Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 10

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

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 no consensus. There's substantial disagreement about notability, the quality (and independence) of sources, etc. In any case, some improvements have been made already, and there's a promise of more improvements to come. I recommend people hold off for a while (let's call it a week) to give time for improvements to be completed. After that time, if somebody wants to bring this back to AfD for another look, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sanborn

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

Article's sources are not reliable/independent. I have searched for reliable sources (Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar). I can't find anything substantial. The article lede calls him a "Roman Catholic Bishop", but he is not recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as a legitimate Bishop. He belongs to a schismatic group which left the Catholic Church due to their rejection of the reforms of Vatican II. He was consecrated a Bishop by his fellow schismatics, without approval from the Vatican, but the chain of consecrations goes back to a Vatican-recognised Bishop who broke the rules by consecrating other Bishops without papal approval. (Technically, he might be classed by the Catholic Church as "valid but illicit" – i.e., according to Catholic beliefs, it is possible the ceremony really made him a Bishop in a spiritual/sacramental/theological sense, but that ceremony was carried out in violation of the Church's own internal laws.) SJK (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. our coverage of leaders of church groups is not restricted to those considered legitimate by any one particular denomination. His statusin the Roman CatholicChurch is irrelevant here. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: I'm not saying we should delete his article because the Catholic Church doesn't recognise him as a legitimate Bishop. I am saying we should delete his article due to lack of any reliable sources engaging in substantive discussion of him (a point which you haven't addressed.) Why then did I bring up his status with the Catholic Church? Because, the article makes him sound like he is just another Roman Catholic Bishop, and some people might think "Roman Catholic Bishop = automatically notable", but if he is not actually recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as a Bishop (despite what the article makes it sound), that rules out that particular argument. SJK (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After half an hour of searching, I haven't been able to find any reliable, independent sources. All are either at the quality of this or closely connected to the subject. Although it appears that in sedevacantist and traditional Catholic circles Sanborn is quite infamous, there simply aren't the published sources available to demonstrate his notability. Kilopylae (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is definitely notorious in the traditionalist Catholic movement, he worked with Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, and was of the nine American priests who were expelled from the SSPX along with Fr. Anthony Cekada, these would come to form the Society of Saint Pius V. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DizzinessOfFreedom: WP:BASIC says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Where is the significant coverage of Sanborn in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? You assert he is "notorious"; that may or may not be true, but even if he is notorious (in some circles), that fact alone doesn't make him notable by Wikipedia's standards. The assertion of notoriety needs to be demonstrated by references to reliable sources, not simply by your claim (even if your claim happens to be true.) SJK (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I don't see any independent sources; if he is a leader of a large group he would meet WP:CLERGY as a bishop; if this is a church of 100 congregants and 10 bishops he would not be. The current article is also wildly non-neutral; a person who is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church should not be described as a "Roman Catholic Bishop" regardless of their theological claims. @Ad Orientem and TonyBallioni: to maybe comment on the theological issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails WP:CLERGY and WP:BASIC. All of the cited sources are affiliated and or fail WP:RS. Subject is a schismatic Catholic ultra-traditionalist who refuses to recognize all of the Vatican II era Popes. He received his priestly ordination from the Society of St. Pius X, which certainly is a notable organization. Since then he found them to be insufficiently radical and has drifted off into the highly fragmented world of rad-trad Catholicism. His episcopal consecration comes via a long line of so called independent and ultra-trad Catholic bishops. I am not sure if the Roman Church would automatically extend recognition to them as valid orders at this point. In any event this is not the head of any notable ecclesial body and he is most definitely not in communion with the Holy See. He is what a friend of mine likes to refer to as a bishop whose cathedral is in his attic. See also Episcopi vagantes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ad Orientem above. There are notable schismatic bishops, but this isn't one of it. He's just a random crazy person. Random crazy people can be notable, but the sourcing isn't here for this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't have the coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and it doesn't look like his position gets him a pass under WP:CLERGY. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An important article for anyone researching on Traditionalist Catholicism, as he was an important member of the Society of Saint Pius X,[1], and was one of the leading members of the Society of Saint Pius V.[2][3][4][5] Now I see that most(if not all) of those who commented here have not done any research on the subject.67.79.171.130 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And beware recentism. Here's the New York Times on him in 1976. Ultra traditionalist Catholics Back Suspended Prelate, and some 1977 follow-up French Prelate Celebrates Latin Mass in Texas as He Defies Pope. He is a significant part of the Traditionalist Catholicism movement. There was lots on him in major papers, back in the day: "New Seminary Stirring Curiosity", Bates, Michael D. Tampa Tribune; Tampa, Fla. [Tampa, Fla]15 Apr 2007: 12; "Outside the (church) law", Robinson, Angela. Newsday (1940-1989), Nassau ed.; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]06 Sep 1976: 6. Lots more similar. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Sanborn attracted major press attention in the 1970s. This article was written recently by a partisan of Sanborn's using PRIMARY sourcing. Noticing the date, I ran his name through a Proquest news archive search, where notability was instantly patent. Wikipedia, we have a problem: Lots of good editors couldn't find him because articles in major newspapers from the 1970s do not show up in a gNews search, plus, they were misled by the poor. POV sourcing on the page. I don't have a solution, except to advise that we guard against this sort of recentism by understanding that major figures form ancient history (the pre-internet 1980s and 1970s) require a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two articles linked from the NY Times are about Marcel Lefebvre, an enormously important figure in the Roman Catholic Traditionalist movement and who is unquestionably notable. Sanborn gets little more than a mention in the two article and a very brief quote in one of them. That is nowhere enough to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'm in the process of sourcing the page with bio facts in the first article, and I can see more material (about his move to Florida, seminary. there) in other newspapers in an archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY I have tweaked and expanded the article drawing on many major newspapers. POV and PRIMARY material still needs to be gone over, and deleted or revised to reduce partisan POV. MOre sources exist, but require use of news archives. I used Proquest. And to all a good night.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And if "strong keep" has any weight, then make it "strong." The WP:N is overwhelming. How can the nominator claim that there is no WP:RS when even the NYtimes has articles on him with expanded explanations of the controversies he has helped generate? How could anyone claim that this bishop does not pass WP:CLERGY when the guideline says, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable." The sources provided above plus the improvements in the article should have quenched any doubts of this article's notability. Den... (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

References

  1. ^ https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/saying-good-bye-our-alma-mater
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FxqJmTfFDk
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekFfwU-LWs&t=79s
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv1SAtqZnyo&t=939s
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpt_pZoDuhU&t=33s
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaux Marasigan

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

nn fictional character, notability-tagged 5 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhanga Nopera

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a television show about this artist. "Native Affairs - The Healing Arts". Māori Television. Māori Television. 20 June 2017. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be expanded. No compliance with WP:Before. Several items in Google Scholar, for example. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Village Attacks (game)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NVG. I could only found one article about it in German and it is a press-release. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non notable. Also, since when did we have a "playing time" in the infobox for video games? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a board game, not a video game. VerballyInsane 21:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Crane

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

Little more than a resume. From the academic standpoint, I can't see where he passes WP:PROF. From the business standpoint, I'm not seeing where he passes notability. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME suggests a redirect, but the company isn't notable enough for its own article either. This looks more like a vanity piece than actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Archie

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources. The citations given only mention him briefly in the context of some other company or event. Google search for his name brings up 189 unique results, and none of those meet the threshold for notability either. ... discospinster talk 19:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Discospinster,

You have suggested the removal of the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Archie based on difficulty in finding references using a Google Search. I would like to show several news sources referencing Ray Archie.

