Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 February 18 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Himmelstürmer Flightpack[edit]

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

Unreliable cited sources (basically just a post on dieselpunks.org[1] and one on disciplesofflight.com,[2] neither citing their own sources), and other more reliable/detailed sources indicating this is a hoax.[3][4] As the Talk page shows, When someone asked for validation last year, the author pointed to a German title which turned out to be a children's picture book Rovack (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that at least one of the references on that page is actually a book about German films in the 20th century.[5][6] This, along with notes on the Talk page, point to confusion on the part of the author, between the supposed "Himmelstürmer Flightpack", and the real-life documentary "Himmelstürmer", described in the German Wikipedia page of the same name. Note that the Himmelsstürmer disambiguation page makes not a single mention of any flightpack. The cause of this confusion appears to be the author's inability to read German, leading them to believe any mention of the word "Himmelstürmer" is a relevant reference, even if it's in a movie anthology. --Rovack (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as hoax This hoax has been around for a long time and is unlikely to stop just because WP finally sees sense and stops claiming that it's true. However there is still useful mileage in debunking it.
Alternatively, redirect to Colin Furze. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/the-himmelstuermer-flightpack
  2. ^ https://disciplesofflight.com/pulse-jet-past-future/
  3. ^ https://jalopnik.com/how-a-holocaust-denier-fooled-the-internet-with-nazi-je-482770651
  4. ^ https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-himmelstuermer-did-it-exist.317216/
  5. ^ Bernhard Chiari, Matthias Rogg, Wolfgang Schmidt (Hrsg) "Krieg und Militär im Film des 20". Jahrhunderts, Oldenbourg Verlag 2003, Seite 403
  6. ^ https://www.amazon.de/Krieg-Milit%C3%A4r-Jahrhunderts-Milit%C3%A4rgeschichtlichen-Milit%C3%A4rgeschichte/dp/3486567160
  • Delete or rewrite as hoax. I think we would be performing a service by rewriting this as a hoax but I fear we lack significant coverage as a hoax. The only other reliable source I could find was the book by the same author as the article found by Icewhiz. [1]. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as cited in the original comment, the only 2 sources I could find were that article Icewhiz mentioned, and this forum thread discussing the issue. Of course that forum isn't a terribly authoritative source either, though the picture of the plastic model used to fabricate the historical-looking picture, if nothing else, does look pretty relevant. --Rovack (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite as hoaxI'm the original author. The page was initially put up for AFD, but then it was withdrawn. As has been noted, I had asked for help with a German speaking wikipedian. One reviewed the page, only removing *one* source... and since then the page had remained as is. Happy for it to be deleted, as references seem to be pointing it that way... it is probably best as has been suggested, for the benefit of the wikipedia users, that we convert this into a hoax article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax - Ouch, the jalopnik.com site above actually refers to us.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not appear to be a particularly notable hoax; if someone wants to create an article down the road, that's fine but I don't see anyone rewriting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it were not a hoax, it's terribly sourced. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce Exchange[edit]

Bounce Exchange (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)

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is interviews, passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability, such as interviews with executives: [2]. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremy112233. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and in general looks to be part of a promotional campaign. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm surprised by the description "advertorially toned". The article accuses the company of rather shady-sounding pop-up tactics in the main paragraph of the lead, sourced to an article that discusses BounceX at length. IP users tried eight times to remove that in January, so someone out there doesn't think this is an ad at all. The rest of the text reads plainly. I find it off-putting in fact, though admittedly I'm not in their target market. On the RS side, there's that article, this rating them the fastest growing software company in America (a fairly nonsensical stat but coverage itself commented on), and Fortune and Computerworld rating it a good workplace. I also wouldn't discount the interview for notability purposes any more than a non-interview article of the same depth. It's the same publication, itself independent of the subject, making the same choice to dedicate attention to them. That's what matters for notability, we just couldn't use the answer portions for verification (of anything interesting). No vote for now but I'm curious on the neutrality question. Mortee (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advertorial language includes:
  • "In 2015, Bounce Exchange had over 800 customers..."
  • "...uses an automated customer acquisition program called Exit Intent... providing an overlay window that incentivizes the user to stay on the site."
  • "Among other BounceX features intended to convert website visitors..."
This is a detailed description of features and benefits, along with how popular the product is, suggesting promotional to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the first line, that should go. I also got a bit confused with the last section because of reading old versions of the article. It used to say "The goal of the software is to persuade or force users into staying on the site for a longer length of time than they otherwise would" but "or force" was, probably rightly, taken out. I still read it overall as pretty neutral, but I see where you're coming from. Mortee (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has indeed been the object of both disclosed and (very likely, see also my remark at the COI noticeboard last month) undisclosed COI editing. But I would like to observe that the efforts to neutralize its effects have been largely successful, as a non-COI editor who has spent quite a bit of effort on this since 2015.
In fact, parts of the first and third statements cited by K.e.coffman were added by myself. I disagree with their description as "advertorial": Factual descriptions of what a company or its product does, or concrete information about their market success like the number of customers, are not promotional in nature - on the contrary, they are part of what sets an encyclopedic treatment of such a subject apart from ads or corporate press releases, which usually rather focus on the supposed benefits of the product for the customer.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 07:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No keep/delete comments were provided, please continue discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:GNG handily; I just expanded the article with more non-trivial coverage in independent sources. As for the tone concerns cited in the nomination, I (like Mortee) disagree with them - see above - , and in any case they would not have been a reason to delete the article entirely including the factual information that it provides. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Townsend, Tess (2016-08-17). "Meet the Fast-Growing Company That Wants to Make the Web More Polite". Inc. Archived from the original on 2018-02-15. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

      The article notes:

      New York's Bounce Exchange wants to give you a reason to stick around. The behavioral automation software and analytics provider is on a mission to make the internet more polite. By analyzing user behavior--for instance, from where someone enters a site and the amount of time he or she spends there--Bounce Exchange wants to maximize conversion. In other words, it wants to help you turn consumers into customers.

