts with more views than this film. Yet we do not deem anything except the organization itself to be notable. Even if the film is notable, it is not enough to make Pezzato himself notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The film is clearly notable – the coverage in La Repubblica and the Guardian alone is enough to ensure that. Pezzato is mentioned only in connection with it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Naruse

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

This article is just a credits dump perhaps supported by his resume, but has no significant coverage in any secondary sources, which are not provided. Of the highlighted roles, his role in Gakuen Alice is supporting but recurring, Kei in Pretear is supporting, Daisuke in Canvas is supporting. His JA wikipedia entry is likewise just a credits dump so it has no sourced information to copy over. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Spanish and Chinese articles are also credit dumps (despite not knowing these languages well), and the Korean article is a stub. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had a look with Goodsearch. Interestingly, most of the results were for a researcher/physicist by the same name, but of those which dealt with the voice actor, all of them were just credit dumps like this article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grigor Hasratyan Memorial Plaque (Yerevan)

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

It's not even a monument. It's just a plaque. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and non-notable plaque. Harut111 (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cachebox TV

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

This article was written by the founder of the company. The sources are: the patents themselves and churnalism - press releases, which do not amount to independent coverage. Google offers nothing by way of substantive coverage. The article rises above A7 and is not a blatant advertisement, but it is a business directory entry and fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect there are no 'press releases' - the company has not issued any press releases. The entry lists a series of verifiable events or milestones e.g. On 12 July 2016 the USPTO granted the Cachebox patent and gave it U.S Patent No.: 9,392 302

On 1 January 2017 Cachebox revised its website and began trading under the name SafeCast, its UK registered trade mark.

On 1 March 2017 SafeCast became an Associate Member of the Digital Policy Alliance.

On 16 November 2017 SafeCast published a video submission to the DCMS Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper on YouTube. entitled "Age Verification - Protecting Children on TV and the Internet ...AlistairKelman (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AlistairKelman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

You continue to misunderstand. You have only primary sources, you have yet to provide any example of your company being discussed by reliable independent sources. Your own publications do not help. This is largely the same issue you had with the deleted article on WikiTribune: you consider you are bringing The Truth™, but we see opinion at best and self-promotion at worst. We don't care about patents. British Railways Board had a patent for a spacecraft powered by atomic bombs, that's not going anywhere any time soon. Can you see why we have an article on that? Look at the bottom, where it says References. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the subject of this article has sufficient coverage in independent sources to establish notability. References are either non-independent or are niche/routine - overall they simply lack WP:CORPDEPTH. Peacock (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for 48 Hours to give the author a chance to provide examples of his company being discussed by reliable independent sources. If no examples are forthcoming, my !vote will be Delete. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero examples of his company being discussed by reliable independent sources, despite repeated requests. I also did my own search and found nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note in passing that the author should not edit the article directly, what with it being his company and all. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. AlistairKelman, if you post the references here or on the article talk page and they meet Wikipedia's requirements someone here will add them to the article. If they are sufficient to pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG this deletion discussion will almost certainly be withdrawn or relisted. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but self-promotion. [Following up on Guy Macon's comment... If the user in question finds proper sourcing, I would change my stance.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is solely about what this company plans to do with an undefined patent, and how it is securing financing; sources are WP:PRIMARY from the patent offices, business directories and the company website. A google search of "Cachebox TV" led to only 447 total results, mostly directories or Wikipedia mirrors. I could not find a single independent source actually talking about this company, which hasn't actually done anything but raise money and choose a trade name. This speaks volumes about it being WP:TOOSOON for an article entry for this company. The author's claims that "commercial confidentiality" prevents discussion in what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources lead me to believe Wikipedia should aid in maintaining their confidentiality. Scr★pIron^IV 17:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing discussion

One of the contributors to this discussion has asked for me to provide "examples of his company being discussed by reliable independent sources." For reasons of commercial confidentiality and in view of the fact that all discussions are on private platforms at the moment I can only provide one - https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2018/01/04/age-verification-protecting-children-on-tv-and-the-internet/ AlistairKelman (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:SPS. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From now on I am happy to post the references here on the talk page so that other editors/administrators can review and add them to the article if they comply with Wikipedia's rules. This suggestion is helpful since the fact that I am a co-founder of the company and the inventor named in the company's granted patents have caused me difficulties in writing about the company in compliance with Wikipedia's rules. There are a number of market events which are happening over the course of the next few weeks to the company which will require revisions to its Wikipedia entry. I am unable to say further at this stage.

