Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 24

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2018. Anyone who wishes to merge properly sourced material into the target article is free to do so. In the event the subject wins the election the redirect can be reversed. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Rich

Mick Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL for he is only a candidate for an office and has not held any political office, pretty much all the coverage pertains to the senate campaign, the biography section does not state notability either. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Just being a candidate doesn't get him a free pass under WP:NPOL, and it doesn't seem like he is independently notable for anything that would get him past WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the election page, if applicable, since he hasn't won the election yet and doesn't pass WP:GNG. The sourced biographical information on him can be moved there. SportingFlyer talk 20:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if Rich wins he will be notable, not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify, I agree with the comments above that he is not notable, but it might be more sensible to draftify the article until such time that the election result is known. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2018 per SportingFlyer; no coverage beyond election bid. --GRuban (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Active Student Response Techniques

Active Student Response Techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @redddogsix Why does it appear to be WP:OR? It cites review papers and other secondary/tertiary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnMozeika (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well cited. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an essay, albeit a well-sourced one. Possibly part of a project at NU. The subject, as it is specifically denoted in the title of the article, is not independently notable. Paraphrasing does not append notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while poorly written, it is well-cited. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it seems well cited, and a quick google search seems to indicate that this is not some kind of synth essay, but is attempting to represent a real topic. Needs work, not deletion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; as Insertcleverphrasehere notes, this is well cited and an actual topic of study in education. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have reverted my previous "no consensus" close" following revelations that all or most of the Keep comments were from socks. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Kentsley

Graham Kentsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is about a non-notable person. The whole text is based on unreliable sources such as local tabloids, announcements of his concerts on social-network pages of bars, pubs, barbershop etc.; besides, there is a number of links which direct to pages that don’t contain any relevant content at all.

Furthermore, the only author of the article has been already blocked on Russian Wikipedia for intrusive promotion of Kentsley ([1]); the article itself was deleted too ([2], [3]). XVodolazx (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - coverage in Reuters, Times of Malta & Vorarlberger Nachrichten Joaomufc (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are sources, but virtually no significant coverage of this person. He's not automatically notable due to his connections or wealth, or quite frankly, anything he's done. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any reason why the Reuters source can't be used for establishing notablity, but Times of Malta, Business Insider and a half a dozen of the other sources are just reposts of the Reuters article. I don't see anything else to establish notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject does seem to be trying to get himself into the news, but coverage from reliable sources looks insufficient. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mainstream citations here [4], [5] inserted, Russian name search shows state broadcaster appearance here [6] - dozens of others also. Should meet GNG. Otrantos (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Otrantos. You are a supposedly new user who just arrived at WP today, with 30 edits no less. And you argue for notability with garbage sources such as the Russian government propaganda site Sputniknews and the execrable eurosport.ru, with an article subject that translates as ""The best girls in the world are from the Volgograd region". English millionaire, who is 30 years in Russia...Interview with a cool foreigner who knows everything about Russia." Care to disclose your financial interest here? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk)

• KeepSignificant person in Russia with lots of Russian press tv [7] [8] radio [9] etc heavyweight links [10] [11], especially quite enough links if to search in Cyrillic Грэм Кентслей.Alexandr France — Alexandr France (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of your links are just interviews or slight notes like "Football fan arrived in Volgograd on a yacht", where Kentsley himself even isn't always the main subject. Of course, he may be interesting for people of the provincial town like Volgograd and their media, but it does not make Kentsley notable enough for Wikipedia. Actually, he is just an ordinary entrepreneur from England who often visits Volgograd and that's the only reason why he gets some attention from the local media. XVodolazx (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - quite a few important links about his boat trip in Russian media [12] [13] [14] where says that "this is the first british boat passes under the Kerch Bridge and the first british yacht goes from the end of the Danube to the end of the Volga" and a lot more about that, foreign media [15] [16] Garfild2017 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Garfild2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Liga 3 South Sulawesi

2018 Liga 3 South Sulawesi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No RS to establish notability, events have not taken place to establish notability ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not so sure about this one, the previous league articles look like they scrape by on WP:GNG, I am willing to give this a chance if sources can be found. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of an Irish Poet

