Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 June	6 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will McDonough (businessman)

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

Previously soft deleted. The article has been brought back and we need to try again. Non-notable run-of-the-mill businessman. Fails WP:GNG. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources found, and the references provided in the article are trivial or 404s. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability standards. Felicia (talk) 22:02, 8 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 Merged to related articles. Sandstein 10:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Huerfano

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

This fort does not appear to meet notability requirements, such as WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. The source that is currently on the article is a personal site by a couple. I could find no books, historical newspaper articles, or web sources. I also tried local libraries, historical societies, etc. with no luck. The only thing I could find was one newspaper mention of a man going to Fort Huerfano, one of the last Army outposts, but it didn't say what state... and this was supposedly not an Army post. There was a Fort Stevens in Colorado on the Huerfano River, though, which is in a different area than Pueblo County, where Fort Huerfano was said to be located. It is not in the book of Colorado forts, which is quite extensive. –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Why not just merge the content, i.e. copy the two sentences and source, to its entry in List of forts in the United States#Colorado. And edit to express appropriate skepticism, as an "alleged" fort or whatever, if you like. --Doncram (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not certain that the fort actually existed. The sparse information from 2 personal websites may have confused the information with Fort Stevens in Huerfano County... or Fort Pueblo.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I can be reasonably certain that the fort existed, since the one source remaining also lists Fort Stevens and Fort Pueblo in addition to Ft. Huerfano. The fact that sources are hard to come by is not shocking for an isolated fort that only existed for two years in the 1840s. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That source is a personal site. I can call the county historical society and/or library in the next couple of days and see if they have it on government maps, other early maps, or other sources for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I think I figured it out, 1) Huerfano County was one of the original counties, and was much larger than today's county - and it looks like the confluence of the Arkansas and Huerfano are in Huerfano county on the attached early Colorado map. 2) A map in one of the sources for Autobees shows it up by Avondale. The coordinates in the article show it on the Huerfano River just south of the Arkansas River. 3) Charles Autobees lived in Taos until 1853, but he did come through Colorado in 1847 for trade. 4) Fort Huerfano was supposedly an encampment built by Autobees in 1845 (I'll look to see if he came through in 1845, haven't seen it so far). ====> I think Fort Huerfano became the ranch/county seat Autobees in 1853. So, I just have to prove it. In that case, then it should likely need to merge to Autobees, Colorado, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Autobees was in Colorado in 1842 and 1844 either headed to or would have passed through the Pueblo area. More researching to do, but I think I am on to something, just have to put the pieces together. When Fort Huerfano is called an "encampment", I am betting it was pretty informal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Found it here: About 1845 Autobees had a small encampment on the Huerfano, which became the county seat of Huerfano County in 1861. This means that the personal site was right... and that this encampment became Autobees, Colorado.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I merged the content to Autobees, Colorado#Fort Huerfano. It could also be merged to the List of forts in Colorado... and I would be happy to withdraw the nomination, but the resolution would be "keep", which is a bit confusing... unless there's a parameter to set "merge".–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Comment’’’ Thank you for figuring it out. And “Merge” is a regular outcome at AFD. Ready to be closed.—Doncram (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. If I could set a parameter to merge with the withdrawal process, I would. I'll just wait til someone comes around and closes it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not 100% sure what is going on here, although it seems a bit outside of process. Generally the steps seem to be that once everyone including the nom agrees, the AfD can be closed, and then the action is taken. In this case it looks like this article is already a redirect. It is fine to add the material to the new destination before an article is closed, but the edit summary should include mention that the material is coming from this article so that authorship can be mantained - the edit summary seemed to have been "add Fort Huerfano section" which I would have written as "add Fort Huerfano section based on discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Huerfano". All told, there is no problem, I'm just noting that what has happened here is not exactly what I think is how things are usually done. In any case, the real reason I'm posting here is to note that I made an article for Charles Autobees, in case anyone here is interested in that page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, agreed. I am just working on a couple of things {{Forts in Colorado}} and creating a page with a list of forts of Colorado (to be similar to the CA list) and since it seemed to be a pretty clear outcome, it just worked out that way. Good point about the edit summary for the addition of the content. It was just one sentence that got moved over, I had started with new content, so it hadn't occurred to me. As an FYI, though, I did add a merge template on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Soudns good. I don't think anyone is too worked up over authorship concerns for merges, but it doesn't hurt to do one's best. Also, as note to the closer, I endorse a merge. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- The article has already been reduced to a redirect with an appropriate target. I see no objection to adding it to a list of forts, if that is indeed appropriate, on which I have no view. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it has already been added to List of forts in Colorado and {{Forts in Colorado}}.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close as merge? If I could close this myself / withdraw it as a merge, I would. Since there is no disagreement about merging this, and the merge is already done, is it possible to close this rather than having this discussion continue? There is no more information that I could find to build an article about the original encampment, which one source called "Fort Huerfano". Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 10 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. Sandstein 10:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Glanfield

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

Seemingly WP:NN author/journalist. Unable to find any significant coverage of him Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plenty of articles written by him, but little in the way of significant coverage about him. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 13 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desirée Dawson

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

Appears to not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:NMUSIC; current coverage is insufficient and the remaining sources only discuss the subject in mere mentions. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:4405:EFCC:6A6D:494F (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 22:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There actually are other sources that can be added, and CBC Music's Searchlight is a contest that can reasonably constitute a pass of NMUSIC #9 as long as the sourcing is there to cover it off (which it is here). I'll take a stab at improving the article in the next day or two. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although maybe a weak keep. Contest winner with CBC Music so barely meets MUSIBIO No. 9. Appears nom didn't do WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC and has reliable sources coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 10 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. Sandstein 10:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Alioto Wilhelm

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

Also delete the version at Draft:Stephanie Alioto Wilhelm which is esentially the same. Being the mayor's sister and an art teacher that does not pass WP:PROF is not remarkable. The page is essentially copy vio of the SFGate Obit Ref #1 as well. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Earwig report: [1]. (After I removed a line about survived by X, Y, Z, etc...) There are some phrases in common but nothing concerning in my view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I just made some cleanups to the article, among other things removing sources that were about a fishmonger with a similar name. She seems to have some minor local-to-San-Francisco notability (e.g. an obituary in the main newspaper of the city). There are big claims about being a founder of three notable San Francisco cultural institutions, with not much besides a mention in the obit to back them up. And the fact that she had a more famous brother should certainly not be held against her (nor should it help her case). But I couldn't find anything nonlocal, nor anything but the obituary that was sufficiently in-depth about her to justify a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone Systems

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

Entirely self-sourced (own site, and press releases). I tried to find some reliable, independent sources online to no avail. As notability is not inherited, I don't see how this subsidiary meets the requirement for corporate notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was tending towards G11 speedy deletion as spam. Even if sources could be found, writing a new article would be less work than trying to clean up this one. Huon (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is possible to source this to GNG with e.g. this, this, this, this, this and some of the many articles in Børsen that mention the company.
In this case, however, I doubt I will ... have time to fit rewriting and sourcing into my editing schedule. The article was started in 2006 as an undeniable promo piece by a user whose name happens to be identical to one of the founders of the company. Paid/COI/SPA editors should know that volunteer editors not necessarily are here to rewrite their "articles". Sam Sailor 09:37, 6 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. Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshekhar Murthy