I think the challenge also is that Google isn't picking up references such as this Billboard Magazine article from June 15, 1996 (page 20): https://books.google.com/books?id=qwkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA82&lpg=RA1-PA82&dq=%22Billboard+Magazine%22+June+15,+1996&source=bl&ots=AI13rkvXlp&sig=gzEhlucQlsCKt7HNPOt7B3oe9So&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmwsKg4vzdAhWwct8KHUU8CvAQ6AEwDnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Billboard%20Magazine%22%20June%2015%2C%201996%20Wild%20Style&f=false


Archie and his band "Down Low Connection" also have a Billboard Article from Jan. 20, 1998 which also is not being picked up by Google: https://books.google.com/books?id=nA0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA53&lpg=RA1-PA53&dq=billboard+magazine+%22down+low+connection%22&source=bl&ots=SuX6dIR7O8&sig=1Nyxsp_1W1_V150gGD4jtjEaKsU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsu-S84fzdAhUqm-AKHQs7BaoQ6AEwAXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=billboard%20magazine%20%22down%20low%20connection%22&f=false


One can argue that a band and musician who has been written up twice in Billboard deserves a Wiki article --- especially when you look at Archie's quote from the first article which references how he and the band worked to overcome key obstacles related to live hip-hop music in Boston music venues.


Other references related to tech and streaming which are strong 3rd party references to consider: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigcity (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Engineering Society references: - http://www.aes.org/events/139/presenters/?ID=4224 - http://www.aes.org/events/139/broadcast/?ID=4621 - http://www.aes.org/sections/reports/?ID=457 - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100915006609/en/129th-AES-Convention-Broadcast-Streaming-Sessions-Soar - https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/aes-sessions-change-with-the-times - http://www.aes.org/events/135/presenters/?ID=1356


EBU Hilversum Interview of Ray Archie on streaming monetization strategies which he advises European Broadcasters employ - https://audioboom.com/posts/107173-ray-archie-director-streaming-operations


MixOnline Specific Reference to Ray streaming 40th Anniversary AES event at Electric Lady Studio: https://www.mixonline.com/news/aes-new-york-section-host-electric-lady-studios-anniversary-salute-420869


Technically Brooklyn: https://technical.ly/brooklyn/2014/10/22/change-management-musical-collaboration-mixluv-crowdfunding/


You can see Ray Archie performing WITH Leonard Bernstein on the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7QuQ5Wtp4

All Access Mention: - https://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/133998/mixluv-com-s-collaboration-platform-to-be-kickstar


Audio Interview with Ray Archie as Creator of MixLuv - http://geekcastlivepodcast.com/podcast/geek-cast-live-ep047-the-automagical-journey-with-mixluv/


Black Enterprise specific reference/quote from Ray Archie as Founder and CEO of MixLuv - https://www.blackenterprise.com/platform-for-musicians-songwriters-to-collaborate-seeks-funding-on-kickstarter/


Silicon Harlem Video of Ray Archie speaking on Monetization Strategies for Creatives - http://www.siliconharlem.net/2015-conference-video/

M.I.T Future of Music - Speaking on Metadata best practices - 54:00 - 55:55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcnRewYtjXM


Broadway World -- as Sound Design and Producer of The Moth (f.k.a. Chrysalis) - https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwdance/article/NYC-Ballet-Principals-Set-for-Private-Immersive-Dance-Event-CHRYSALIS-in-Brooklyn-20171010


I would agree that *some parts of this entry should be moved to specific company pages. Would you recommend that an interim solution be creation of those various entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigcity (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to AFC Asian Cup records and statistics. Redirecting because it was supported as an option and is consistent with delete !voters' intention that this should not be a standalone page. This also preserves the history and could facilitate a future split of the target page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup

National team appearances in the AFC Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the information on this article is either found in AFC Asian Cup qualification or AFC Asian Cup records and statistics. I don't see any reason for having a separate page for this article. Ilovereo222 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Vraa

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

Given his career never advanced beyond the NCAA level, nor won any major college awards, this article does not meet Wikipedia:CFBNOTE GPL93 (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.GPL93 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH, Wikipedia:CFBNOTE, or WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC) the nomination counts as a vote Atlantic306 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. College football players can also qualify under WP:GNG, but Division II players are rarely notable. And, here, my searches don't turn up significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Coverage like this focused on one particular catch. The only article I find that could qualify as significant coverage is this one from the Grand Forks Herald. If additional coverage is presented here, I'm open to reconsidering. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor who created this page also created several other pages for non-notable NDSU players that do not meet notability standards. I proposed another one for deletion but there are several other ones of players whom either never made it to any professional rank or were only on a professional team for one preseason. They can be found in the Navigational Boxes below:

Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Verma

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

Non-notable game show contestant who has received virtually no in depth coverage and is sourced almost entirely to the equivalent of rag mags and gossip sites. Praxidicae (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
L293D I often question your judgement at AFC but your response here makes me think I am correct in doing so. The source you've linked is literally nothing more than a gossip piece. Do you really expect an RS that is subject to actual meaningful oversight to title something Biography, unknown facts, photos and videos of ex-Roadies contestant?! And in this case, the paper itself may be most of the time, but not everything it publishes is. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also in what universe are passing mentions anywhere in depth coverage? And certainly, those mentions in RS are not included in this iteration of the article.Praxidicae (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L293D and Praxidicae:, whilst L293D is correct in saying that India Today is generally a reliable source, especially its magazine stuff, vide: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7], its online-only content, in specific, its entertainment-related reports are—much akin to most other Indian newspapers and magazines—less than stellar. Hence, I think, considering context matters, the link mentioned by L293D shouldn't be treated as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SshibumXZ (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC); edited 18:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be deleted, as subject of this article does not really fulfils the notability criteria, being contestant of some reality show is not enough. If we accept this then as a corollary we are saying that every contestant of such shows should have a page for them? Which sounds weird to me! in short "only being an contestant is not enough". Its my first attempt to participate in such discussions but I expressed what I gathered from my knowledge of policies here, I would love to read what others have to say on this. Sureshkhole (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Gossip style coverage, entirely centered around her participation in a reality-show.Nothing apart from same locus in regional media.∯WBGconverse 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Observer

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NMEDIA. Has had maintenance tags for around 2.5 years, with no improvement. Waggie (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Valentine

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:ARTIST. Largely written by a (near) SPA who has, i suspect, a close connection to the articles subject, since Kiki Valentine features prominently in a blog with the same name as the main contributor. Promotional tone, unsourced claims, namedropping. Kleuske (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • revisiting. local political activist with a little coverage in local media. note that in the NYTimes story on getting space set aside for breastfeeding in city hall, she appears only a poster child, well, poster mommy at the news conference, which is in the local news section of the Times. fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that User:Kristine4president is sort of a SPA. She has made only 198 edits in 7 years. Her 2nd edit created this page. It was immediately prodded. She created 60% of the content on the page, and almost all the rest was added by a series of IP accounts in Brooklyn, where Kiki Valentine lives. Delete as WP:PROMO for a non-notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I didn't do any searching on my own (hence the weak modifier), but looking at the sources in the article, this fails WP:NBIO. The DNAInfo, Daily News, and NY Times articles are all about causes she's been involved in, and mention her name, but they're not actually about her. The Politico, Nat Law Review, and Courthouse News pieces don't even mention her. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Unrepentant was redirected to Repentant ({{R from antonym}}), Unrepentant (album) was created and redirected to Greg Koch (musician). (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrepentant

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for musical albums. The existing references are either trivial mentions or blog posts, and [8] was the only other coverage I found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I Will seek out more relevant references. OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BC4D:4F00:8DD5:80F5:1F9F:E436 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding more references to the Unrepentant page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caring Senior Service

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

Non-notable franchise, pretty standard mill publications with no in depth coverage. Fails GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That page has some references that meet WP:ORGCRIT - specifically, the TIME article. Although, frankly, that page needs improved referencing as well. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)\[reply]
Thank you. That helps. Amgisseman (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xander Phillips

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. Practically unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnana

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

Looks notable at first glance however there is no depth to most of the sources, it's largely fluff pieces, PR, interviews or financial coverage, none of which pass the test. Also WP:ARTSPAM. Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Convinced that this does not fall under WP:BLP1E. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 19:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Gates (political consultant)

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

This is clearly WP:BLP1E. He has gained coverage only in the context of his interactions with Russia. wumbolo ^^^ 15:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following through, this is a keep. He doesn't meet any of the criteria of BLP1E:
  • He's not covered only in the context of a single event, having been discussed as a top Trump campaign aide and Manafort associate [9] in the context of the Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy [10][11] and as a "top Trump delegate wrangler" at the 2016 Republican National Convention [12]. His criminal activities, although mostly apparently relating to a period in which he worked for pro-Russian figures in Ukraine, have a number of different facets, from failing to register as a Ukranian foreign agent to various kinds of financial crimes committed against and with Manafort. The recent NYT story, about his discussions with an Israeli firm relating to paid pro-Trump astroturfing of unclear legality, is another distinct activity for which he has now received reliable coverage. All of this is separate from, although relevant to, his notability as a prime source for the Mueller investigation.
  • He doesn't seem to be a low-profile individual outside of his criminal involvement, having spoken to the press as a Trump campaign aide[13] and co-founded an advocacy nonprofit, America First Policies.
  • I suppose it's something of a political question whether the whole Trump-Russia thing is a "significant event" or series of events, but we have a dozen articles on aspects of it. Gates's role in it, now that he's been convicted and a star witness for Mueller, is definitely substantial [and] well documented [14][15].
There's also WP:CRIME, which has a similar standard: keep perpetrators only if the crime was a well-documented historic event, with sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. It's a pretty safe bet that historians will be looking closely at the Trump-Russia investigation for decades to come, heavily relying on and interrogating Gates's testimony. WP:BLPCRIME is important, but at this point Gates is an involuntary public figure if he wasn't a limited public figure in the domain of Republican politics already.
Overall, the article should be careful to allocate WP:DUE attention to the various aspects of Gates's life as they have been recorded in reliable sources (e.g. the blow-by-blow of his trial developments should be cut), but he's the kind of major figure of lasting historical significance that BLP1E correctly says an encyclopedia should include. FourViolas (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lourdes 06:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vallacar Transit (VTI)

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Basilio, Enrico L.; Frielink, Barend; Acena, Jeremiah; Hernandez, Rafael; Faustino, Jaime (April 2010). Bridges across Oceans: Initial Impact Assessment of the Philippines Nautical Highway System and Lessons for Southeast Asia (PDF). Metro Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. pp. 26–27. ISBN 978-971-561-896-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.

      The book notes:

      New Business Opportunities for Transport Companies

      With an expanded Ro-Ro network in place throughout the country, the trucking industry has widened its market coverage and is gradually undergoing a major transformation in the manner in which it conducts business. The following case study focuses on the impact of Ro-Ro on Vallacar Transit Corporation, the largest bus company in the Philippines.

      Vallacar Transit Corporation

      Vallacar Transit Corporation runs a number of major fleets, including Vallacar Transit, Rural Transit of Mindanao, Bachelor Express, and Ceres Transport. To date, it has the largest bus fleet in the country with more than 2,000 buses operating in the provinces of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (Table 9). The following paragraph gives a list of the destinations as well as the routes being served by this company, which is already operating on nearly 8% of the bus routes in the Visayas and Mindanao regions, as well as parts of Luzon.

      [Table 9: List of Routes Serviced by Vallacar Transit]

      Within its Bacolod (Negros) transport hub alone, the Ceres Liner services the following destinations from Bacolod: Escalante, Minapasok, Dumaguete, Kabankalan, San Carlos via Cadiz, San Carlos via Don Salvador Benedicto, Hinoba-an, Candoni, Culipapa, Canlaon via San Carlo, Cadiz, Binalbagan, and Fabrica.

      The company is continuously exploiting new opportunities due to the expansion of the Ro-Ro network. For example, because of the opening of Ro-Ro routes linking Bacolod and Negros Occidental to Cebu (Escalante–Tabuelan and San Carlos–Toledo routes) and to Mindanao (via Damaguete–Dapitan link), Ceres' buses now service Cebu City and Zamboanga City. In 2008, the bus company extended operations from Cebu to the Samar-Leyte region, because of the available Ro-Ro links on the Tacloban (Leyte)–Cebu and San Isidro–Cebu Ro-Ro routes. In 2008, Ceres Liner pioneered inter-modal transport service (i.e., via land and Ro-Ro transport) from Cubao in Quezon City all the way to Zamboanga City using the Western Nautical Highway.

    2. Viray-Mendoza, Vicky (2016-01-18). "Come ride the floating bus … Sakay na!". The Maritime Review. The Maritime League. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.

      From https://www.maritimeleague.com/index.php?page=maritimeWebCite:

      The Maritime Review magazine is published bimonthly on behalf of the Maritime League and is supplied to members as part of their annual membership package. The opinions expressed by the writers do not necessarily reflect those of the Maritime League.

      The Maritime Review is a useful publication reaching ship owners, ship operators, shippers, investors, merchant seamen, passengers, researchers, maritime students and many prospective clients and businessmen in the maritime field.

      In August of 2011, The Maritime Review launched the online version of its magazine, which can be found at http://maritimereview.ph. MaritimeReview.ph offers a platform for community discussions, real time news feeds, access to articles from past issues, and many more!

      The page lists an editorial board consisting of a chairman, a managing director, an executive editor, three members, and one staff member, so I consider the source to be reliable.

      The article notes:

      Vallacar Transit Incorporated (VTI) began as a family-owned and managed business that has grown from a lone 14- seater jeepney business called Ceres Liner plying a single route, to a conglomerate of transportation companies with a combined number of 4,000 transport vehicles nation wide. The company pioneered inter-modal services between Negros, Cebu, Mindanao, Leyte, Panay, and Luzon. It also pioneered inter-modal transport services utilizing the Strong Republic Nautical Highway from Cubao in Quezon City to Zamboanga City in Mindanao.

      Ceres Liner is an inter-city bus liner company under the umbrella of Vallacar Transit Inc., the largest public land transportation company headquatered in Barangay Mansilingan, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental. It operates bus transport service to all of Negros from Bacolod City to Panay, Cebu, Bohol, Samar, and Leyte.

      Ceres Liner was founded in 1968 by Ricardo B. Yanson and his wife, Olivia Villaflores Yanson. The lone jeepney led them to the jeepney-assembly business. In the early 1970s, when the market was flooded with Ford Fieras, the Yanson couple diversified into the small bus line business which plied the Bacolod City-Valladolid- La Carlota route (thus, the Vallacar Transit umbrella) and christened it Ceres Liner. By 1980, Ceres Liner’s services covered the whole province of Negros.

      In 1981, VTI ventured into Mindanao.

    3. Bacongco, Keith (2012-12-19). "Bus firm cancels party, gives aid to 'Pablo' victims". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.

      The article notes:

      As a gesture of giving back to its passengers, who are typhoon survivors too, the Vallacar Transport Inc. called off its Christmas party and donated its Christmas party budget.

      ...

      Vallacar Transport Inc. operates the Bachelor Express and Rural Transport Mindanao Inc (RTMI). It is the largest bus fleet in the country, operating in major routes in Visayas, Mindanao and in some parts of Luzon.

      Vallacar also owns the Ceres bus line in the Visayas region.