Songs of an Irish Poet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; part of an extended PR effort by the author and his publisher, creating Wikipedia pages for all of his books. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 19:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete (and merge some of content) - Promo, SPA, COI and sock behaviours aside, per the nominator I'm not seeing how the subject here meets WP:NBOOK. (The award "long listing" doesn't meet the expectation of "winning a major literary award". There's no indication it has been substantially re-used as reference or scholastic material elsewhere. Etc). The majority of the cited content here could be easily covered in the article on the biography's author (for example the stuff about the "long listing" and book launch), or in the article about the biography's subject (for example the stuff about posthumous recognition and the collection of her works). The book itself doesn't need its own article. (Nor, frankly, would it seem appropriate for someone to blanket create an article for all of any authors works in the manner seemingly at play here). Guliolopez (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. Hi @Spartaz:. I'm not sure I understand. It is certainly not possible to "redirect and delete" (those are absolutely mutually exclusive things - agreed). But it is possible to "merge and delete". (Whether before the deletion or after the deletion [e.g. from archive] it is possible for anyone interested to copy/merge relevant content to the appropriate article. I am happy to do it before the deletion if required. Or after. Whichever. The content which seems "redeemable" to me is the stuff on the poet's works being archived - which is best dealt with in article on the poet. And the stuff about the biographer being shortlisted for an award - which is best dealt with in the article on the biographer.) If you feel this absolutely must be addressed before the AfD can be closed, then I can do it before. Otherwise delete away. Guliolopez (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How were you planning to attribute the editors of the content you merge if the history is deleted? That's why we usually leave the history intact and put in a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In honesty I'm not sure there's much to attribute. A paraphrasing of the small fragments "his book was nominated for an Irish Times award" and "her work was collected and archived at UCC" (in the Brian Brennan and Mary O'Leary articles respectively) would not seem to meet WP:NOATT. Neither fragment representing "sufficient creativity". And both fragments requiring a reword to "fit" in the respective articles anyway. Apologies if I gave the impression that there was a lot of content to move and attribute. My recommendation (primarily a "note to self" - which I have now struck-through if it makes life easier) was just that the same information could/should be imparted elsewhere. Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NBOOK & WP:PROMO. The page is part of a promotional walled garden, created around Brian Brennan (author) by an account that is probably himself: Special:Contributions/Brennanb4. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very poorly sourced. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a bit of a pile on at this point, but seems to be a promo page for a non-notable book. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Security guard. Article deleted and redirected per consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private Patrol Operator

Private Patrol Operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced essay. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Searching readily discloses that this is a term-of-art in California regulatory law for a firm which supplies security guards/services. I'd suggest merge/redirect to such an article except that I don't know that we have such an article. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and redirect to Security guard Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Very happy with that suggestion. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom EV

Freedom EV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Could not find sources to support this article. The topic does not seem to have received any RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Created in 2007. Still no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete the Freedom EV seems to be this one http://www.sunrise-ev.com/bio.htm by Jerry Dycus and is related to another WP article the Solectria Sunrise. There is a website which is associted with the Sunrise - http://www.sunrise-ev.com/. If any mention is to be made of the Freedom EV, then it should be in the Solectria Sunrise article. NealeFamily (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Frogmore Poetry Prize

The Frogmore Poetry Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable prize (with a tiny honorarium) given by a non-notable publisher that produces a barely notable quarterly magazine. For example, I tried to find any independent coverage about the 2017 and 2018 prizes, to no avail. With perhaps one exception, none of the winners have been notable when they won the prize. Despite the fact this prize has been going for over 30 years, if the information isn't even available on the Frogmore Press website, they souldn't be using Wikipedia to web host their results. Additional citations have been requested for over 5 years now, with no success. Time for this list to go. Sionk (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to have no media coverage Joaomufc (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable in any way - see the red links. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find anything either. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Education in Pristina#Primary and Lower-Secondary. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Prishtina School

Hasan Prishtina School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable primary school. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Education in Pristina#Primary and Lower-Secondary where the school is mentioned. Profoundly nn but a redirect is in accordance with WP:DP and produces a useful redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above - All primary schools tend to be redirected back to the education section of the areas they're located in. –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Details can be added as a section there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Sources reveal nothing, does not meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect no source indicated to merit a stand alone page ; redirect to [[Education in Pristina#Primary and Lower-Secondary]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future railroad ideas of Wisconsin

Future railroad ideas of Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is almost entirely unsourced and appears to be fabricated. Searches for several of the listed railroads yielded no relevant results. –dlthewave ☎ 20:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTCRYSTAL comes to mind. 22:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• delete per nom. I couldnn't verify any of this either, and I don't think this is an encyclopedic subject anyway. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if this can be moved to a contributor's userpage. It seems at least somewhat encyclopedic, but if it's not sourced and it's attributed to the future, it could possibly be included in someone's userpage until these entries can be sourced and confirmed. TNats  ₃  00:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has a copy of the list on their talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 01:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then definitely delete. TNats  ₃  04:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it was well sourced including indications that they were definitely going to heppen, Wikipedia doesn't have articles like this. Sources like that do not seem to exist for this topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I usually relist with only one !vote, but in this case I agree that the article is so obviously promotional that it might have qualified for CSD G11. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goeuro

Goeuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator MonicaCabal has very few edits outside this topic. MER-C 19:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, possibly speedy: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Originals

Alberta Originals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable book; the offline refs don't support any particular statements in the article. Three refs are from a publication that Brian Brennan was employed by, and one is by Prairie Books Now, a publication dedicated to promoting books by Prairie publishers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Newspapers such as the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald had (at least at the time the reviews were published) enough integrity to make their own editorial decisions about whether a book was worth reviewing or not. This Google Scholar search shows a few books that have references to Alberta Originals. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable per Eastmain. That Brennan was at some employed by a periodical that reviewed his book cannot be accepted as a grounds for deletion because it would create a systematic bias against book authors who also contribute to periodicals. Such an approach would be likely to exclude the most notable books, because you would expect their authors to contribute to all the best periodicals. In any event, his employment does not affect their independence, because an employee does not (prima facie) control his employer. That would be the tail wagging the dog. James500 (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NBOOK; not independently notable of the author, Brian Brennan (author). The page is part of a promotional walled garden, created around by the author by an account that is probably himself: Special:Contributions/Brennanb4. The purpose of the article seems to be to creeat a WP:CATALOG of individuals being profiled, and is indiscriminate. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Campus Cooperative

Guelph Campus Cooperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced article about a housing cooperative. As always, every organization that exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article -- it must be the subject of media coverage, not just nominally verifiable to its own self-published website about itself, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly not notable. I would have speedied it. Deb (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been flying under the radar since 2007 in this state. Normally it's not a good idea to speedy articles that turn out to have been around that long, even if they technically meet the speedy criteria. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. I usually take account of whether the creator has "gone away". Deb (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting WP:ORGCRIT, full of primary sources from the co-op associations. It could be retargeted to a listing in the Ontario Co-operative Association but caution must be given that it is WP:NOTDIRECTORY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cant find reliable source to pass WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neill-Wycik

Neill-Wycik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a housing co-operative which is referenced entirely to primary sources, and has been flagged as such since 2009 without ever having a single reliable source added since. As always, every organization does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it exists -- it needs to be the subject of media coverage, not just technically verifiable to its own self-published website and CHFC meeting minutes and its own staff union, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting WP:ORGCRIT, full of primary sources from the co-op associations. It could be retargeted to a listing in the Ontario Co-operative Association but caution must be given that it is WP:NOTDIRECTORY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eyeopener is the student newspaper of Ryerson University, so it's not fully independent of Neill-Wycik (whose history is tied to Ryerson's) — and the Torontoist reference isn't about Neill-Wycik, but just glancingly namechecks Neill-Wycik's existence in the process of being about the general phenomenon of cooperative living. So they can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot bring a notability pass all by themselves as the strongest sources on offer. And besides those two, the only other new sources you've added at all are a routine listing in a comprehensive directory of every single tourist accommodation option that existed in the entire city of Toronto, and a routine directory listing of every time it happens to have gotten glancingly namechecked in House of Commons speeches while never even once being the subject of the speech — so those aren't sources that help to demonstrate notability either. Housing cooperatives don't get a free notability pass just because MPs have mentioned them in Parliament as examples of co-ops in the process of speaking about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for example. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eyeopener is a separate corporation from Ryerson and frequently criticizes the university administration. In this context, I consider it independent and a reliable source. (Another newspaper, the Ryersonian, is a laboratory for the university's journalism program, and is owned by the university). Torontoist is a reliable online publication from by St. Joseph Media, known primarily as a magazine publisher. The House of Commons references seem to relate to Neill-Wycik being late in repaying a mortgage from what was then the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, about the same time that CMHC foreclosed on Rochdale College. A source need not be primarily about a topic to constitute in-depth information about the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Eyeopener's separateness or non-separateness from Ryerson as a corporation, nor the question of whether it criticizes the university administration or not, is in any way relevant to what I said. It's a student newspaper whose core purpose is to serve Ryerson's student population, not a general interest audience — so it is a source that can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been cleared by stronger sources, but it is not a source that provides clearance of GNG all by itself if it's the best source on display. This is true for the same reason that coverage in The Varsity is not going to magically get all of the University of Toronto's student union executive or the president of its LGBT student group over GNG just because they've gotten covered in The Varsity, and the same reason that an attempted recent article about Sunnybrook Mall didn't pass GNG just because there were a couple of citations to the South Bayview Bulldog, and the same reason that Inside Halton writing one piece about "Georgetown teen starts her own business selling cupcakes" is not going to get her over our notability standards for businesspeople all by itself. To start getting a topic over GNG, you have to show sources on the order of the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun, The Globe and Mail and other sources of that class. University student newspapers or neighbourhood pennysavers do not confer a GNG pass all by themselves if they're the best sources in the mix,