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

Article is very promotional. Nothing that I can find in the references or in online searching amounts to independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Far from the basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:52, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GVATE LLC

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

Founded in 2015 and employs 12 people - cannot see how this can pass WP:NCORP. Promotional article started by a now-banned editor. Edwardx (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. SIGCOV doesn't apply to inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. 8 of the 11 cited sources fall under this category, and the other 3 appear to be WP:SPS (Linkedin, UpCity, and their own company blog). I couldn't find anything better. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 22:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The independent sources don't establish a depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deli nk (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Small company, but one of the most famous and important marketing and SEO companies in NY area. --Ricardo Forth (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)— Ricardo Forth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Yeah, pity no one outside this small niche field in this local area's ever heard of it. I know a guy who's the best (the last, really) hatter in western New England, but that doesn't mean he meets the GNG. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Total "passionated" spam. Fails WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undisclosed native advertising in violation of the terms of use, see User talk:SirEdimon/Archives/ 1#April 2018. Not surprising for a SEO firm. MER-C 09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, article fails to establish its subject's significance and notability with its lack of in-depth, independent sources. This constitutes a WP:NCORP failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. I couldn't find a single source that wasn't a press release or similar.Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:39, 12 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. Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew DeSantis

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

Fails WP:RS and WP:CREATIVE. A search turns out nothing relating to a developer instead i see results for a football player. It is also created by a WP:SPA account. Edidiong (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only potentially reliable source I find is this article [2] which calls him a Bitcoin developer and cites him as a source for the information that JPMorgan bought Bitcoin. Doesn't seem to be enough for notability. SJK (talk) 13:46, 12 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. Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sting (nightclub)

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

Was deprodded without improvement with a comment on the talk page that many famous performers performed there. While that may be true, while it existed, and had some local popularity, can find no in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A named nightclub is still a company/organization, and so it must pass WP:NCORP to merit inclusion. This article does not meet this need due to a lack of coverage, and it also does not inherit (per WP:NOTINHERITED) notability from performers who performed there.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept because it had many famous artists perform there. Evangp (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Evangp: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from those musicians. Anyway, the two sources in the article are both local coverage, and the second seems promotional as well, so delete. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 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. Sandstein 10:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 cent

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

Not notable. The coverage is purely numismatic and largely trivial even there. More notable coins such as the 1909 S VDB penny don't have stand-alone articles. Nominating (rather than redirect) partly procedurally (as an IP made an incorrect nomination) and partly because countries other than the US have cent coins, and a redirect to Penny (United States coin) may be uncalled for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this article, for similar reasons, and also nominated by the IP editor:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. The only item of any significance is the "P" mark, and that is already included in Penny (United States coin), so there is nothing to left to merge. The specificity of the title seems an implausible redirect to me, though if others want to redirect I wouldn't object. The only sources for both articles are Coinweek, which states at the bottom that "All News, Articles, Commentary and Opinions are contributed by the author(s), with or without compensation, who are solely responsible for the content, and do not represent CoinWeek Management," which seems to indicate a lack of substantial editorial review. Even if the P mark did have enough significant coverage to technically qualify as multiple independent sources (which it doesn't), not every "notable" fact should be its own article. MarginalCost (talk) 21:46, 5 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. Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New Age Idols

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

No notability. The subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:MBIO. There is a lack in significant coverage of reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 19:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MBIO, and all the sources currently on the page are either user-generated content, unreliable, or otherwise trivial. Nanophosis (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - New band seeking promotion, with the only coverage being in trivial or self-generated song listings and the like. I could be cruel by citing WP:GARAGEBAND or friendly with WP:TOOSOON. Good luck to them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be nice if the subject of a WP:MUSIC article actually accomplished something before attempting to claim wikipedia notability. Obviously promotional and WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting citing NME as a source can be confusing; they offer a service called "Artist Services" which allow a member to create and download to their website their own press, where it can easily be confused for coverage by a major, reliable source. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:30, 7 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. Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Gudgeon

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:NACTOR. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability as musician or actor. Rogermx (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claim of notability from a Movie (Home and Away) that doesn't cite him, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Edidiong (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serenata Flowers

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

Promotional article of a company not meeting WP:NORG, based upon cited references (based purely on PR websites) plus one article demonstrating that the company resorts to spamming tactics. Coincidentally, article creator has been blocked for spamming/promotion. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by a WP:SPA user that is promotional and nothing in depth about subject from any source. I won't completely agree that cited references are "Purely on PR websites". Metro is not PR website. Edidiong (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference was to the Metro, Mredidiongekong? Can't seem to find it now. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was undisclosed paid editing, pure and simple. It has no place here. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 6 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeOS

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

Not enough significant coverage in the article LilUvezian (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any coverage at all that would count as SIGCOV, fails WP:NSOFTWARE. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 22:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SIGCOV failure, mostly due to a lack of potential sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not even clear if this even exists, or if it is just vaporware or some non-notable personal/hobby project (or even daydreaming exercise.) SJK (talk) 13:40, 12 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 procedural close. As a draft, any deletion discussion should be opened at WP:MFD, not AfD. AfD tag had previously been removed from the article by Ymblanter. Further, no justfication for the deletion was offered here. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Silicone Baby Winter Show

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

IanDBeacon (talk) 17:58, 5 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 Draftify. Moving to draft space, per discussion. Now found at Draft:Brenna D'Amico 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna D'Amico

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

WP:TOOSOON. Not enough in sources to establish general notability (most of the references presented in the article just merely mention her), and insufficient significant roles to establish notability as an actress (the Descendants films, where she's actually not in one of the major roles, are collectively taken as one film role). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is equivalent to Mitchell Hope, but even more so because, unlike Hope, D'Amico is not even a "headliner" in the Descendants TV movie series. And, aside from Descendants, she has no significant roles, and so looks to be a WP:NACTOR fail. IOW, we need more than that Chicago Sun-Times profile to establish notability here. An unordered TV pilot certainly does not do that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To follow up, it looks like there are a couple of good sources in there that contribute towards notability – the ABC7 Chicago one, and the Chicago Sun-Times one. If there were a couple more like that (esp. from non-Chicago media outfits), this would indeed be a borderline case. But I agree with others that this one just doesn't meet WP:NACTOR right now. P.S. I have no prejudice against Draftifying over Deleting for this one, as that was does with Draft:Mitchell Hope as well, which is a similar case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hey, sorry this is my first page I've created so I'm super new to this process but I've had a read about the deletion process and stuff you guys have mentioned and I can see the points you're making. I'd like to throw my two cents in the ring as to why I think this page shouldn't be deleted. As a first, I realise she's not one of the main four leads on the Descendants films, but she is still a significant character and has been important to the plot in both films released so far. I understand her role in Descendants isn't counted as more than one role, although Descendants: Wicked World is separate from the films so that is two roles, and she is a series regular on Overnights, which is a digital series on the YouTube certified 'Brat' account. Out of the 5 episodes that have aired, two have been watched over 1 million times, with one at 1.8 million views. The other three episodes average around 600,000 views. This doesn't seem to be 'unnotable' as stated in the WP:NACTOR categories, and therefore there is three notable roles to her name, not to mention her other credits. Again, I get that the ABC comedy hasn't been picked up, but it does show hope when one considers the executive producer attached to it. Further, I have added more citations now, 6 out of the 12 refer directly to D'Amico as opposed to only mentioning her. There are now multiple news networks on there, not just the Chicago Sun-Times. Further, I added a discography section as she appeared on a promotional single for Descendants: Wicked World. I believe all the citations I've used are valid and legitimate.