    4. Palaubsanon, Mitchelle L. (2016-12-16). "LTFRB-7 to Ceres: Don't stop operations just for party". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    5. Macahilo, Max N. (2015-08-06). "VTI to comply with LTFRB's GPS order". The Daily Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    6. Yasa, Dolly (2014-04-14). "Bus firm eyes zero accident rate". The Daily Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    7. Cańet, Carla N. (2015-07-29). "Vallacar Transit seeks lifting of suspension on Ceres buses". Sun.Star. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    8. Ellera, Teresa D. (2015-07-29). "Win-win solution sought on Vallacar lot donation". Sun.Star. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    9. "Vallacar, YRDC ask council to allow east terminal on donated property". Sun.Star. 2016-04-09. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    10. De los Santos, Maricyn A. (2016-11-18). "'Ordinance did not favor Vallacar'". The Daily Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    11. Yasa, Dolly (2017-06-03). "Ceres will not join transport strike". The Daily Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    12. Yasa, Dolly (2017-02-28). "Group claims success in transport strike". The Daily Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    13. Celino, Felipe V. (2013-09-30). "Vallacar agrees to new transpo scheme". The Daily Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    14. Guadalquiver, Nanette (2018-05-04). "Bacolod City gets P3.6-M bus donation from transport firm". Philippine News Agency. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    15. Napallacan, Jhunnex (2003-12-17). "Firm penalized after mishap involving its bus". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vallacar Transit to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Performing a third relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manob

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

Sorry but trivial coverage, doesn't satisfy WP:BAND. ~ Nahid Talk 14:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If somebody wants to recreate the redirect on their own, I won't stop you, but the consensus here is to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Element14 Community

Element14 Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Previously redirected to Element14, but the redirect was reverted by an IP editor. — Newslinger talk 13:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Byrne

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BR Class 37 renumbering

BR Class 37 renumbering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list, more suitable for a rail-based website. Also nominating:

British Rail Class 47 renumbering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for same reason. Nightfury 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbering of individual train stock is non notable and barely encyclopedic. That's why I've flagged it as fancruft and it the stuff we should leave to self published railfan websites. Ajf773 (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't individual stock, it's an overall set of them. That ties into the BR numbering plan, and its various renumbering schemes (which are certainly notable). There's also clear scope for a list needed on the 37s as a class, just as a way to record the named examples. For size issues, that has been split from the Class 37 article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion rationale is poor, but speaking as a railfan, this is the prime example of the sort of content we should discourage rather than encourage. It's not encyclopedic. It's sourced, in the sense that it was copied out of Ian Allen railfan publications (I own several myself). That the class was renumbered may be worth mentioning and would be a good example of summarizing content; listing each and every renumbering would be better done on an external site. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and all of that's a content issue. I'd like to see encyclopedic content on each column (what's the rationale for each of these big renames). Also expansion on the naming: why was a 37 named after a cone shell? Why a steelworks? – does that link to some long-term block working?. Both of these are mostly as onward linking, rather than screeds here, but the information should be available. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Dingley: If you want to work on this article you might be interested in this book page from which it appears that the series 4 renumbering (374xx) indicates that the English Electric generators were replaced with Brush alternators. There is also other information on the Class 37 renumebring but I haven't looked closely to see if any of it is of use to us. SpinningSpark 13:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These questions are interesting, but it's a core policy that Wikipedia should be a summary and not exhaustive. In my opinion covering a locomotive class renumbering in this depth tips the balance too far in the wrong direction, but I appreciate that my view is a minority one. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I get we're an Encyclopedia and all that but this content means nothing to our average reader, What's special (or encyclopedic) about a train being renumbered ? .... Does it have a long lasting detrimental impact ? ... No ....,
A bus company here in Kent recently purchased a few older vehicles which gained new fleet numbers - Would this be encyclopedic and of use to our reader ? ... No .... and the same applies here,
Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet the GNG - Multiple independent reliable sources listed in the article and it is a spinout article of British Rail Class 37 which is absolutely encyclopaedic. The bus company example is not the same thing as this, which you would understand if you'd actually read the article. As for "the content means nothing to our average reader" if that were a reason for deletion we'd be deleting swathes of the encyclopaedia - first up would be most of the advanced mathematics articles, followed by everything related to small settlements outside the Anglosphere, then perhaps all the articles about individual species of bacteria, fungi, molluscs, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't even come close to meeting GNG, The train article is encyclopedic but this article isn't, The bus company example is the same thing - Trains get renumbered - Buses get renumbered ...., No we wouldn't because those sorts of articles are encyclopedic ....,
You're more than welcome to preserve this either offline or on another website but as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE this doesn't belong here on this encyclopedia. –Davey2010Talk 02:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG requires coverage in multiple reliable indpendent sources. There are three independent reliable sources citied in the article - the GNG is clearly met. The bus example is the ad-hoc renumbering of several old buses when moving company. This article deals with the systematic renumbering and renumbering of an entire fleet of vehicles - yes it needs improvement with reasons, dates and the significance of the name but that is not a reason for deletion. If this article were titled List of British Rail Class 37 locomotives then nobody would not have any problem with its existence as an independent list split off from the main article solely due to lack of space - which is exactly what this article is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are they reliable sources? Ajf773 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Allan Publishing is the single most respected publisher of railway-related books in the United Kingdom and Platform 5 Publishing is not far behind. Do you have any evidence that they are not reliable sources? I genuinely can't think of any reason why they would not be reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find the extract(s) in any one of the "several editions" that would reference this content? Ajf773 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally own copies of those references, but if you dispute their accuracy you could ask at WT:UKRAIL as it is very likely someone there will have access. I'm not sure why you require several editions though and contrary to your quotes you are the only person to use this phrase in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773: Why are you fussing about sourcing? Your deletion rationale was FANCRUFT which is a separate issue from sourcing. Will the addition of good sources change your !vote? SpinningSpark 20:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It won't, it's still fancruft. But I already know it's hopeless arguing with inclusionists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it's pretty irritating for you to put people to the trouble of finding good sources to no purpose. But now that I have them, here they are anyway;
I'm going to add these to the article. Now please stop saying the page is unsourced. SpinningSpark 21:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least put it in as a collapsible table into British Rail Class 37. Tony May (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But then I would say that, wouldn't I. One reason for creating the page in the first place, apart from documenting the different changes, the reasons for which are covered on the main page about the class, was to provide links to the sources of the various names of individual locos. There are similar lists of the names of, eg, Great Western Castle Class steam locos (that I don't see anyone attempting to delete). In answer to the specific question about naming some after various moluscs, those locos were allocated to the petroleum sector and are the names of shells, Shell being a major customer of that sector. Perhaps I should add a section on name rationales to the page, assuming it isn't deleted, of course. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahir Iqbal

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

Contested Prod by original editor. Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX, youth success only. Intent seems promotional. PRehse (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1000+ practical business ideas and directory of money sources

1000+ practical business ideas and directory of money sources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Insufficient significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The book's "top business book on Google" claim comes from searching for "top business books" on Google Play, where the book is published as an app under a similar name. This isn't a strong claim to notability, since the search results page compares the book to other apps (instead of other books), and only for this particular search query. Additionally, Google Play is not a reliable bestseller list. — Newslinger talk 12:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-Hobby

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

Non-notable organization, no references, two of the article's three sentences appear to be WP:OR. HalJor (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toffael Rashid

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

Non-notable executive (presently (? per article) an EVP at Robi Axiata Limited) - fails GNG. ref1 is self-written. ref2 is a short entry on BritBangla (probably neither independent of the subject not reliable). ref3 is an interview on campaignlive. ref4 - adobomagazine (broken link) - looks like a trade magazine, ref5 is coverage of a job appointment. ref6 (broken) is a profile at a speaking engagement. ref7 (broken) - is a bloomberg executive profile (they have one on nearly everyone). Ref8 is the (?) present employer's website. Not sure what ref9 (broken) is - but it is self authored per the ref. Have't been able to find much else in my BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Bangla Press Club

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sourced to the organization itself, a Bangla directory entry, and 4 lines on alalodulal.org. Occasionally mentioned in passing in RSes in event listings or in quotations of members (e.g. a quote of "Nobab Uddin, member of the group and Former President of the London Bangla Press Club" in a local publication). Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Marriage (book)