It's true that a a source does not have to be "primarily" about a topic to constitute in-depth information about the topic, but it does have to be more than a trivial namecheck of the topic's mere existence before it assists passage of GNG — so who publishes Torontoist is irrelevant, because the content being cited doesn't contain any substantive or notability-building information about Neill-Wycik beyond verifying that it exists.

Being mentioned in House of Commons debates is not a notability-maker in and of itself, either. It might count for something if there were news stories in the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail about whatever it was that got the co-op mentioned in the House of Commons — but even then, the notability is because of the news stories, not because of the mention per se. It counts for nothing if your source for the mention is the Hansard itself, because the Hansard is a primary source and not a notability-building media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing remarkable about this, and whatever comes from secondary sources, reliable or not, is trivial/run of the mill/etc. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No substantial, in-depth coverage independent of subject. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Kosmos

Vincent Kosmos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability not demonstrated. Fairly obvious promotional intent. Deb (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1998 NSW Sports Sedans

1998 NSW Sports Sedans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Amateur sporting competition. Fails WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NSPORT. I am also nominating the following related pages because: it is an article covering the same amateur competition in a subsequent year

1999 NSW Sports Sedans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Broughton (musician)

James Broughton (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The subject almost meets criterion #2 except we don't count WP:SINGLEVENDOR music charts (like iTunes) toward notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nominator; the musician is close to notability but not quite. He got noticed for opening a few shows for a notable band but notability is not inherited, and the charity single with the hit video was a one-time event. Beyond those two things, he has received very little reliable media coverage and his works can only be found in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage too thin to confer notability. No objection to having this article back if that changes. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Service Scheme Special Camp at Bhambarde

National Service Scheme Special Camp at Bhambarde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG .No strong notability for this student group. Notability is not inherited.National Service Scheme has its separate article but not clear how this camp is notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. There are zillion number of NSS units and camps. Bambarde in particular is not notable and makes no sense. Accesscrawl (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum (festival)

Spectrum (festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV .It has been held for 5 years .Now every college has its own annual culturals not clear how this is significant to have a separate article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Rays no-hitters

List of Tampa Bay Rays no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list with only one item hardly merits its own article. Per WP:SALAT and WP:SUMMARY, the scope of the article is too narrow to be a stand-alone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all similar team lists with only one entry:

List of Toronto Blue Jays no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of New York Mets no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Milwaukee Brewers no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Colorado Rockies no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I feel that the set of articles containing only one entry in their list don't merit their own articles. Some of the other articles are still short and also contain few entries. I've also noticed that each of the articles in this set contain the exact same language, for better or for worse. There should be some way to merge a few of these articles into List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. TNats  ₃  07:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that even if consensus is to delete, that the articles would be redirected to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters to maintain the article's history and keep the links working. These articles may someday become more relevant if more no-hitters are complete by these teams. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting that we should just blank the articles and provide a redirect for later use? What would be the criteria for bringing them back? TNats  ₃  —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is more personal preference, but to me a list is never necessary for anything under three items. Even then, I don't really like lists with 5 items or less. I think it best to determine consensus here that the lists can be deleted, and then determine the best course of action in regards to a redirect. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine with me. TNats  ₃  04:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, as not meeting WP:NLIST, a question from a non-baseball follower, are these no-hit games notable? i see there is List of Major League Baseball no-hitters but is there/should there be an article describing the (more) notable games? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more about the team statistics than the actual games, because in baseball, a no-hitter is still an impressive feat to accomplish, even if it's not an otherwise notable game. There is no need to create an article for every game with a no-hitter, but it's still important to keep track of them as a statistic. TNats  ₃  04:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. See List of Major League Baseball perfect games, which has an article for each game. But that is because a perfect game is much rarer and more notable than a no-hitter. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks:)Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and do not redirect. Per the discussion immediately above this the topic of no hitters is notable and a list is encyclopedic. I am having a hard time imagining these terms as search terms and do not agree that we should preserve the pages for future re-expansion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they get deleted then if there is ever a need to any of these pages in the future someone can just put them back up. TNats  ₃  22:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euromotion

Euromotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Short-lived band which doesn't appear to have had any lasting coverage to suggest that it passes WP:BAND. The article is riddled with weasel words and unverified fan-like claims such as "gained a cult following" and "better than ever" - clear violation of WP:NPOV. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Temi. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Wolf

Yossi Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is only of the company, not of this person. Maybe a small mention in the Temi article, but not an entire standalone for himself. 2Joules (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge one or two sentences into Temi article & redirect. Renata (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francina Connors

Francina Connors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Coverage seems to be local mostly. An educated guess could be that this is more suited for a merge/passing mention in one of collaborations instead of an article, but I think this should be deleted. 2Joules (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can't find substantial coverage. Mostly just various passing mentions. Renata (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no substantial news or media Joaomufc (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per consensus. The article is a bit rough but there is a strong sense that notability has been established. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upper gnilovsky cemetery

Upper gnilovsky cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

No sources to be found for this cemetery. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Linked to ruwiki, where there are a number of sources to be found. Seems notable to me but I'll let other users evaluate. —innotata 04:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added the references from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia. I think notability is now established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Eastmain: The references you copied from ru.wiki include a citation to Википедия (ru.wiki) (invalid -- see WP:CIRCULAR), a citation to WikiMapia (unreliable), and a citation to All-Russian register of cemeteries (insignificant). Three other citations are about the people buried at the cemetery (none of whom have en.wiki articles, so should not be included in lists of notable graves). The only valid citation given is the article about cemeteries in Rostov going unmaintained, wherein this particular cemetery is held up as one of several examples of the problem. All in all, I don't think these sources are sufficient to say that this is a notable cemetery. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @WikiDan61: The articles about people who are buried there also provide significant coverage of the cemetery itself. This is not a list of notable people like those that often appear in articles about towns and cities. It is material about burials at the cemetery that contributes to establishing notability. I suspect that references from reliable sources exist about most long-established cemeteries,but language barriers and the lack of an Internet presence for pre-Internet material cause some difficulty in finding those references. Also, I added http://bloknot-rostov.ru/news/v-rostove-na-verkhne-gnilovskom-kladbishche-oruduyu-649090 See translation: In Rostov on the Upper-Gnilovsky cemetery vandals The unreliable references are helpful in establishing context. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that references have been added to show notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Success Akpojotor

Success Akpojotor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject is an author of multiple books but coverage is basically non-existent. The two sources currently in the article are blog posts and while 76crimes claims that Maurice Tomlinson is their writer, that alone is not enough for this source to establish any kind of significance. Searches on GNews or GBooks come up empty other than that and a generic Google search turns up no reliable source coverage either. Fails WP:BIO, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Much improved since nomination. Daask (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An extensive search turned up little-to-nothing to indicate notability under GNG, AUTHOR, or any other guidelines. Most of the books and refs appear to be self-published on essentially open access platforms. The strongest support is that the author/work has been discussed on the blog of a notable gay rights activist, but that falls well short of our GNG or author guidelines for substantial independent secondary reliable source coverage. Alsee (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I came here from here and think that if this article is as stated "Much improved since nomination", then there is little hope for the topic because the article is not good and the references/links are not reliable. I mean yes it has been reviewed, but when the guideline says to find reviews, it clearly means reviews from major publications and not reviews from blogs. Also this is a forum post. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article may have numerous references but none contribute to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am disregarding the Keep !votes as they appear to be socking and are in any event unpersuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sussman