Super keen to keep discussing this with you guys, I really hope you'll change your mind and let this stay. I worked really hard on finding the sources and making sure everything I have is backed up.

Out of interest, though, what does happen if this page gets deleted? I see in the Mitchell Hope page you linked it's still technically there, even though it wasn't allowed to stay. Does this page just stay in the universe somewhere or does it get deleted altogether? I'd just hate to lose all the code and references that I worked on - Emag346 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can request that it be moved to WP:Draftspace – that's what happened to Mitchell Hope. In this case, that would be a reasonable action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'd really rather it stayed up, because I think it's a legitimate article. Not to throw any other pages under the bus, but in terms of other cast members of Descendants, Thomas Doherty has far less acting credentials than Brenna D'Amico and his page has been around since September 2017. Sure, he's a lead on The Lodge, but he definitely isn't a lead in Descendants, in fact D'Amico is credited before him in the credit roll at the end (and the credits are not listed in order of appearance). He has only had two roles of 'significance', not 'multiple', which seems it would go against the WP:NACTOR criteria. I'm really curious as to why this page has been picked up, and not his, especially because I see in the history of that page that you, IJBall made contributions to it, yet you have found issue with this D'Amico page.

This is basically WP:OSE, but I voted "delete" on Thomas Doherty at AfD, IIRC, and still feel that Doherty is also short on WP:NACTOR grounds. But the difference is that, 1) Doherty did "headline" a 2-season TV series (The Lodge) which definitely qualifies as a "significant role" in terms of NACTOR, and 2) he had multiple local press profiles (D'Amico has just the one). IOW, Doherty is much stronger on WP:BASIC/WP:NACTOR grounds. By contrast, if Mitchell Hope doesn't qualify for a mainspace article then D'Amico certainly doesn't – IOW, if this article was sent through WP:AfC, I doubt it would be accepted, just as Mitchell Hope wasn't. So I am still a "delete" on this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for redirecting me to WP:OSE, I didn't know about that and I agree. As some counters to your points, D'Amico has more than one press profile, she has four that are referenced in her Wikipedia page. Further, I don't think it's fair to say if Hope doesn't qualify then D'Amico doesn't. As you said, that is basically WP:OSE, but also, D'Amico has over double the amount of credited roles than Hope, over and above Descendants, and within some of those, she hasn't been just a one episode guest (see Keys and Overnights) - Emag346 (talk)

Delete – per nomination.--Philip J FryTalk 23:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although there is nothing wrong with draftifying it. This is a very well crafted article, however, the subject simply doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now, according to guidelines, simply needs to be deleted or draftified. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your input, it's great to hear feedback. If this is going to be deleted, can I request it gets moved to WP:Draftspace so it isn't lost completely? - Emag346 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicyah12 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

draftify – It has potential, more sources are need, till than incubate as draft.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft has only one prominent role at present but has potential so draftify Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per others. WP:TOOSOON for an article. Well-written, so move it to a place where it can be worked upon. Narky Blert (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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cockburn

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

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL. She is a candidate for office who hasn't yet won an election. There is a lot of information on this page about her journalistic career, but the sourcing doesn't pan out. Various claims are made here about how her reporting caused things to happen, but the given sourcing doesn't even mention Cockburn. If this article is pared down to information that is actually verified by sources, it would be a lot shorter, and fail WP:NPOL. Marquardtika (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 16:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - While she definetly doesn't pass WP:NPOL, the article has been up for over 10 years as a result of her journalism career. WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG should probably be what is looked at not just NPOL. I don't know enough about journalism to determine if the several awards she has won or her contributions are enough to pass. But her recent nomination for office shouldn't be the sole focus of the afD. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. My issue is that in digging into the references about her journalism career, she is not even mentioned in almost any of them. The majority of the article fails verification, big-time, and seems to have been written either by the article subject or someone with a close connection to the article subject. I know that's not in and of itself a reason to delete, but I think there are significant issues here and questionable notability (with whatever notability guideline we apply) since hardly any of the content is in fact verified by the sources. Marquardtika (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that some of the claims of the impact of her works need to be sourced better to be verified, or reworded to have a better POV. Either way that does need to be fixed. Aside from the awards she has won listed in the article, I have also found that she has won two News & Documentary Emmy Awards/ [3][4]. Included with others, she has won journalism awards in 80s, 90s, and 2000s, so as of right now I'm leaning towards a keep, but was gonna do a bit more research into her contributions, as some of the info out there is over 30 years old, and some sources will take more effort than I have right now to find. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree there are issues with the page, but the individual seems like a suitable subject for an encyclopedia page based on her journalism career. Her lede should really focus on that and I'm not sure if accusations of anti-semitism are a BLP issue, but on first glance putting them in the lede does not seem balanced. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Emmys satisfy ANYBIO, no? That she’s also running for office is certainly not disqualifying of other means of passing. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A candidate article largely about her journalist career: [5] and multiple C-SPAN appearances as an author: [6] I haven't gone deeper and a lot of the early before hits are about her campaign, but ignoring her candidacy it seems fairly clear she seems like she'd likely pass WP:GNG for her journalism. SportingFlyer talk 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I improved this article by improving the sourcing, adding some information, and trimming it down in places. Even if you ignore her candidacy, WP:ANYBIO says a person may be notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." A documentary she produced won an Emmy, and others have been nominated for Emmys. WP:JOURNALIST says a journalist may be notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" or if their work "has won significant critical attention." I think both apply here because she's produced multiple investigative news documentaries that have received significant positive press in national newspapers over the course of years. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lonehexagon, thank you for your massive improvements to this article. I think that the Emmy does meet ANYBIO. It seems like she's notable for the journalistic career, not the congressional candidacy. The page was just so very bad it was hard to wade through it. Anyway, since no one else has supported deletion and since I no longer do, someone can come along and close this as "keep." Marquardtika (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's definitely notable as a journalist if not politician. Clear GNG pass here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cockburn's documentary Yuri the Great which aired on 60 Minutes in October 1998 won an Emmy, which makes her pass wp:anybio #1. Zingarese (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was notable before her political candidacy, for journalism career and for the awards she has received in that field, per WP:ANYBIO. -LtNOWIS (talk) 14:06, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cór Cois Abhann

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

Non-notable choir, where I am only finding listings for events that the creators probably had a conflict of interest. Sadads (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are either self-published or trivial inclusions in festivals and associations, which don't count towards notability. Nanophosis (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparent COI issues aside, I can find no sources that support WP:GNG and WP:BAND (no awards, charted album, significant concert tours, notable members, radio play, etc). As noted by Nanophosis, coverage is generally trivial (confirming existence rather than notability) and mainly self-published in nature. Regrettably have to support the DEL nom. Guliolopez (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Non-notable local choir. Spleodrach (talk) 11:39, 6 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. There is no strong consensus about the subject's notability, but there is a consensus that the article as currently written is not neutral (due to excessive weight being placed on a negative event) and therefore possibly a BLP issue. As the subject has expressed concerns regarding this to Oversight, I am closing this as delete. This is without prejudice to the creation of a new article that is BLP-compliant and which clearly demonstrates notability - this should be worked on in draft or userspace and not restored to the article namespace without consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Arnold