As matters currently stand each and every item in the entry can be independently verified - for example the fact that the company is an Associate Member of the Digital Policy Alliance in the UK Parliament can be verified by looking at https://www.dpalliance.org.uk/people/members/ AlistairKelman (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a directory and does not establish notability. Per WP:GNG/WP:CORP you need to provide reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the company directly and in depth. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon past behavior, I am predicting that AlistairKelman will now show zero evidence of having read and tried to understand WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In my opinion, we are wasting our time trying to have a conversation with someone who simply refuses to listen. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, I'm just trying to be fair. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Guy, the rules WP:GNG/WP:CORP are directed at the issue of whether the company or organisation is sufficiently notable to justify an entry in Wikipedia or not. They are not directed at whether specific statements contained in a Wikipedia entry about a company or organisation are true and can be established as such through independent verification from sources which are not controlled by someone who is connected with the company or organisation which is the issue in this case. You are conflating unconnected matters - independent verification is not the same as notability. AlistairKelman (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided sources to substantiate notability. That is the only thing that is relevant in this discussion. Adding more sources that do not substantiate notability, will have no effect on the outcome of this debate, so is a waste of time at this point. Provide non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Only those, nothing else, because we are not in the least bit interested in padding out an article that's headed for deletion. Also, as basically a spammer, you are in a poor position to lecture veteran Wikipedians with over a hundred thousand edits to tens of thousands of pages, on the proper interpretation of policy. Bit rude, in fact. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the above the US and UK patents are not undefined but are granted patents that are searchable and available on the web - hence they cannot be compared with being WP:TOOSOON which appears to be intended for future films and similar projects which may or may not come into existance. The owner of a granted patent has rights which can be enforced against any infringer of the claims in the patent. Getting a patent granted is an difficult, lengthy, rare and extensive process. Very few inventions get through the patent processes laid down by governments under the Patent Conventions.AlistairKelman (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are undefined in the article; obviously, the patent must be defined somewhere or it would not have been awarded. WP:TOOSOON deals with more than just films, and until this company has a marketable product which has been released and sold, and is talked about in reliable sources, then it is simply too soon for them to have gained the notability required to be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is just that, an encyclopedia - not a social media site, and not promotional web space for a product that does not yet exist. Scr★pIron^IV 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although your argument is completely irrelevant to the article deletion process (you have yet to provide any example of your company being discussed by reliable independent sources), this is Wikipedia, where we specialize in fact checking dubious claims like "very few inventions get through the patent processes".

In the UK the numbers for the latest year available were:

Applications Filed: 13,842
Applications Published: 6,289
Patents Granted: 2,893

In the US the numbers were:

Applications Filed: 2,863
Applications Published: 2,567
Patents Granted: 1,321

The worldwide numbers were:

Applications Filed: 22,055
Applications Published: 12,065
Patents Granted: 5,602

Source: UK Intellectual Property Office, Facts and figures: Patent, trade mark, design and hearing administrative data 2015 and 2016 calendar years]

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point Guy in reliance on the UKIPO stats - but there are several stages before a patent application is filed. My statement was "Very few inventions get through the patent processes laid down by governments under the Patent Conventions". Might I direct you to an independent reliable source such as Chapter 10 of Professor Andrew Murray's book Information Technology Law (2nd edition) (ISBN-10: 0199661510) and his discussion of the key cases Navitaire Inc. v easyJet Airline Co. and anor, Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd and SAS Institute v World Programming Ltd. These and the discussions fully support, in context, my statement that "Very few inventions get through the patent processes laid down by governments under the Patent Conventions" AlistairKelman (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

all very interesting but completely irrelevant because our test for notability - and therefore inclusion - is non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional article on a company that's not notable just yet. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH & essentially spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Winter Olympics United States women's ice hockey team roster

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

WP:NOTSTATS Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An article with this title is never going to be anything more than a list of names (and heights and weights and dates of birth - maybe someone will add hair colour). Perhaps if the team wins the tournament their names might end up being listed at Ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament, but that can be done at the time without needing all the detail from here. Pontificalibus 08:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparently this page was created by an infrequent editor who was not aware of the long standing consensus on the Olympics articles. See Category:2018 Winter Olympics ice hockey team roster templates and the like. This table is suppose to be on a template called Template:2018 Winter Olympics United States women's ice hockey team roster that is transcluded on both Ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's team rosters#United States and United States at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Ice hockey. In fact, the page creator later did try to put it directly on the former article.[74] Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as User:Zzyzx11. Flibirigit (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah its just a duplicate of a template that we typically use. No reason to keep. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: - can you provide a link to the template? Hmlarson (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the comment two above mine. Template:2018 Winter Olympics United States women's ice hockey team roster. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pontificalibus - It would be good to leave a message on the main editor's (WildhockeyTroJan) talk page letting them know there is already a template. An AfD would likely not be necessary, and looks like you skipped the PROD step for some reason. Hmlarson (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The conventional way is to have the template (as noted above), and an overall page for team rosters: Ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's team rosters. This is just duplicating that. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content already exists as a template, as well it should. Is there a speedy criterion for this? Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article already deleted as the creation of a blocked or banned user (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hurley (Irish republican)