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

Self published book. Sources are Amazon (.co.uk and .com), AuthorHouse (the publisher - which provides self-publishing services), and Goodreads. There is also an external link to google books. In my BEFORE I was unable to find independent reviews. The book fails GNG and NBOOK. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree this book does not pass WP:NBOOK.Auldhouse (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass GNG & NBOOK. Also author doesn't have his article. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Grand Rapids FC season

AfDs for this article:
2015 Grand Rapids FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a club season article about a team that played in the Great Lakes Premier League, a regional amateur league in the United States, not a top professional league as required by WP:NSEASONS. If the United States Soccer Federation were to have officially classified this league and followed standards used in most other countries, it would not even have been a Division V league. Second, WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and while this article does contain significant prose, it is far from well-sourced. There are five references given in the article other than those included in game boxscores. Three of those five do not support the statements to which they are attached. Another is clearly WP:ROUTINE, since it is an article written about the team's opponent. That leaves the reference that supports the team's average home attendance as the sole source cited that actually supports a statement made in the article and does not come from routine coverage. It is questionable whether there is enough independent, reliable coverage that can be used to support the information the article presents. Without any meaningful citations, there is a legitimate concern that this article may be almost entirely original research. Without significant coverage, the article fails to rise to the level needed to satisfy the presumption of notability under WP:GNG. That guideline indicates that even where an article achieves the presumption of notability, the results of a common-sense discussion should prevail. Common sense tells me that the 2015 season of a club that played in a regional amateur league comprising five clubs is not notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. The article's first deletion nomination resulted in a Procedural keep. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GNG failure lacking significant coverage, and the sources that are present don't have anything to do with the season being discussed. Also fails presumption of notability for WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NSEASONS and GNG, with the acknowledgement that I nominated the article for deletion the first time. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grand Rapids FC, as the NSEASONS guideline people love to cite clearly says "It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." As others have stated, that's the case here, so the solution is redirection, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It seems to me that the context of that statement in WP:NSEASONS is drawn from, "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article," in WP:GNG. This article has 12 citation needed tags and three not in citation given tags. The only verifiable facts in the article are the team's average home attendance and the scores and names of goalscorers for some (less than half) of the team's matches. Admittedly, that may add up to some verifiable facts, but I'm not sure this article is what they are addressing there. Redirect makes absolute sense, if this content is moved to the team article, but if it isn't, what would be the point? So, the question is whether this content should be moved. It would be great to have the boxscores in the team article, but seven of the team's eight league match results are unsourced. Should we move all of them to preserve the single verifiable fact? The player roster and statistics are unsourced as well. None of the prose is sourced. Should it nevertheless be placed in its own section in the team article? In the end, we have one verifiable regular-season boxscore, a few verifiable and unverifiable boxscores from friendlies, several paragraphs of unverifiable text, an unverifiable roster and unverifiable statistics. The word some is difficult to quantify, but this seems more to me like a bit less than some. The amount of unverifiable content is overwhelming in comparison to the verifiable facts with which it would move. If one concludes that the content should not be moved, what would a redirect accomplish? Taxman1913 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn due to sources provided. Λυδαcιτγ 10:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting

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

Impossible to expand beyond a dictionary definition and collection of related articles. Also see rationale of previous proposed deletion. Λυδαcιτγ 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]
You're right, I failed to do WP:BEFORE, assuming that there wouldn't be any scholarly work on the topic of "meetings". I'm glad to learn that there is, and hope some of it can be incorporated into the article. Λυδαcιτγ 10:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psykosoul

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

Delete - Fails the mandatory criteria mentioned by WP:NALBUMS. Relying on one link (AllMusic) for the album rating. There is no point in having this article separate from singer's article. Horizonlove (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the Billboard review is relevant to this. Because again, this isn't necessarily about finding sources. However, even if this article were to include the Billboard review, it would still fail WP:NALBUMS. "Psykosoul" has no charted, has not won or been nominated for any awards, has no confirmed album sales, etc. According to Smith, she once acknowledge that this album never came out and she later dropped from Hollywood Records. And if that's case, this would be an unreleased album. However, she claimed to have released it herself as "Psykosoul Plus". Horizonlove (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If that's true, why hasn't no one expanded the article. It's been here since 2007. And mind you, there is only one source being used in article now, which is for the album rating, and then the source that User:Doomsdayer520 mentioned which has not been added to article. I understand you're a fan of hers, but you can't be bias to the situation. Mind you, it's not about if it can pass [[WP:GNG], it has to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music), which it does not. Horizonlove (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't someone expanded the article? You are someone too, y'know. And interestingly, you have criticized the article's (current) shortage of sources, but provided no source for your own comment above on how the album was never released. If it was truly unreleased, I might recommend merging text about the album into the singer's article, but for now my vote remains as keep. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't even heard of her until your prods, also there are 5.6 million articles and a lot of them need improving so articles like this get forgotten. WP:GNG overrides WP:NMUSIC which in any case is mainly for musicians and bands not albums, and GNG also overrides WP:NALBUMS which is primarily a guide on whether an album is likely to be notable not a stipulation of notability in and of itself, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 05:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Current sourcing is abysmal - a Blogspot blog, a Typepad blog, and a page from his institution. Google Scholar shows his h index as a modest 12 and there are no indications of awards, honors or other criteria that would satisfy WP:NPROF. Overall he appears to be a competent workaday academic but nowhere close to notable in the Wikipedia sense. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its obvious that the current article doesn't support inclusion, but the question is could it be improved? (1) El Universal which appears to be a RS from its WP page El Universal_(Mexico_City), uses the word encabezados to describe his relationship with the Institute of Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico [34]. Translated to English that means he "heads" the Institute [35]. I think that would qualify as The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). The National Autonomous University of Mexico is a very prestigious research university in Mexico and if he is top person their Institute of Geophysics, that would qualify as an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.. (2) He is also a member of Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, which could qualify as The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).-Obsidi (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basing a translation on picking out individual words can be risky. How would you rate your level of proficiency in Spanish? My own is not native-level, but I'm translating Investigadores del instituto de Geofísica de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), encabezados por Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera descubrieron la existencia... as "Investigators from the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, headed by Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera discovered the existence..." meaning that he led the group of investigators, not that he led the institute. The news article is almost certainly referring to Velasco Herrera et al. (2015) where he is lead author -- he "heads" the team. Note the current Director of IGF is Hugo Delgado Granados. Velasco makes no mention of having been head of the Institute on his CV, which would be an unusual omission. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but at the least it's highly uncertain and we need firmer evidence.

    Likewise it's uncertain that membership in the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores is sufficiently "highly selective and prestigious" to satisfy notability. As you have noted, WP:NPROF mentions the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as an example; the NAS has about 2,290 members. Contrast this with SNI, which as of 2010 had about 16,400 members -- more than six times the NAS, despite being drawn from a much smaller academic community. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 05:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home of Old Israel

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

I cannot find any evidence that this was a notable old age home. It does not appear to be the first or oldest, or that its buildings were in any way architecturally significant. There is coverage of some of the people who lived there, and the fire. But as notability is not inherited, I don't see that it meets WP:ORG/CORP. StarM 03:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the article, there is significant newspaper coverage cited such as New York Times coverage from 1930 about a fire and such as ""Stage to Aid Old Israel Home" New York Herald Tribune 10 Dec 1930, 20". The argument that notability is not inherited would suggest that, if there were an article about the fire, then the material here should be merged back there. However, we should just have one article about the place overall and about the fire, IMHO. There appears to be an abundance of coverage, albeit not online and linked, in the article, so it appears to meet wp:GNG handily. It doesn't matter that the sources are off-line. --Doncram (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure the Times coverage on or off line (agree, that doesn't matter) adds up to anything. The fire was reported on, yes. But did it have any lasting impact? I'm not sure. It didn't seem to lead to any change in regulations or anything else. None of the coverage is about the building so NN fire, NN building. I literally cannot find anything about the home/building from which to expand this article. The org existed, yes. But notably? Eh StarM 02:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Software Development Engineer in Test