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

WP:BLP1E with a side of WP:COATRACK. He is known only for being kicked out after his CV was found to be falsified. The role is not so notable that all holders have articles. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E. GS citations are 42, 44, 8, 7,5 3 and some 2s. Borderline for theology and subject requests deletion (see below). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - as WP:BLP1E. Borderline notable and subject requests deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight, could you point us to where the subject requests deletion? Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an OTRS ticket. PhilKnight (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That not "all holders have articles" is an obvious circular argument that puts absurd faith in WP's comprehensiveness, when eg only about 75% of Fellows of the Royal Society elected 2000-2010 have articles (the male ones that is, obviously all the females do). In fact, of the 10 principals since foundation in 1904, 7 have articles, and they have their own category. All holders since 1989 have articles. The long list of publications indicates notability, even if none were best-sellers, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No, it's just an indication that this isn't the Archbishop of Canterbury or some such, it's a midrange position that is sometimes, but not always, held by a notable individual. Recentism is a wonderful thing, by the way. And the only thing we know about this guy is that he falsified his CV. That seems to be about it. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? yourself. Who decides who is a notable individual? Why, we do, here. Using "The role is not so notable that all holders have articles" as the main argument for deletion is an obvious circular argument. What are you trying to say, or imply with "Recentism is a wonderful thing, by the way" - puzzling? It is clearly not the case that "the only thing we know about this guy is that he falsified his CV". Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if he was Archbishop of Canterbury then there would be nothing to argue about, but he's not. Being Principal of St. Chad's is not an inherent guarantee of any public notice at all, especially after a relatively brief tenure. That was the limit of my point. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll first declare that I created this article. Firstly, this is not a WP:BLP1E: I created this article because he was Principal of St Chad's College, Durham, not because of the controversy surrounding his resignation. Secondly, as already stated by Johnbod, all the principals not having articles is not because it is not a notable position but because I (and other editors who operate in this sphere) haven't got round to creating them. St Chad's College and St John's College, Durham have special statuses with Durham University: They are independent, teaching and research institutions. As a side note, all but one of St John's principals have articles. Therefore the heading of St Chad's throws in a of WP:PROF. He also has an entry in Who's Who (the sister publication of the Dictionary of National Biography for those still living) and he therefore qualifies via WP:ANYBIO. It is not a WP:COATRACK article nor is it an attack page: his falsified CV is mentioned in the introduction because its a summary of his career, in the education section because he was falsifying degrees, and in the career section because it lost him a job; there is also content throughout that in unrelated to that incident. Perhaps rewording is required but not deletion. The "controversial" content is fully cited with reliable sources. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the head of a consituent college of a university is not a sign of notability, it does not pass notability guidelines for academics. Nothing else rises to the level of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must declare a COI as I know the subject. The 'facts" in this piece are debatable as I've demonstrated that he was not falsifying degrees, nor had any need to (as the college board itself stated). It did not cost him his job as the college was still in full support of him as correspondence would show. My attempts to give proof of his degrees has been rebuffed though the proof is on the talk page. It would seem better to just delete if a fair representation can't be agreed on. Phoenixpreacher (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rebalance in line with BLP guidelines. To me, this person's notability is not in doubt; he has an entry in Who's Who, which is published by Oxford University Press, is selective and is usually taken to be a strong indicator of notability. The University of Durham is, after Oxbridge and arguably the main London universities, one of England's most prestigious centres of learning, and St Chad's one of its most prestigious colleges; as our article summarises it has the "largest staff, extensive college library facilities, and among the highest undergraduate academic results in Durham" compared to its 16 other colleges. I wonder if perhaps there is some disparity between US conceptions of academic rank and those used by the admittedly peculiar collegiate system at Durham? Otherwise, I struggle to see how there can be much doubt of Arnold's notability; indeed, because St Chad's is an independent teaching institution, he passes WP:NACADEMIC's criteria number 6 ("The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") Now, the major point brought up above is whether the CV issue and its media coverage adds to notability; I think some brief mention of the problem ought to be kept in the article but it does need balancing out. However, that is really for the talk page. What does establish notability (I think conclusively) for the purposes of this AfD is the following list of articles in peer-reviewed academic journals where Arnold's work is the subject:

The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (1991)

Review by Rodolph Yanney in Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 1, no.3, 1992, pp. 317-319)
Review by T. D. Barnes in The Catholic Historical Review (vol. 78, no. 1, 1992, pp. 100-101)
Review by Gerard H. Ettlinger in Theological Studies (vol. 53, no. 1, 1992, p. 181).
Review by Michael Dimaio Jr in The Classical World (vol. 85, no. 3, 1992, p. 245)
Review by Chr. Schäublin in Museum Helveticum (vol. 49, no. 4, 1992, p. 266).

De Doctrina Christiana. A Classic of Western Civilization (1994)

Review by John Kelvin Coyle in Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 4, no. 4, 1996, pp. 538-539)
Review by Thomas Renna in Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture (vol. 66, no. 2, 1997, pp. 313-314)
Review by Roger Green in International Journal of the Classical Tradition (vol. 6, no. 1, 1999, pp. 117-121)
Review by Andrew Louth in Heythrop Journal (vol. 39, no. 4, p. 439)
Review by Heinrich Marti in Museum Helveticum (vol. 53, no. 4, 1996, p. 332)

There are likely more, but an initial search for these two books has turned up 10 separate book reviews which would substantially add to Arnold's article and, I think, seal the deal when it comes to notability (that is, on top of the Who's Who entry and the academic post). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

90% of the coverage is about the CV falsification. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, where or not that is true (and I do agree that the balance of this article is wrong), it actually has nothing to do with my comment. I pointed out that, even if one totally removed the CV issue, then the reviews I've listed + his Who's Who entry are still enough to pass GNG, plus his position which meets WP:PROF. As far as I see it, this BLP CV problem is not relevant to the deletion discussion: it needs to be discussed elsewhere. The question of notability can be settled without it, and I feel that we have enough here to demonstrate notability. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

His books might be, but has anybody written about him other than a publisher's blurb and stories about the CV? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: which do you think is the publisher's blurb? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far, all attempts at "rebalancing" have been rebuffed. Is this germane to the discussion?"WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E "applies to individuals who are not public figures...editors must consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction," as well as "limiting the information concerning individuals notable for one event. " Phoenixpreacher (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Noswall59's analysis above. Arnold's notability can be shown by having been the principal of St Chad's College, and his published works. There is a section in that college's article St Chad's College, Durham#List of principals listing principals, and while not all have their own articles, the ones that do appear to be equal in notability to Arnold. Anyone who is more versed on the subject of English religious school principals can certainly correct me if this assumption is wrong. I looked up the books and can't find anything in mainstream publications, but since they are religious books that's unsurprising. They are inaccessible to me, but I'm going to assume good faith and accept the reviews listed above as proof of the books' notability. The unfortunate CV situation is an additional item of notability, but not the basis of my decision. Lots of people falsify CVs and resign - but thankfully not all of them have it permanently enshrined into history on Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Herein lies the issue. The college maintained that his CV was not falsified and I have noted the validity of two of the diplomas in question without it being corrected. Saying that he resigned because of his CV is speculation not fact. That is the problem with this piece as currently written. It does not meet the standards for a BLP Phoenixpreacher (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC) striking duplicate vote. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the info differently. The college didn't say he hadn't falsified info, only that what wasn't falsified was enough to keep him on. Others in his department who disagreed with the college resigned in protest - that act carries some weight also. Nonetheless, how the event is covered in the article is different from the overall question of whether he's notable or not. Also, each person is only allowed to vote once - you voted delete above as well. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.Phoenixpreacher (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I supported deletion on those grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 7 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. G5 doesn't apply; the user in question was not blocked or banned at the time they created the article, and there have been significant edits by others. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guayakí (company)