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

Fails to meet WP:SOLDIER Cabayi (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is quite a bit of coverage of Hurley in the context of being a friend and cousin of Michael Collins - e.g. [75] [76].Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of Dervla Kirwan's relationship to Collins, but that's not any part of her notability, nor would it be enough to sustain an article. Cabayi (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While related, Collins do not know her (having died some 50 years prior to her birth), and she isn't described as his closest friend in London, close companion, etc. Hurley received coverage as a close companion of Collins.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NOTABILITY ]Valkyrie Cain (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication in a brief search that he did anything except die. There's no mention of leadership. Being a friend of a notable person does not convey notability.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations include two articles from 2016 specifically about him in the Irish Examiner and The Irish Times, both daily national newspapers and thoroughly WP:RS sources. Passes WP:BASIC. Narky Blert (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip De

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

Non-notable entrepreneur that fails WP:NARTIST. The sources in the article, as well, as other sources found for WP:BEFORE, are not substantial coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of good sources in the article, although it is written in a promotional way and could do with some cleanup. The Vice project piece is substantial. The Times of India published another item a couple hours ago. I see more sources in Google news. GNG notability is easily met. He has a diverse career and coverage as shipping magnate and artist, so GNG is appropriate.198.58.168.40 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is this 783 word article solely on Dilip De, and included in the sources list, not "substantial"198.58.168.40 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable artist and the coverage does not provide notability under WP:NARTIST as his main contribution seems to be creating art using a phone!! Hagennos (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he uses a phone or a carrot to make art is irrelevant. The sources are there. He's notable under GNG for dual careers.198.58.168.40 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Hagennos above, fails WP:NARTIST and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources are there for general notability. Another feature published today (January 26 2018) in Asian Age.198.58.168.40 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage does not rise to the level needed to show an artist is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OneTravel

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, routine news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account currently indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Draykyle. The first AfD closed as "Delete" in 2011. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The articles provided as references are about this brand's parent company Fareportal (both articles' Infoboxes also claim approx. the same number of employees) and about another of their brands. Nothing provided or found to indicate that this subject is of encyclopaedic notability, by WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. No reason to overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of in-depth coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. gongshow talk 16:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SkedGo

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

Article is about a low profile app development company that has no significant coverage in independent sources other than in a couple of articles about company announcements on business websites. While the app it makes, TripGo, may well meet the GNG, the company itself is unlikely to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and should not have its own article (per WP:INHERITORG and WP:PRODUCT). Kb.au (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If articles like Navit, Mapblast etc. still exist, why delete skedgo? The same criteria should apply to all articles. --PasséVivant (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUTX. Feel free to nominate either of those for deletion if you think they don't meet the notability guidelines. Kb.au (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE), the city of Rio de Janeiro, and Gartner (mentioned in the Awards section) trustworthy institutions? --PasséVivant (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Greatest Hits

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable compilation album. No references, and I find none other than Wikia and retail sites. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at first glance I was sure this would meet notability guidelines... however, as the nom pointed out, I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG, and it definitely doesn't appear to pass WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NOTCATALOG, we can't have an article for every compilation album.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sells because of the Disney promotion machine not because of any coverage in reliable sources, which there isn't any. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breann McGregor

(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. Does not meet WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. Cyber Girl of the Year honour is not significant and well known; the article on the program has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). The first AfD closed as "Procedural keep" due to the topic ban of the nominator. Seven year on, and with the program article deleted, I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the exact type of article, one on someone who has received virtually no reliable source coverage but whose career is liked by a certain segment of the masculinist movement and hated by a large swath of feminists, that gets Wikipedia so much bad press. Even back in 2011 when Wikipedia had more open inclusion rules no one argued the article should be kept on merit. The keeping of this article back then was a victory for mindless bureacracy, which in the assessment of some is another cause of the over abundance of male and under abundance of female editors in Wikipedia. Women do not thrive as well as men within uncaring beauracracies. Everything about this article screams it needs to be deleted poste haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO, the mainstream film roles are very minor Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hopkins (business)