Jeffrey Sussman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete - The textbook definition of a vanity page. The account that created it edited only this page, then was dormant for 4 years and created/edited one other page. No activity since. No reliable sources - the NY Times citation is literally a "letter to the editor" written by Sussman himself. There is a claim to a "Who's Who" entry but the source is the promotional page for one of his non-notable books. Coverage in reliable secondary sources that I found consists of a couple mentions in the East Hampton Star, 27east.com, and one in New York Newsday. I don't think that rises to the level required. Amsgearing (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clumsily promotional. Is one of his books really called "See Hot They Run"??? Deb (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See Hot They Run should be See How They Run, which is a children's running book. No Mere Bagatelles by Jeffrey Sussman is a biography of Judith and Gerson Leiber, and Jeffrey Sussman was noted as the biographer of the Leibers in their obituaries that appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Jeffrey Sussman's most recent book is Rocky Graziano: Fists, Fame,and Fortune which was reviewed in Publishers Weekly as well as in other periodicals.108.27.219.67 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the Publisher's Weekly blurb a "review" - it's more like a quick two-paragraph summary. If that's all there is, that's far short of meeting the requirements set in WP:AUTHOR. Amsgearing (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP There are lots of other notable sources that mention this author, pictures with former President Ronald Reagan and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagemovieguy (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A picture with Ronald Reagan is not an indicator of notability. Amsgearing (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP There have been new source references added from The New York Times and Publishers Weekly.108.27.219.67 (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: the three "Keep" votes all apparently come from the same person. One IP, then a brand-new account voting 7 minutes later, then the same IP again. Amsgearing (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sanni Abdulkadir

Mohammed Sanni Abdulkadir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and simply doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:NPROF as the Vice chancellor(overall head) of an accredited public institution. Mahveotm (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, "vice"-chancellor doesn't meet WP:NPROF, which states, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society", but "vice" would indicate not the highest level. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

..and actually in Nigeria as in other commonwealth countries, it does. Vice chancellor is the head of the institution and the Chancellor is a mearely figurative and honorary position. You might want to see this AfD and this. Cheers, Mahveotm (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. VCship is required to be of a major institution. This university does not appear to fit that bill, so WP:Prof is not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep I think a state-owned university in Nigeria is sufficient - it is a major institution in Nigeria, and we take that into consideration. And based on this, it seems that Vice-Chancellor does appear to be a notable position in Nigerian Universities. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Owusu Kizito

Owusu Kizito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As a person he is not notable. His company might pass GNG if an article is made, but he remains non notable. 2Joules (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reenie Mansata

Reenie Mansata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I tried rewriting but gave up as there are too many issues. The first two reference URLs point to the same article in different places, the third URL is a video, and the fourth a profile page. The article reads like a puff piece, and consists of quite a bit of text directly copied word-for-word from sources, and statements that are unverified and/or not supported by the references. A Google News search yielded nothing. Greenwoodtree 14:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and notability guidelines. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugging Doctor Beverage Company

Shrugging Doctor Beverage Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Manitoba is not known for having that many large scale wineries so being the biggest in manitoba does not count as notability. Most of the content is sourced to the company's website as well. 2Joules (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as there are no truly independent publications available as sources. Charitably, perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON for this 2016 startup. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied (WP:CSD#G5). Part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike dichen. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirosha (anchor)

Nirosha (anchor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO notability. Was briefly a TV anchor. DMacks (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Labiri Suzuki

Eleni Labiri Suzuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Feel free to correct me (not my area of expertise at all), but does being a 6th dan automatically confer notability? Because that appears to be the only claim here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. Middling rank when even high rank does not confer notability.PRehse (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search found no significant independent coverage and there's no indication of anything that would meet WP:MANOTE. Martial arts rank has never been an indicator of notability in WP, as evidenced by the deletion of another of articles on 10th dans. Never a good sign for individual notability when she "is best known as the second wife of ...". Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per PRehse. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Sojoyner

Damien Sojoyner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Aacdemic of insufficient notability; appears to fulfill none of the requirements at WP:NACADEMIC (seminal work, position, or honours). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I turned up three academic reviews of his book [17][18][19]. That's a step on the way to passing WP:AUTHOR, but he only has the one book [20]. "Multiple reviews of multiple books each" seems to be the bar to clear in practice with that criterion. At the moment, I'm inclined to say that this article is just too soon. XOR'easter (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:AUTHOR requires multiple books published, as long as the book received significant attention in reviews, it should be fine. Hzh (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC

• Delete As per nomination, subject doesn't meet WP:PROF. As for WP:AUTHOR, multiple works are not required, but I don't know that this book counts as "a significant or well-known work" as described in the requirement. I agree with the above-mentioned WP:TOOSOON.
• Delete. Assistant Professors are almost lneverconsidered notable here,He cannot be shown to be a asignificant influence on his profession,as he has written only one book, though fairly well received --240 worldcat libraries. AUTHOR can be met by one book, but only if it is extremely sucessful, such as best seller lists or major prizes, or the basis for a notable film. None of these is the case here. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about London

List of songs about London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This and other pages of "List of songs about (city)" came up at ANI regarding an IP user, but it brought my attention to how poor these are as a standalone topic. While I'm only nominating this one, the same rational would be applicable to others. (Category:Lists of songs about a topic has about 48 city-based and 4 state-based song lists, spot checking most have the same problem).