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

Non-notable company; the sources in the article that are non-independent are niche publications and there is no WP:CORPDEPTH-level coverage. Regarding the sources recently added to the talk page, I think they are routine and don't rise to the level of significant coverage. I'm not sure if it matters, but the article creator was indefinitely blocked by a checkuser as a sock of a previously blocked user. (Does WP:CSD#G5 apply?) Deli nk (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ (EDIT: Changed to Keep now that I've improved the inline refs) - CSD G5 doesn't apply because the page was not created in violation of a block. Anyway, I'd say the article just barely scrapes past WP:CORPDEPTH when all current citations and all links included on the talk page are considered. For instance, this source would be reliable per WP:CORPDEPTH as a scholarly article that includes analysis/commentary/discussion of the company. I'll work on the in-text citations to get them up to standard. Nanophosis (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one who removed the PROD and added multiple RSes to the talk page to support. http://www.newsweek.com/small-biz-makeover-guayaki-teas-big-challenge-76809 https://www.bevnet.com/news/2018/outside-investment-fuels-vertical-growth-guayaki http://rsfsocialfinance.org/2012/08/27/guayaki-pioneers/ https://www.100yearsofsun.com/single-post/2016/07/03/Guayak%C3%AD-Yerba-Mate-MarketDriven-Regenerative-Agriculture-at-the-Base-of-the-Pyramid https://magazine.calpoly.edu/spring-summer-2018/cultivating-change-guayaki-21-years-later/ https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/guayak%C3%AD http://kwhs.wharton.upenn.edu/2013/03/restoring-the-rainforest-guayaki-brews-environmental-and-social-change/ We do not usually delete poorly written articles, we delete non-notable subjects and the sources support the subject's notability. Perhaps the nominator could do WP:BEFORE instead of creating unnecessary deletion discussions. I'm quite close to suggesting either a topic ban from nominating for deletion for the nominator, but will let the closing admin decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong that I didn't do WP:BEFORE. The references I found did not amount to WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion, hence this nomination. I have nominated literally hundreds of articles for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and AFD with nearly all being eventually deleted; your suggestion that because you object to just one of these nominations that I should be prevented from doing so in the future is just plain petty. Deli nk (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Not sure if G5 applies so I am judging this on notability alone. Add this from Time Magazine to the reference as it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The Newsweek article seems like routine coverage based on the title, but it is very detailed and in-depth about the company. Both Time and Newsweek are reliable sources so WP:ORG is met IMHO.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 6 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project Euler

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources except the article in The Atlantic. wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let me quote from the article: "Since its creation in 2001 by Colin Hughes, Project Euler has gained notability and popularity worldwide". Is this not the article's way of saying that the topic passes Wikipedia: GNG?Vorbee (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: no, because the word wikt:notability is not equal to the Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTABILITY. WP:N is based on whether the subject is discussed in reliable sources, not on whether the subject has an impact on society. wumbolo ^^^ 15:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is mention of the website in a BBC publication [7] TropicalFishes (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TropicalFishes: a one-sentence promotion inside a quotation doesn't pass notability under any standard.

wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more neutral way of saying the same would have been: 'a one-sentence promotion inside a quotation doesn't pass notability.'Hkleinnl (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Not all reliable sources mentioned in the article are taken into account by proposer: there are over 100 sequences in the scientific Online Encyclopedia of Integer Seqences referencing a Project Euler problem. Back in 2010 there has already been a notability discussion. See the page's talk page.Hkleinnl (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Atlantic source listed in the article is primarily about this project, and I think there is enough passing coverage in other sources to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: which other sources? wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources in the article. The New York Times, for instance, or the book source I added yesterday (which has a paragraph or two on the project, enough to count as "in-depth" for me). The Spanish ABC source found below by Thincat is even better, but I didn't see that one until after I left my own comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: the New York Times mentions Project Euler in only one sentence, and the ABC source is actually a copy-paste of an article by Neoteo, a source of questionable reliability. wumbolo ^^^ 16:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So? The reliability of a source is based on their own editorial process, not on how they acquired their text. And are you deliberately ignoring the book source I also mentioned, or what? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the New York Times article mentions Project Euler only in one sentence the implication of that sentence is huge as far as the notability of Project Euler is concerned. Hkleinnl (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have also found this in ABC (newspaper) in Spanish so that edges it up a bit. Also, quite a few textbooks with a paragraph (or even merely assuming you know what the site is about). An educational encylopedia ought to have information on subjects like this so if it doesn't pass our notability guidelines then they should be changed accordingly (although they already allow for "occasional exceptions"). Thincat (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources exist to adequately establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 6 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. The assertion that "the senior ranker of major armies is notable" isn't backed up by any policy or guideline. Sandstein 10:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Guimond

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

No indication or evidence that he meets notability requirements of WP:MILPEOPLE or WP:GNG. PK T(alk) 11:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 11:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 11:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sigh. This person is the Sergeant Major of the Canadian Army so meets WP:SOLDIER. While you're at it you might want to nominate Daniel A. Dailey as well Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of WP:SOLDIER (which is the same as WP:MILPEOPLE) does he meet, exactly?....PK T(alk) 12:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claimed position could get him an article if he could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it, but it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to an article that's referenced exclusively to his own primary source staff profile on the website of his own employer (which is never notability-assisting sourcing in and of itself for anybody.) Notability standards are not cleared by what the article says — they're cleared by how well the article references what it says, but the referencing here isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While being the de-facto union leader (or some sort of representative) for all enlisted men could be a notable position (even though this is not explicitly stated in SOLDIER - this is a one of a kind position per service - it sort of could be presumed notable) - SOLDIER is about presume notability. The article is presently sourced to the Canadian army website. Beyond that, in my BEFORE, I found approx. 13 news articles in which he is mentioned in a passing manner (usually along side an officer), sometimes with a photo - but nothing INDEPTH (I did find a different Alain Guimond - [8] - a commando suffering from PTSD - but nothing on this guy).Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally assumed that the senior ranker of major armies is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 8 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 speedy keep. Per WP:WDAFD: Withdrawn by nom.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National High School