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

The company is notable. There is no indication that he is. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--it's the typical CEO fluff, where articles about the company and some mention of some bosses are combined with some hits on the internet to create a biography that really says nothing. Delete for lack of reliable sourcing that would make this pass our notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tavtech

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

This was deleted in Feburary 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAVtech. Most of the sources are the same as what was provided at the original article. I do not see notability established through this article, just like the previous one. It could be a speedy delete candidate, but I feel like there was some expansion since the original so I bring it to AFD instead. only (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that is RS, in-depth, and not a NEWSBLOG/blog (e.g. the Forward piece written by a contributor) is this piece in Cornell's newspaper. Seems there is also an (unrelated?) Israeli company that sell beauty care products (which isn't close to GNG/CORPDEPTH - [77][78][79]). No real case here for notability.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Ice, WP:CORPDEPTH failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:24, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Izsak

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

He fails WP:NHOCKEY. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable player. Flibirigit (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 03:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EPR Properties

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

Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I originally PROD'd the page but it was removed by the page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources are available - some of it found under the company's previous name, Entertainment Properties Trust. For example: Kansas City Star ([80] [81] [82]), Kansas City Business Journal ([83] [84]), Wall Street Journal ([85] and at least 3 other stories of over 700 words focused on the company, behind their paywall), Bloomberg News. As a rule of thumb, publicly traded companies will usually be notable - see WP:LISTED - and the fact that they own numerous notable properties, as listed in the article, should have been a hint that sources would likely exist. Toohool (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Norton

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

This is an inspirational magazine feature, not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.~~ MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the above; already previously listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Division III is not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Carrite (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he appears to be in reliable sourced media for his paralysis from his injury and his ongoing recovery. --RAN (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate it for deletion on the basis of notability ; I nominated it as advocacy, and NOT ADVOCACY is a basic policy. An encyclopedia does not contain advocacy, regardless of notability or available sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would it be advocating? --RAN (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see below, RAN, it isn't clear till you get to the end of the article. A primitive technique to hid advertising, but it seems to have worked. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a willful misreading of the policy page. Utterly inapplicable. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not get it, can you quote what you find objectionable, is it the foundation he started? Has whatever you are seeing been removed already? --RAN (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, as evidenced by the references in the article. I agree the article is a bit too advocatorial in nature, but that can be fixed by editing out that tone, not by deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious fulfillment of GNG based on sources already showing in the piece. Potential for Speedy Keep here, in fact, as there is no valid grounds for deletion presented, only a novel thesis about the biography's subject matter somehow making it unsuitable for encyclopedic biography. I suggest the nominator might want to step back from AfD nominations for a while, this is not the first recent one that leaves me scratching my head. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest deletion based on notability or lack of sources. This is fundamentally Advocacy for SCI CAN Foundation, and for his speaking career. This is exactly what a page for him in a speakers' bureau listing would include: a emotionally laden description, and then an implied appeal for funds at the bottom. WP seems to have been developing a tendency to accept the sympathetic, and is losing its understanding of NOT TABLOID; it's destroying our perceptions. I hope some otherwise sensible people will reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see any coverage here outside of human interest stories.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Non-notable college athlete gets his neck broken, gets some coverage (BLP1E). His (partial) recovery somehow inspires him to establish a an organization "to help others" and to raise funds by public speaking. These activities generate some (rather advertorial) media coverage, generally of the inspiration porn "tearjerker" type, in a variety of publications, a few of which are usually well regarded as RS. Per nom, there's very little actual "meat on the bones" of the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just based on DIII college football career, it's a no--but there's more to this than football. The widespread coverage of later events in life seem to generate more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Any concerns about article content can be cleaned up in editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Concerns with advocacy can be addressed by copy editing the article, rather than deleting it in entirety. Also, the subject meets WP:BASIC, as per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] “Miss Quincy Establishes New Record: Clifford Padgett’s Boat Breaks World’s Mark At Palm Beach,” The (Quincy, IL) Herald, Feb 25, 1924

[2] “Show of Boats and Equipment at Boat Club: Three-day Open House Starting Tonight Honors Cliff Padgett,” Quincy Herald-Whig, May 29, 1943

[3] “Tribute Paid Cliff Padgett, Boat Genius,” Quincy Herald-Whig, May 30, 1943, page 12.

[4] Wikipedia (DE): Heise Online

[5] ttps://socialblade.com/youtube/user/mrsuicidesheep

[6] ttps://twitter.com/iameden/status/954446479149563904

[7] ttps://twitter.com/coachella/status/948346956362825728

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]