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

This just appears to me to be a job title, with minimal sourcing. I daresay some job titles are notable, but it's not clear to me that this one is. Additionally, essentially all the material in the article is uncited, so it's not clear that a useful article can be constructed with what's here. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to London Docklands#Docklands series buses. Sandstein 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Docklands prefix routes

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

A collection of a few non notable London bus routes and stops along each, all fail WP:GNG Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see that article, but I strongly disagree that it should be redirected there as the content is completely trivial. Ajf773 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content exists at the proposed target, and rightly so (the history of bus transportation in this part of London is encyclopaedic, the Docklands prefix routes are a notable part of that). The title of this article is a useful search term for anyone looking for that content, therefore we should have a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of these bus routes are notable. We shouldn't have an article dedicated to any of them nor to we need to discuss them in detail in another. Ajf773 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bus routes individually are not notable, but the history of bus transport in the Docklands is and these routes are a notable part of that history. I was only ever going to propose merging the prose from this article as that it is the encyclopaedic part, but that is already at the destination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. With due recognition to Highking's oppose arguments, which are convincing, the discussion still seems to be balanced more or less equally (although it does seem to be tending towards keep, given Cunard's effective defense to keep the article). In the light of this view, I'm closing this Afd as one that could not reach clear consensus. Lourdes 18:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrightStar Care

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

Alleged to be CSD G11 eligible, although I think it more to be an A7 article myself. There is just enough information in the article to justify an afd as opposed to a csd in this case, although to be honest I don't really think its going to matter which avenue this takes because its more than likely too soon for an article on the company. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have revisited this article and added many more sources. As of right now, don't believe I use any passing mentions, only cite the company's website once to try and be accurate with the number of locations, and have 24 in-depth reliable sources from all over the US. I apologize if I didn't use enough sources the first time around, and am not sure why after fixing anything that might be advertorial, this was then listed under deletion for a different reason. In-depth coverage of the company includes articles in the Washington Post, CNBC, Harvard Business School's case studies, and newspapers in Texas, Alabama, Ohio, Illinois, Oklahoma, and it was the subject of a full episode of Undercover Boss on network television. I do think that when people are choosing homecare for their parents and relatives, that knowing about their choices is important--perhaps we should add more about it? I can see more articles than the 24 I've already added. Biostarter (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response The key part that you're missing is "intellectually independent" as per WP:ORGIND. Note: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. For example, the Havard Business School's case study in not intellectually independent as it contains no original opinion/analysis/etc as relies entirely on staff members and other connected people for information and data. HighKing++ 16:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot see the HBS case, but nothing else is an extensive reliable source. WaPo & CNBC are not in this case, as can be seen by reading them: WaPo is about the founder, & his various enterprises, but gives only one paragraph to this one--it's mainly about his honey farm. The CNBC is a pure interview with the founder, where he says whatever he wants to. The other newspapers are PR notices or PR interviews. When a company opens a branch in a city, there's always a PR piece in the local paper, unless the PR agent isn't doing even a basic job. The last sentence above is a justification for WP being a directory for health care facilities, which is not our purpose. There's mpthingi n our article that would help them more than searching google. DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Groysberg, Boris; Ammerman, Colleen; Vaughan, John D. (2017-02-10). "BrightStar Care: The Evolution of a Leadership Team. Harvard Business School Case 417-020" (PDF). Harvard Business School. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      This is a 31-page case study from Harvard Business School. From the abstract at https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=51978Internet Archive:

      BrightStar Care was a rapidly growing franchise of home health care agencies. Founded by husband and wife team JD and Shelly Sun as a single agency near Chicago in 2002, BrightStar had opened nearly 300 franchises across the United States by 2016, generating over $300 million in revenue. BrightStar was now a very different company from the one Shelly and JD had started during their first year of marriage. Shelly Sun, CEO, had decided to franchise the business in 2004, believing that the franchise model presented a relatively low-risk and high-return approach to growing BrightStar. As franchises began to sell, Sun quickly set about building scalable operations and infrastructure, including a centralized technology function and custom software for franchisees. As more and more locations opened around the United States, she focused on growing BrightStar’s national marketing profile and putting measures in place to distinguish BrightStar’s services as higher quality than those of its competitors. A shifting regulatory landscape and labor shortages posed challenges, but BrightStar continued to grow swiftly. As the company evolved and Sun attempted to spend more time away from headquarters, surveying the field and building relationships, she knew she needed a strong senior management team. Some members of her senior team had been with BrightStar for years, expanding their responsibilities as the company expanded, while others she recruited from outside. In the early 2010s, Sun was close to filling all BrightStar’s crucial executive roles but had to consider whether some longtime leaders were the right fit for the company’s current needs. As she thought through the composition of her senior team, she also revamped her board of advisors and pursued international franchising opportunities and a debt recapitalization. By early 2016, Sun was looking to the company’s next phase of growth while handing management of her executive team to BrightStar’s President and COO.

    2. Payne, Charles; Kazin, Matthew (2016-03-28). "Couple Takes $100K Leap of Faith in Home Care Services Industry". Fox Business Network. Archived from the original on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      The article notes:

      In this Salute to American Success, we’re taking a look at BrightStar Care, a provider of home care, child care and medical staffing services for individuals, families and healthcare facilities. It was founded in 2002 by Shelly and J.D. Sun.

      After hiring multiple companies to provide home care services for her husband’s grandmother, the couple decided to take a chance and create their own business which would supply all types of home care needs to customers.

      ...

      In 2005 the co-founders, seeing an opportunity to franchise their business model, decided to try franchising.

      Today, BrightStar Care has more than 300 units, two of which are company owned. By the end of 2016, the company plans to add about 50-60 additional units, and is in the process of expanding internationally, according to Sun.

    3. Dybis, Karen (2011-09-08). "Catering to Sandwich Generation". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      The article notes:

      Since launching franchise operations in August 2005, BrightStar has opened or signed more than 200 locations in 36 states. The company plans to have 400 total franchises by the end of 2012. The east side BrightStar, which covers two franchise territories, joins agencies in Novi, Ann Arbor, Brighton and Traverse City.

      ...

      BrightStar's three main business units are hospital staffing, home health care for older and disabled adults and what it calls Kid Care.

      Through Kid Care, BrightStar has baby sitters for every situation: sick-day child care for working parents, caregivers for well-baby and newborn care as well as specialized help for children with special needs, such as autism or Down syndrome.

    4. Kulikowski, Laurie (2012-11-14). "BrightStar Care's Shelly Sun: From Frustrated Consumer to CEO". TheStreet.com. Archived from the original on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      The article notes:

      Shelly Sun and her husband, J.D., started BrightStar Care, a health-care staffing company, a decade ago after failing to find suitable care for his grandmother.

      As CEO, Shelly Sun has taken the company to far-reaching success, helped by the fact that the franchise is smack in the middle of one of the hottest growing sectors of business: elderly care. BrightStar Care now has 180 franchisees with 260 locations, employs more than 50,000 health-care workers and services more than 31,000 customers every day.

      Besides running BrightStar, Sun is on the board of directors for the International Franchise Association, the industry's main trade association, has written a book, Grow Smart, Risk Less, and was even featured on CBS's popular show Undercover Boss last year.

    5. Carpenter, John (2012-11-19). "Home-care CEO sees Bright future". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      The article notes:

      BrightStar Care, founded 10 years ago before becoming a franchise three years later, appears to be riding a demographic wave that creates 10,000 American 65-year-olds every day. The company has grown from one location, in Gurnee, to more than 250 across the country, caring for more than 32,000 families and employing 45,000 to 50,000 caregivers and others in any given month.