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

<Overly-promotional article with ~~no claims of notability. Found nothing in an extensive search for reliable (even semi reliable) sources in both Bengali and English.~~ — F R ⁺ 10:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a couple of suitable sources 1) A school with a national flavour 2) Governor opens National High School's new annexe building. Both satisfy SigCov and would seem to satisfy the other grounds. Whatever your personal views are on the high school existence/notability grounds this certainly satisfies requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear-Both are from the same publishing house so it effectively amounts to only one reliable source. — F R ⁺ 12:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FR30799386, since schools primarily operate under WP:GNG, rather than the stricter WP:NORG requirements, multiple sources is merely preferable rather than obligatory. However, in request for another source: National High Schools turn 100 Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear-Well, You have convinced me that the article is notable. I have effectively withdrawn this nomination. — F R ⁺ 07:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but WP:TNT for irrelevant sections like the school prayer lyrics, list of governing body / board members with honorifics, and specific addresses down to the zip code. The two news articles are decent significant coverage, especially "A school with a national flavour" But it needs a scrubbing of peacock statements like "The NHS Boys school in the early eighties had a very vibrant double MA in English Head Master M P S Nair. Students fondly recall him. Even the academically bad students gave excellent results under him." written like ads. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really TNT if you only want to remove sections - there is no way the article needs blanking. It certainly has irrelevant bits and promo bits but I think I'd struggle to claim it didn't have anything worthwhile/it was easier to obliterate and start from scratch. That said, clearly cleanup is needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've removed those sections for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned about 1/4 of what you removed. I'm not sure about a small portion of the rest but I agree it was probably most efficient to expunge and then replace what might be relevant afterwards. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:57, 6 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wonders of Serbia

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

Tourist campaign from ten years ago. No official status or enduring notability. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my sweep (both English and Serbian, though the latter couldn't run every potential string) didn't bring up anything that wasn't either a marketing source or a wiki mirror. A wider selection of such does show up if you try out both sets of wonders. If someone could try those in serbian (google translate I imagine wasn't up to the job) then that might find something that counters what my BEFORE check found. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could imagine some mention of this and the lists being included in an article about the Tourist Organisation of Serbia, but it doesn't seem worth recasting this article as an article about the tourist organization and given there is not yet an article about that organization, no merge is possible/necessary. As it is, the article fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTGUIDE. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any non-promotional sourcing, fails WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are so many sources. I am inviting you recall your decisions. Just search for "Седам српских чуда" and you will find tons of sources. Also, did anyone even bother to search for sources in English also? There are tons of those too ... Asking for a revision of this, i will tag article for work in progress --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastan: I get 78 results in Serbian,"Седам+српских+чуда" most of which are blog posts and mirrors of wikipedia. Can you post some links you think are especially relevant? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure things, so so many! Just will list few newspapers about it.

Dragulji za nezaborav

7 SRPSKIH ČUDA: Upoznajte sedam čuda našeg graditeljstva!

I Srbija ima svojih 7 srpskih čuda: Upoznajte sedam čuda našeg graditeljstva

Sedam srpskih čuda prirode

Just a few i found in a sec... The point is that this list is THE only known list of the Serbian seven wonders, and other articles are not mirrors, but the list as it was announced when proclaimed. Also, so many other sources, i have added few in article, i am quite sure that you should recall your decision, really. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is from 2008, which doesn't show the campaign is enduring. The second two are copies of each other and are largely plagiarized from Serbian wikipedia articles for each location. The sources are good (somewhat reputable news sites), but I'm not too excited about their usefulness - especially due to the apparent citogenesis. The last one is a blog post, which isn't quite a RS. That said, my search didn't return any of these, so if there are any that are a bit better, do post them or add them to the page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The transliteration is "sedam srpskih čuda" and I found some hits in Serbian as well, but they mention it's an initiative of the tourism board: [9] SportingFlyer talk 00:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if this page is suitable, it is suitable as a tourism board campaign. Also, the page you just linked also is a copy of the Wikipedia pages.[10] Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I searched for sources in English and Serbian. As others have said, there's only churnalism. The tourist board put this out in 2008, it got a smattering of coverage, then nothing. No enduring notability. – Joe (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, note that we also have a Template:Seven Wonders of Serbia which might be nominated as well, for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 12 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 a snow keep. Grenfell passes notability tests due to its coverage in numerous reliable sources, including BBC News, ITV News and several large newspapers. (non-admin closure) In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 21:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grenfell Tower

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

This was discussed last year, a week or two after the fire, and the result was no consensus, so I'm nominating this again now some time has passed to see if a consensus can be reached. Although the tower is obviously highly well-known now, because of the tragic fire, I think it comes under something like a WP:ONEEVENT heading. And yes, ONEEVENT talks mainly about BLP individuals, but the principle is the same - this building is not notable in and of itself, it is just notable because of the fire, which is already fully covered at the article Grenfell Tower fire. In particular, we don't have articles about similar-sized towers in the area such as Dixon House or Whitstable House, because I don't think individual tower blocks would normally pass the WP:GNG criteria. I recommend that this article be merged into Grenfell Tower fire and replaced with a redirect to that article, as that is by far the most likely thing people will be looking for if they type "Grenfell Tower" into the search box. — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the fire was very notable but the building also got a lot of attention, which can be seen in the depth of information available in the article on the tower itself. Additionally, clicking "Page information" shows that the page has been viewed 45,000 times over the past month. ₪RicknAsia₪ 08:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably mostly by people looking for the article on the fire. You haven't commented on whether the building itself was notable, independent of the fire, which I suspect it was not. — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the above comment says, the building got a lot of attention. Vorbee (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there was nothing notable about this building prior to the fire, therefore it does not justify a stand alone article. Much of the general building information is useful, but it should be in a section of the Grenfell Tower fire article. Non-notable without reference to the fire, and leads to unnecessary duplication. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, I agree that there was nothing notable about the building prior to the fire, therefore it makes no sense to have 2 articles about the building and fire now. My preference would be to merge the two under under Grenfell Tower fire. PK T(alk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very clearly and obviously passes the GNG. Gaurdian put out an article 51 minutes ago on the building itself. "We don't have articles about other stuff" is a horrific argument, and it sounds like the nom failed to do a BEFORE, just looked at the calendar instead and trotted this up for deletion. {{tq|I don't think individual tower blocks would normally pass the WP:GNG criteria};} Well we don't give a hoot about "individual tower blocks", this AFD and the article in question is about the Grenfell Tower, not individual tower blocks. Sorry for the bad faith, but that is how I view the situation. And ONEEVENT is flawed, everyone and everything starts somewhere. JB Straubel could be argued to be best known for his work as CTO of Tesla, let's merge and redirect him. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And a very strong one at that. A clear and obvious pass of the WP:GNG. I fail to understand the reasoning behind why the building would need to be merged into the article about the disaster. The information isn't necessarily duplicated. SportingFlyer talk 17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to satisfy WP:GNG given that the amount of coverage it received has made it notable. The article also has other information as well, it is not exclusively about the fire. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may well not have been a notable building before the fire but since the fire there has been a mass of reporting about the building as it was before the fire. We do not ask why there is coverage (of the pre-fire building) we simply ask that there is such coverage. Even if the analogy with people is appropriate using WP:ONEEVENT, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" rather strongly advises we should have both articles. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the past AFD participants took me for a local, maybe i have jolly accent or whatnot, but I am glad the article was Kept and developed. The article is really good now, thank you to the editors who have developed it so well with sources and illustrations and great text. Of course it meets wp:GNG. --Doncram (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG easily met, and in the future it'll definitely a hallmark point in fire code legislation, no doubt. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear case of GNG pass. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry on the fire is massive, some 280,000 bytes. It seems like a worthwhile content fork to have a separate entry on the structure/site in addition to the event. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article sufficiently covers the aspects of the building in excruciating detail (as already does the article on the fire); in all seriousness, this is a case of one event. But I am also a realist, understand recentism bias, and the "easily passes GNG, look at the Google hits" rationales that come with it. So maybe in the future there can be a legitimate discussion on policy in relation to this non-notable building. Just not today, apparently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person to mention Google, or hits – perhaps Google isn't notable! If I were going to try deleting this sort of thing I'd try Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks which, for me, has a "one event" transitory nature unlike a building with architectural characteristics and a history. But I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Thincat (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a number of people above are saying the building is a GNG, and that's certainly true, I didn't deny that. My comment in the nomination was that buildings of this nature wouldn't normally meet GNG, and I don't think Grenfell Tower did prior to the fire, except as part of the wider Lancaster West Estate. But although this does meet the criteria for WP:GNG, there is a key part which is being missed: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. ONEEVENT entities routinely fall into the category of notable subjects which don't merit their own article, but can be discussed sufficiently in the event article. For example, Madeleine McCann certainly satisfies all the GNG criteria, she's one of the most written about people of the last eleven years, but her coverage is subsumed into the event article Disappearance of Madeleine McCann because that it's better for readers and the information is better presented that way. I don't think having this article at Grenfell Tower, when the subject of most interest is the fire, is helpful for readers. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The value of these discussions lies in the the opinions and issues it raises. Some of which I do find ludicrous. We had not got round to writing an article on Silchester Estate (though a redlink had been left in Lancaster West Estate article) when the fire happened and generally out of respect, that dampened any enthusiam that we had to discuss other issues of housing in RBKC. As you can see from the contents of the Grenfell Tower article it is very notable in terms of modern London architecture. An article on Silchester West (Dixon Frinstead and Markland) and Silchester East (Whitstable) probably would be a better starting point until we have enough GNG to float those towers. We have a good starting point in the discussions hereI don't take this ruralist POV that it is ok to document a near deserted village Sunderland Point with a population of 6, and not a vertical London village with 80 units. ClemRutter (talk) 08:19, 6 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 speedy keep under WP:SK#1. The nominator, myself, has chosen to withdraw the deletion discussion due to another editor discovering multiple sources.--Rockchalk7 17 20:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Bass