• Most of the songs included are non-notable. Therefore, I expect any not blue-linked to include a source. Nearly all of these don't.
• And then we are getting addition of non-notable songs by non-notable artists without any source. There is no attempt to hold to the minimum standards set by WP:V.
• The inclusion criteria is paper thin, for a list of songs "about" London. Being simply titled after a location there doesn't make the song about the city - song titles do not necessarily have any direction connection to lyrics. The fact that it says to not include where the city is name checked, yet, just having a named place in the title, doesn't make any logical sense. Granted I do think that there are songs that are truly about London, eg "London Calling", and a narrow list of these songs would make sense, properly sourced, would make sense. But as is, this would fail WP:IINFO.

Realistically, following WP:TRIVIA, these lists should only include songs where a third-party source , or in this case the musical artists themselves have identified that the song is about London. Using the lyrics as a source for this engages in WP:OR, to some extent, though there can be a case made if it is fairly obvious for a notable song, (eg Theme from New York, New York is clearly about New York City, even if we didn't have sources).

While these lists could be trimmed, WP:TNT seems to be better to discourage poor additions.

I know in the case here for London, there was a previous AFD that was "keep" from 2011, but I think we've progressed significantly since to invalidate most of the reasons used then to keep this around. Masem (t) 13:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Songs about London. If retained, the article can be cleaned up to limit entries to blue-linked notable songs, and perhaps some WP:REDLINKed ones that may be notable as per source searching, which could then be properly verified in the article. Then functional red links could be added. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the song is blue-linked, there should be at minimum a third-party source that clearly spells out that the song is about London, unless it is patently obvious from the lyrics. A sampling of blue-linked songs show simply name dropping of locations, but nothing about the city. Right now, the way the bulk of this list (and other song lists) are presented, they are "list of songs that happen to mention London or London landmarks", which definitely not an encyclopedic topic. --Masem (t) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:CLN and WP:NOTDUP. A large number of those songs do have articles and are yet to be blue-linked. Ajf773 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To stress a point, even if you could blue-link them, we need evidence from a third-party that these are songs about London. Not just name dropping placenames. That either needs to be patently obvious from the song or a third-party source. --Masem (t) 23:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:TNT is not policy and AfD is not cleanup. It's easy to find confirmation that this passes WP:LISTN, e.g. London, A Very Peculiar History; NME; Time Out. Andrew D. (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see I am !voting against the trend, but if the article survives I will delete every song EXCEPT blue-linked songs WITH references, that appears to mean I will be deleting every song. Whatever the strength of feeling there is for these damnable lists, there should be references, there should be verifiability, there should be notability, and those that that !vote to keep but do not care to act to help a process of improvement should be ignored as they are serving their own opinions and not Wikipedia. Now if one of them would like to create an article about the history of London in song, with references and examples, I am sure a top quality article could be made, but a list of songs is not and cannot be a quality article. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:BLANK, such action would be disruptive. There are many songs listed here which have not been linked yet -- iconic songs like Streets of London and Feed the Birds. It's obvious that they belong here and citations are not normally needed for such well known facts. If Richhoncho has some general objection to lists, they need to address that more generally as lists are currently a well-established feature of Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is within the guidelines of WP. What's your problem? Ownership? Fix it then I won't be able to carry it out! FWIW, "Streets of London" according to the writer, Ralph McTell, is about Paris, which really illuminates the stupidity of listing songs by title. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, standard list of works by subject, complementary to Category:Songs about London as well as informative regarding culture about one of the most significant cities on the planet. Obviously there are plenty of songs that merit their own articles, but so long as the song's album and/or the recording artist/writer are notable then inclusion can be appropriate (if neither the song nor the album nor the artist have an article, then by all means remove). Per WP:PRESERVE, fixable content should be kept and there is no WP:DEADLINE here, so I agree with Andrew D. that blanking based on nothing more than the current state of content, rather than its potential, would be disruptive and contrary to policy. postdlf (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the list were songs about London, there's a valid point. But the inclusion criteria on the list is basically songs that namedrop London or London landmarks which does not make for songs about London. I fully agree that a page that talks of songs about London is culturally significant, but to be culturally significant, a song should be more than name-dropping. And to judge if a song is about London, it better be 100% obvious from the lyrics, or otherwise sourced to a third-party (WP:V is a requirement). Those principles fail throughout, even for songs that have refs don't have good references to support this (Allmusic doesn't support this). With as few references here, I don't see any other solution but TNT to restart the list with a firmer inclusion and sourcing criteria to avoid the mess this list is presently. --Masem (t) 23:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not considering that there's the category here. That's fine to have a duplication of cat and list. But the list better follow all sourcing policies, that's not something that can be ignored. --Masem (t) 00:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other solution is taking the time to develop it even though that means tolerating content for the timebeing that may not end up in the later version. There is clearly no consensus here for the contra-policy TNT "solution", nor any compelling reason to go that route. In other words, don't panic. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument to take time to develop was taken 7 years ago at the last nomination. Exactly how long do we have to support sub-standard articles 'waiting to be developed?' Just asking... --Richhoncho (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "We?" It's the servers doing all the "support" of maintaining viable content that no one has yet improved. You are always free to ignore any topic in which you have no interest, but you are not free to kill it out of mere impatience. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Postdlf: Don't be so silly, 'We' can only mean ALL editors, that's you, me and anybody else that edits WP, specifically those that would comment on or edit this particular article. Yes, I do have an interest, that WP is a worthwhile and encyclopedic project with a longterm aim to improve, precisely where do you think my aims are wrong? --Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Generally, where there;s a category of manageable size, there should be a list also,. They serve complementary pruposes in findingarticles, and as finding aids, need to be judged on that basis as welll as notability . In addition to that role, lists are a specifically provided-for way of including information about subjects not meriting a whole article. As for the so far unmet need to develop, the general rule here is NO DEADLINE. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cedarmont Kids