      Sun, 42, is matter-of-factly bold when asked where she sees the company, generating $225 million in annual revenue, 10 or 20 years from now.

      ...

      BrightStar also offers staffing services for a variety of businesses, from doctors' offices to school districts to nursing homes. Home-care workers can be plugged into one of these settings while waiting for their next home-care placement.

      ...

      The business was a success almost from the start. Sun said it was revenue-positive in the fourth month and generated more than $1 million in the first year. They opened two more locations, then made the decision to franchise in 2005. The startup investment for a BrightStar franchise ranges from $88,279 to $152,040, with an additional franchise fee of $47,500.

    6. Moran, Gwen (2016-01-17). "Meet the Fearless Female Franchisors Who are Living Their Dreams. Shelly Sun, Founder and CEO BrightStar Care". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      The article notes:

      Shelly Sun and her husband, J.D., struggled to find good healthcare professionals with whom to entrust J.D.’s aging grandmother. The couple lived in Illinois, while “Grandma Pat” lived in Florida. The distance made it especially difficult to determine what services she would need, as well as the best providers, level of care and cost.

      That experience led to the blueprint of BrightStar Care, which the Suns launched in 2002 in Lake County, Ill. The company provides a variety of home-healthcare and medical-staffing services. Initially, Shelly spent a great deal of time interviewing caregivers, healthcare professionals and even competitors to find out how the company could differentiate itself from others in the space and gain prominence among potential referral sources. Soon she saw they had tapped into a need. Within three years, BrightStar opened additional locations in Chicago and McHenry County, Ill.

      Around that time, Shelly’s mother-in-law, who was investing in two hotel franchises, asked Shelly to accompany her to a training session for new owners and managers. Shelly came away with the idea that BrightStar could work as a franchise, expanding much more quickly than if the Suns were opening new locations on their own. They had thoroughly documented each process as they opened and ran their McHenry and Chicago locations, giving them a head start in ensuring that the business model could be replicated. They sold their first franchise location in late 2005.

    7. Quilligan, Kathleen (2011-04-11). "BrightStar Care featured on Sunday's 'Undercover Boss'". The Times of Northwest Indiana. Archived from the original on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      The article notes:

      Shelly Sun wouldn't take no for an answer.

      After producers from the CBS reality hit show "Undercover Boss" put the CEO and co-founder of Gurnee, Ill.-based BrightStar Care through a screening process in April 2010, they informed her that the home health care company she founded with her husband in 2002 was smaller than they usually featured.

      Sun shot back a two-page letter, outlining the reasons she should be featured: At the time, there hadn't yet been a female CEO, and the show never had featured the founder of a company.

      ...

      CBS agreed, and at 8 p.m. Sunday, Sun will watch her experience visiting some of the 223 franchises across the country for the first time along with the rest of the country.

    8. Carlson, Jill (2015-01-05). "Providing care is their business". Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-10-03. Retrieved 2018-10-03.

      The article notes:

      BrightStar Franchising began in Gurnee, Illinois, in 2005. Rather and Tews bought the Madison territory in 2006. The Madison location was the fourth BrightStar location. Now, more than 288 territories are open around the U.S. The Madison office has branches in Janesville, which opened in 2007, Baraboo (2009) and La Crosse (2012).

      BrightStar Senior Living is a new assisted living concept. The pilot location opened in Madison in February 2014. Now that the model has been proven, Rather and Tews are buying this location. BrightStar will sell this franchise concept as well as the home care/staffing concept.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BrightStar Care to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add. On the point of the Havard Business School case study, I've read it and leaving aside the fact that it states on the first page that it was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate and includes over two pages of company bios of the people that "helped" with the report (therefore not intellectually independent especially if the company *approved* it before publication), leaving all that aside, I cannot identify one statement that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Also, the quotation by Cunard is not from the actual case study itself but from a "summary" which is deceptive. HighKing++ 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep leaving aside the Harvard study, there is still significant reliable sources coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH to be passed such as The Detroit News, The Chicago Tribune, Fox, Wisconsin Journal, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Hi Atlantic306, would you mind taking another look? References to meet the criteria for establishing notability are different that the standards for reliable sources. Commenting on the specific sources you mentioned, the Chicago Tribune reference relies nearly entirely on an interview with the founders, fails WP:ORGIND. The Fox reference likewise relies on an interview, fails WP:ORGIND. The Detroit News reference is a feature on a franchisee and there is no evidence of any intellectually independent opinion/analysis/etc. Finally the Winsconsin Journal is also a feature on a franchisee again with no evidence of any intellectually independent opinion/analysis/etc as required. All those references fail WP:ORGIND as per Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 11:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that combine interviews with independent analysis are acceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH as I specifically asked about this during the discussion of the new drafting. A number of these sources include independent analysis as for example The Chicago Tribune article includes the analysis of a franchise expert from a seperate concern, and the reporter also comments on the failure of one of the franchises where wages were undercut - that is obviously not pr. The articles about individual franchises include information on the main company and are also acceptable Atlantic306 (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The expert is from FranNet who have provided services to BrightStar. Also, members of FranNet and Brightstar sit on the board of directors together on the International Franchise Association. They've done numerous interviews together and are both in the business or promoting franchising. The comment about "Not every franchise has been a success" is also clearly a statement from Matt Quandt, Brightstar senior marketing manager. Still not intellectually independent, still fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 15:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's convincing analysis of sources, meets GNG. Sam Sailor 05:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response And this is why Cunard's method of selectively quoting extracts (while omiting damning sections) is disruptive. None of Cunard's sources above meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not one. There is not a single shred of intellectually independent analysis/opinion/investigation/etc in any of those references. HighKing++ 11:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quoting the case study's abstract is not "deceptive".

    The Harvard Business School case study interviews many people affiliated with BrightStar. But it also has independent analysis of the subject. The case study notes: "As part of a quality-focused strategy, BrightStar set a higher bar for entry than its competitors; its net-worth and liquid-capital requirements for new owners were both more demanding (see Exhibit 9 for BrightStar’s franchisee requirements and characteristics). Even with these stringent standards for franchisees, the company grew rapidly." The case study also notes: "Despite BrightStar franchises’ favorable performance, labor supply was a challenge for owners, as it was throughout the home-care industry." The case study further notes that "Changing labor regulations also impacted the company" and discusses a 2015 National Labor Relations Board ruling and Seattle's new minimum-wage law.

    The case study notes:

    Professor Boris Groysberg, Gender Initiative Director Colleen Ammerman, and independent researcher John D. Vaughan (President's Program in Leadership (PPL) 2012) prepared this case. This case is part of the YPO/OPM research project. It was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management

    That the case study was "reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate" means that the company found no factual inaccuracies in the study and did not find that Harvard misrepresented any of the company's officers. The case study says that funding was "provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company" and that "Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements" so I do not consider the editorial integrity or independence of the case study's authors to be compromised.

    The Chicago Tribune article provides analysis of the subject such as (my bolding):

    BrightStar Care, founded 10 years ago before becoming a franchise three years later, appears to be riding a demographic wave that creates 10,000 American 65-year-olds every day. The company has grown from one location, in Gurnee, to more than 250 across the country, caring for more than 32,000 families and employing 45,000 to 50,000 caregivers and others in any given month.

    The article further notes:

    Not every franchise has been a success. A New York BrightStar franchisee closed in 2011, later pleading guilty to not paying workers and agreeing to pay back wages. Matt Quandt, BrightStar senior marketing manager, said the case was isolated. [quote from Quandt]

    This is independent coverage of the company because BrightStar would prefer that the Chicago Tribune not say "Not every franchise has been a success". BrightStar clearly would not want the Chicago Tribune to even mention that one of its franchisees "ple[d] guilty to not paying workers and agree[d] to pay back wages".