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

Fails WP:GNG, I can only find articles talking about his son's football recruitment process, and a single local article from a news station in South Carolina where he lives. He also fails WP:NCOLLATH as he was never won a National award, has not been and probably will not be inducted in the Hall of Fame, and did not gain National attention for his individual performance. His only notability is being a part of the T. C. Williams state championship team featured in the movie Remember the Titans. Rockchalk7 17 06:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. No evidence of notability - a fictionalized version of him was used in Remember the Titans.
Keep. Bass was the starting quarterback at a Division IA team (South Carolina) for two years and finished third among the school's all-time leaders in total offense. See here. A search of on-line sources turns up hundreds of hits. Some of it is game coverage, but there are also numerous articles focusing on Bass as the main topic. E.g., (1) "'Sunshine' back at the beach: Character in 'Remember the Titans' based on prep career", (2) "Bass Not New Grantz", (3) "Bass Is No Grantz' He's On His Time", (4) "Sports Illustrated Honors USC Quarterback Ron Bass", (5) "QB Ron Bass May Be Lost", (6) "USC Is Ron Bass' Team Now", (7) "Comeback Player Wins SE Honors", (8) "South Carolina Depends On Junior Ron Bass", (9) "Bass, Brumley S.C. AP Players Of Week", (10) "Remembering the Titans: Football through the eyes of Ron Bass", and (11) "Greenville man does more than remember Titans Ron Bass was their quarterback". He is also the subject of (12) Chapter 80 in "100 Things South Carolina Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die" (here). Cbl62 (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 6 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. Sandstein 10:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The People's News

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

Not a notable website. Pontificalibus 05:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches using variations on the title and the founder's name (on Google, Highbeam, Guardian, OpenDemocracy, etc.) are not finding reliable 3rd party coverage of this recently-launched venture. Nor does an Alexa position around 99,000th in its home market indicate something being missed. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 5 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. Sandstein 10:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca L. Schiff

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or AUTHOR. One book only, in about 100 libraries, which is not very substantial for the topic. The re are two papers with cites over 100, but the total output is not substantial. Position is only adjunct professor,which is not a permanent full time position, let alone a tenure track position. I do not see how we can consider her a notable scholar when no research university has thought her enough of a scholar for a full time appointment.

Nor do I see that she is notable as a fundraiser--there is no information about her actual function and accomplishments. The accumultion of miscellaneous information here shows this for its true nature: a promotional biography, DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I agree the BLP subject is not notable. I do however wonder whether "concordance theory" or the book Schiff, R. L. (2009). The Military and Domestic Politics: A Concordance Theory of Civil-Military Relations. New York, NY: Routledge which has been reviewd and is cited, are notable - it's not clearcut to me that they are, but it does seem close to being notable at the very least.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, but trivial. Reads like a PR release and really does not discuss her book or "theories" therein, only that the book is "timely" and goes are to very briefly and generally discuss "Concordance theory". Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:Too soon. There are GS citations to her book not not as many as might be expected for a controversial topic. The BLP reads like a PR release. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 6 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.

Concordance Theory

After observing that most civil-military theory assumes that the civilian and military worlds must necessarily be separate, both physically and ideologically, Rebecca L. Schiff offered a new theory—Concordance—as an alternative.[91][92] One of the key questions in Civil-Military Relations (CMR) theory has always been to determine under what conditions the military will intervene in the domestic politics of the nation. Most scholars agree with the theory of objective civilian control of the military (Huntington), which focuses on the separation of civil and military institutions. Such a view concentrates and relies heavily on the U.S. case, from an institutional perspective, and especially during the Cold Warperiod. Schiff provides an alternative theory, from both institutional and cultural perspectives, that explains the U.S. case as well as several non-U.S. civil-military relations case studies.

While concordance theory does not preclude a separation between the civilian and military worlds, it does not require such a state to exist. She argues that three societal institutions—(1) the military, (2) political elites, and (3) the citizenry must aim for a cooperative arrangement and some agreement on four primary indicators:

Social composition of the officer corps.The political decision-making process.The method of recruiting military personnel.The style of the military.