Cedarmont Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Source searches only provide passing mentions and name checks. It has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and therefore does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to Benson Records. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Beyond run of the mill listings about this act's appearances at stores and festivals, and typical streaming/download sites for songs and videos, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources about this act being noticed by the world at large (except maybe this: [21]), much less confirmation of the article's factual statements like being the "best selling Christian children's music since 1993." The article has little chance of transcending a basic list of their numerous but little-noticed songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Integrity Music. The article being completely unsourced, there is nothing that can be merged. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hosanna! Music

Hosanna! Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions and name checks; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to Integrity Music. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect It's my understanding that it was an imprint of Integrity Music. I don't recall ever having seen a release that wasn't released as Integrity's Hosanna! Music. https://www.discogs.com/release/10753929-Praise-Worship-The-Solid-Rock/images is an example. The label was vital in transforming praise choruses of the Jesus Movement in the 1970s, where Maranatha! Music was a forerunner starting around 1975, and modern contemporary worship music that started with Hillsong Music Australia in the mid-1990s. However, there wasn't much written about that label that can't be covered with the parent label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above, seems a valid option given that it is an imprint label, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company#Non-chocolate snacks and candies. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Breakers (candy)

Ice Breakers (candy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article has been tagged as having no references at all for more than 30 months, but no attempt seems to have been made to find and add sources. RolandR (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company#Non-chocolate snacks and candies Not a source in here and plenty of rambling; better to just redirect it to the Hershey product article. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. I could find no reliable sources for this candy outside of mentions as a part of the Hershey product line. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Redman

Adrian Redman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication that either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX is met. He had his first pro fight in March of this year. It's way too early to claim he's a notable boxer. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endtime Productions

Endtime Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Source searches are only providing name checks and passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have added this French book that mentions them as a "famous Swedish Christian Metal label". It will take a whole lot of searching and work to get this sourced, and if anybody can, ping me and I'll reconsider. But I can't make this one float myself. Sam Sailor 11:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rugged Records

Rugged Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable record label that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches only provide passing mentions and directory listings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Shame to see it go, but no RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home Sweet Home Records

Home Sweet Home Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable record label; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are only providing directory listings and passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - one of the most notable Christian record labels of the late 80s and early 90s. Numerous, numerous notable artists. Large impact on Christian culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The president of the company is a good promoter, but other than Mark Heard, the first two Whiteheart and a few of his own albums, none are notable. There was no large impact on Christian culture as 78.26 claims. And really nothing written about the label except complaints about how the label was run, but those were by the artists or bands involved. And being written about is what makes a subject notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I worked at a Christian radio station during this time period, and recordings from this label were in heavy rotation, and they HSH songs regularly appeared on the Christian charts of the time period. This is pre-internet, and I do not have access, but this is not an insignificant label. That said, I agree Christian is a good promoter, was probably written by him or his staff, and the article desperately needs an NPOV re-write. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A notable record label with an important number of well-known artists signed to the label. werldwayd (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to have been significant for its genre Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Peck

Lib Peck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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