    Cunard (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Traill International School. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traill International school F.C.

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

Fails WP:GNG the claims that it is playing in the FA cup are not supported by the sources which are a passing mention and a press release Dom from Paris (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Beyond (2017 film)

The Beyond (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 03:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pualand F.C.

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

Fails WP:GNG the claims it is participating in the FA cup are not supported by sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sijibomi Ogundele

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

The person is of dubious notability. There actually appear to be many news articles on him, however it is unclear whether the information given in the sources is true, as suspicions have been raised if it's fraudulent - [38][39][40]. It is uncertain whether the sources on the person concerned (be it in the article or from web search) actually do any fact-checking, therefore there is the question of reliability of the sources per WP:RS (someone who are more knowledgeable about Nigeria publications might help here). The uncertainty of the information in the sources leads to the obvious problem of how much of the biographical information given in the article is true, as well as how to write the article without it being a unreliable or defamatory. My feeling is that the article should be deleted as it may not be possible for it to be reliably sourced - WP:DEL6. Stripped of the unreliable information, and given the lack of solid evidence, it is hard to tell what he is notable for, he therefore also fails WP:GNG. Furthermore because of the unreliability of the information in the article, there is the danger of Wikipedia being used to give legitimacy to a person who has been accused of being a fraudster. Hzh (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you wrote the article, can you explain why you ignore the various allegations against him, including being a fraudster? There are actually remarkably few other sources on his supposed work aside from his own website, what sources there are are dubious, therefore what exactly is he notable for? Just building a few houses? I had a look at his supposed luxury properties on Google map and they are on a road that looks badly kept and strewn with rubbish - [41]. There is no evidence that his other projects/properties have ever been built. He appears to be only a minor property developer, and someone like that doesn't merit an article. Hzh (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also given that some of the articles you have created have been deleted for being promotional and non-notable, can you confirm that you have no links in any way to the person, financially or otherwise? Hzh (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Miller

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

The article in its current state conflates three distinct individuals; Miller the British actress, Miller the casting director on ER and the West Wing, and a third individual who went missing in 1989. There aren't enough sources outside of IMDB to support to first two, and the third has news coverage but doesn't seem to be notable enough on the disappearance alone.

If someone can find RS for the British actress (presumably the original subject) that would be ideal otherwise I think deletion would be the least confusing move that maintains sourcing standards. Qzd (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Edgar (academic)

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

non notable whether as author or professor. One book only DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination and one previous comment are perhaps a bit too dismissive. Once one has made sure that one is looking at the right individual, the subject has had two or three highly-cited publications and a few more with distinctly decent citation rates. Having said that, his h-index is only 15, in a field where I think one would usually expect rather more for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. It is unfortunate we could not find more people fluent in Hungarian to help evaluate this, but we'll have to go with what we've got. As always, if somebody finds good sources, sufficient to meet WP:GNG, this can be recreated. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merítés Prize

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

Award given by a poll of readers from a non-notable website with no evidence of outside coverage MarginalCost (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moly.hu is not "a non-notable website" in Hungary. Is older than goodreads. (balagesh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagesh (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Piotrus, I missed that. I was perhaps a bit hasty in declaring moly.hu non-notable (though I did do a basic check). Nonetheless, that hu.wiki article seems borderline promotional. It's outside sources are currently broken, but seem to be random blogs unlikely to pass en.wiki sourcing standards. Even if Moly.hu is notable, I can't find any evidence the award is. MarginalCost (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a note there. The article was also added to the Hungary-related delsort list last week. If no sources are found, this article should be deleted until notability can be established. MarginalCost (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe you should try this as a proof: open Google and type this: krasznahorkai lászló háború és háború. This is the Hungarian title of en:War and War. You will find the link to moly.hu on the top. Maybe this is an evidence of local importance of moly.hu. — Balagesh (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A high search rank for a particular book - even many books - doesn't establish notability. That is established by multiple reliable independent secondary sources giving significant coverage to the topic. If this prize is really of local importance, then it shouldn't be hard to find some reliable source writing about it. (Writing about it in Hungarian is fine.) In any case, this AfD isn't about the website, it's about the award. MarginalCost (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per E.M.Gregory (talk). Withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Matchmaker

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

Does not have notability as I could not found secondary sources to back this article and fails WP:TVSERIES which says either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone and therefore, WP:GNG Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Jovanmilic97, I think you're reading WP:TVSERIES too narrowly. My reading is that "Generally, a television program is likely to be notable... if it airs on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." Then it lists examples as to why this might not be enough to establish notability, namely, "if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage." It did air 13 episodes, a full season. This would not to me seem as a show that was "cancelled quickly." I'd argue that a pilot, even if aired nationally, would fail to meet notability, but a full season (on a major TV channel) would generally clear that hurdle. Additionally, a Google Search for the series reveals, as of today, a half million results.
  • Keep per User:Aoba47's list of sources, plus [43]. User:power~enwiki, we do not redirect articles for being poorly written (even WP:TNT is only an argument for deletion, and that only in extreme cases). Modernponderer (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree strongly. If there is insufficient content for a stand-alone article and a good redirect target, the article should be replaced by a redirect, with no prejudice against somebody re-creating the article in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If there is insufficient content" in the article right now, it should be improved. Only if external sources have insufficient content themselves – i.e. the subject of the article lacks notability – should either a redirect or deletion normally be considered. But that is the exact opposite of the argument you made. Modernponderer (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It existed. It was broadcast. News archive searched bring up a number of feature articles, some focused on the show and others on the matchmaker. I'll add a couple such to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • HEY, I did a minor cleanup, expanded it a little. there was a formal review of the show in the New York Times, a review in The Buffalo News that was picked up by other papers from a wire service. Quite a number of feature stories published in places far form Buffalo ( I added on in the Chicago Tribune.) A lot of feature story interest was focused on the matchmaker in the show. There is more that can be added, I used a news archive search, but tracked down and added the url to the NYTimes story. I think we can KEEP this now since Nom most "delete" opinions were based on the unsourced status of the page. Presumably, failure to search news archives contributed to the failure of BEFORE searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And note that other stuff has been titled "Confessions of a Matchmaker," including feature stories about other matchmakers and reviews of other matchmaker TV shows (such as The Millionaire Matchmaker). One editor above linked to some of this other stuff. I was careful to add only material about this show. More exists form which article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Rather than asserting a position regarding notability or lack thereof, the nomination is posited as a question. This is not a valid rationale for deletion, as deletion nominations require a guideline- or policy-based rationale, rather than an open-ended question. North America1000 01:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fownes Hotel

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

Again, a hotel. Is this notable? Am I missing something? Uhooep (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless an actual policy-based argument is made to justify deletion. In general, being listed in Pevsner is prima facie evidence that a building is inherently notable since old Nick was fussy about what he deemed worthy of mention, so the onus is on whoever wants it deleted to provide a considerably better deletion rationale than "a hotel". ‑ Iridescent 01:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Jewish violence in Eastern Galicia involving soldiers of the Blue Army

AfDs for this article:
Anti-Jewish violence in Eastern Galicia involving soldiers of the Blue Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete The exact text used to create the new article (nominated for deletion) was restored back to the Blue Army (Poland) page at 20:20, 9 October 2018, here: [44], citing on talk page that there was no consensus to split off the text into a new article. At this point the new article is a word for word exact duplicate of the original text restored back to the Blue Army article. --E-960 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G7. Consensus not to remove this content from the parent article. Might be scope for an expanded article on the subject as a spinoff, but not a copy. The author, E-960, has requested deletion - so G7 applies.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as WP:G7. @E-960: since you are the article creator, you can tag it with speedy deletion yourself. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman, I actually did request speedy deletion, it got turned down twice, bit strange I'll admit. --E-960 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_October_10&oldid=1142615270"