If agreement occurs among the three partners with respect to the four indicators, domestic military intervention is less likely to occur. In her book, The Military and Domestic Politics, she applied her theory to six international historical cases studies: U.S., post–Second World War period; American Post-Revolutionary Period (1790–1800); Israel (1980–90); Argentina (1945–55); India post-Independence and 1980s; Pakistan (1958–69).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Green (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND - possibly WP:GARAGE. No sources. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the band's sole album Feeling the Fall does have reviews from two reliable sources, AllMusic and Pitchfork, which means it passes WP:NALBUM. But I can't find any further information about the band itself – the note that they had reformed in 2012 and were working on new material was the sole edit on Wikipedia by "Jnallard" (note that the band's leader is J. Nicholas Allard), and there has been no further news since then, suggesting the band broke up again without releasing any further material. In which case, new sources are unlikely to appear in future, and the band's notability rests on finding articles in print media from a dozen years ago, or on their album's notability – if this article is deleted, Feeling the Fall should probably be deleted as well. Richard3120 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I hate to admit it but they may have enough for a basic stub article. Richard is correct that their Feeling the Fall album got some reliable reviews, though that album seems to have been discussed in the media more than the band themselves. They have a basic AllMusic profile here: [11] (though bizarrely, the photo is of the Kinks album of the same name). Here is a brief newspaper introduction: [12]. I won't argue with anyone who votes otherwise, but a brief stub article has some merit, though it needs to be cleaned up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Doomsdayer520. I added the source he mentioned here along with an external link to AllMusic, and I might add more since I'm in the process of a search right now. Nanophosis (talk) 03:44, 5 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination by a blocked user. Max Semenik (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Boy

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

Very few sources or walls of text provided on article about a stupid short-lived animated children's series. A majority of the article's bytes consists of the episode list. There is no in-depth coverage of the show provided whatsoever and I highly doubt there is anything notable about it worth doing research for because the show was short-lived and honestly why would anyone remember it? I remember seeing it a couple of times several years back and I can tell you that there was little promotion or hype surrounding the series and it only aired like once or twice every week. It didn't help that the more-popular Ben 10 and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends were airing back then and doing immensely successful in the Nilesin Ratings Holding either. I say this page be incinerated or merged to the List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network list. EmilyLovesCats (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Series ran multiple seasons, ran on a popular network for animation, and had Warner Bros doing distribution. ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twennynine

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

Article does not establish any notability for the band. JDDJS (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to aforesaid notability issues acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon the article Twennynine. Given the band's albums and singles being prominent upon Billboard Magazine's Top R&B Albums, Hot R&B Songs and Dance Club Songs charts as is illustrated within the article. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5

June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO and the WP:GNG through charting records, album releases on major labels and non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 09:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No problems with notability as described by the other voters above. The nominator may have meant that the article needs to be cleaned up and to use references more informatively, which is indeed the case. Should be an easy cleanup if/when the article is kept. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 8 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. Sandstein 10:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newfund

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. "Run-of-the-mill venture capital company" sums it up pretty well. Just a promo catalogue entry; notability is not inherited. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's one of the most entrepreneurial VC funds in France, significant as the country tries to rebrand itself as 'start-up nation'. I have just edited the site to declutter and added relevant references. User:Boubloub (talk) 0:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep The page is both accurate and relevant to me. Newfund is a major player on France's VC scene'. Why would it be less relevant than Sequoia Capital or Benchmark? User:Cecilearp (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 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. Sandstein 10:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Légende Entreprises

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

This article was created by a well known sockpuppeteer, Alma Fordy. It was created by this user who was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. There are not enough sources for this article. It also fails WP:GNG. Evil Idiot (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources seem to exist, although mostly in French. Here are a couple of articles about partnerships with other companies to produce various works, in the early 2000s: Screen Daily, AlloCiné. I'm willing to presume there are also sources discussing the production of 1492 and Casino, although those are just early enough to make online source availability spotty. Alain Goldman is likely not notable outside of his company, and searches for him suggest other material may be available. In any case, as with La Petite Reine's AFD, this is not block evasion, as it was created prior to Alma Fordy's first block for sockpuppetry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Ossifrage above, while sources may very likely exist, the problem is that sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability ... don't appear to exist. For example, the screendaily reference relies extensively on Benoit Jaubert, the company's general manager and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The allocine reference is derived from a company announcement and relies on quotations from the company officers or related people, therefore not intellectually independent and likewise fails WP:ORGIND. A search does not reveal anything better. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the screendaily reference is only partly an interview but more is needed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's subject is the production company (partially) behind Martin Scorsese's Casino and Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise. It is prominently featured in trade articles, e.g. here, and here. Check the gate, we move on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 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. Sandstein 10:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Safety Month

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

Promotional and not notable. The refs (save [13]) are either to their own site or are about general safety information, not this event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What could we add to help the page? The format was built similar to National Breast Cancer Awareness Month ^[1] . The article highlights that there are multiple players with the campaign and highlights why the topic of safety during June is important. Also, only two sources of the 12 go back to the founding non-profit's page. Any help/feedback would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpowills (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Breast_Cancer_Awareness_Month)

Keep Appears to be designated each year by a senate resolution and promoted by multiple government bodies (e.g. 1, 2 in addition to private entities. If we don't have enough for an article then a redirect to National Safety Council would be appropriate.--Pontificalibus 05:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 5 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. WP:BLP and WP:V require that an article's contents must be verifiable to readers through sources that are actually cited in the article, not just by sources that exist somewhere. The current content remains basically unsourced even after three weeks of AfD. This mandates deletion at this time. Because the discussion indicates that the person is likely notable, the article can be recreated by anybody if they cite proper sources. Sandstein 10:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Jaisingh

AfDs for this article:

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

Poor source and WP:BLP fail. WP:GNG not pass. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 12:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is notable enough to have several news articles written about him and several links to notable shows. However article does not include any sources to substantiate most of the information provided. If sources are found for the information it is a keep. Araratic | talk 11:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - given he has a substantial role in two notable TV shows, probably passes WP:NACTOR #1. Sources are probably in languages of non-latin characters, so it will be difficult for me to find them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR as he has substantial roles in two TV shows and passes WP:GNG too as several mainstream newspapers and news agencies have articles on him. Two articles by Indo-Asian News Service syndicated in Times of India [14] [15], two others by Times of India [16] [17], an article each in Indian Express [18], India Today [19] and news agency United News of India [20]. Most of the coverage seems to be fluff pieces, but he's been widely covered. —Gazoth (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazoth: So why don't you put the reliable sources on this article? Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite off-topic for a deletion discussion isn't it? The short answer is, I'd rather work on something else. —Gazoth (talk) 17:07, 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination by a blocked user. Max Semenik (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radio edit

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

Only has three or four sources provided. A large chunk of the article is just trivial and unsourced example overload. Perhaps the title could be redirected to an article about censorship in media in general. EmilyLovesCats (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excessive examples and details given (would work well to move those to the pages where those songs appear), but the page gives useful information. Focus more on cutting the fat instead of just outright deleting the whole article. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank K. Nethken

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

This is an interesting one, since there's actually a decent amount of information about him that's easily found, from an appellate court decision against an insurance company, to an asbestos lawsuit, to a number of articles discussing his numerous failed campaigns from city council to the U.S. senate to the U.S. presidency. You don't become notable by being a losing candidate in major races, filing lawsuits, or by being a small town mayor, and while easily sourced, few of the sources discuss him in depth, and the one I found which discusses him in depth the best did feature stories on all of the candidates in the race. Most of the available sources are along the lines of "former mayor tries again." This fails WP:NPOL and the WP:GNG presumption. SportingFlyer talk 01:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned by the nominator, he is an unsuccessful political candidate lacking in-depth coverage in reliable sources. While the page appears to have adequate references, none establish notability thus not meeting general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable stands out with the current sourcing, nor does anything appears with an additional Google search. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 12 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.

[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Breast_Cancer_Awareness_Month)

[1]