      ... Bounce Exchange co-founder and CEO Ryan Urban ...

      ...

      If you ask Urban what's behind his company's growth, you'll get a boilerplate response: "It's been very organic, mostly client driven." The company's first client was online retailer BustedTees. It now counts about a dozen Fortune 500 companies as customers, as well as dozens of popular internet retailers and eight of the world's 10 largest publishers.

    2. Magee, Christine (2015-08-10). "BounceX Raises $6.5M To Make Advertising Less Obnoxious". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2018-02-15. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

      The article notes:

      BounceX is currently working with over 800 clients that range from startups, such as Handy and Plated, to big publishers such as CNBC, USA Today and TIME.

      The company has grown surprisingly quickly in the past three years, especially considering that it had only taken in $1.5 million in seed funding prior to this round.

      Launched in 2012, BounceX currently employs over 100 people (more than triple the number employed at this time last year) and reports millions in annual revenue.

    3. Price, Rob (2016-05-06). "'TYRANT': A Google-backed UK startup's legal battle with a US rival over alleged code theft is getting ugly". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2018-02-15. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

      The article notes:

      Google-backed UK startup Yieldify is embroiled in a legal battle with US rival Bounce Exchange, which accuses it of stealing Bounce's code and infringing its patents.

      The increasingly vicious case has now taken an unusual new twist — with Yieldify going on the offensive and accusing Bounce Exchange of patent infringement, using a patent it recently purchased from a company once labelled "the most hated company in tech" and accused of being a notorious patent troll.

    4. Price, Rob (2016-07-22). "Google-backed UK startup Yieldify is settling with the US rival that accused it of copying code". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2018-02-15. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

      The article notes:

      Google-backed London startup Yieldify has reached a legal settlement with a company that accused it of copying code.

      The accusations, levelled by US competitor Bounce Exchange, prompted an ugly year-long legal battle, complete with counter-suits, threats targeting customers, and name-calling.

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Analysis of sources
  • Inc. -- based on company interviews, not intellectually independent. Sample: "If you ask Urban what's behind his company's growth, you'll get a boilerplate response: 'It's been very organic, mostly client driven.' "
  • TechCrunch -- routine funding news; TechCrunch is so indiscriminate in its startup coverage as to not count for notability.
  • Business Insider -- minor piece of news about litigation between two startup companies; routine coverage which is primarily about another company: "Google-backed UK startup Yieldify is settling with the US rival that accused it of copying code".
The rest of the sources are equally unconvincing for notability. Yes, startups generate a lot of press, but we need to look at depth of coverage, which is lacking here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Inc. article contains both independent research and quotes from the company officials. It is good journalistic practice for journalists to interview people affiliated with the article subject. In addition to interviewing the company's founder, Inc. journalist Tess Townsend also interviewed a person independent from the company, technology analyst Rob Enderle. She included his opinion:

    However, Rob Enderle, founder of Bend, Oregon-based Enderle Group, says there's something more tectonic afoot. Bounce Exchange has tapped into a market that's only just now emerging, says the technology industry analyst. The marketing world still largely revolves around views and clickthroughs of ads and websites, but companies are starting to think more about conversion.

    The reasons are plentiful, says Enderle, noting that conversion--for instance, signing a new subscriber or triggering a sale--leads to actual money coming in. While some companies promise ad views, a company like Bounce Exchange is promising a return on investment. "In theory, the money you pay to them, you get a hard return on," he says.

    TechCrunch has editorial oversight, is reputable, and publishes corrections so passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I consider it a source that contributes to notability.

    The Business Insider articles provide more coverage about the company's history.

    The sources provide deep coverage of the subject. They note that Bounce Exchange has "about a dozen Fortune 500 companies as customers, as well as dozens of popular internet retailers and eight of the world's 10 largest publishers", works with "big publishers such as CNBC, USA Today and TIME", has 100 employees, and was founded in 2012. They provide detailed coverage about how Bounce Exchange works:

    Instead, BounceX watches the behavior of each user — how they entered the site, how long they’re there, what they’re looking at, and if they’re commenting or sharing, among other metrics — and adjusts the marketing accordingly.

    Someone who reads multiple business-related articles and shares them on Twitter, for instance, is a much better target for a yearly subscription to TIME than someone who reads half of one article about celebrities that popped up on Facebook.

    Cunard (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see my talk page for reasoning
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I was going to go with keep when I did a search and started getting hits in Google News from what appeared to be reliable sources, but a closer look revealed they were actually blogs and interviews, there are no hard news stories on this company.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Coffman's subsequent impeachment of add'l of sources discussed in this debate ☆ Bri (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per the analysis of sources. The content of the articles is not intellectually independent, the purported independent opinion in the Inc article is not the opinion of the author but of an analyst that owns and runs their own small analyst firm that states on the home page "An Internet search of media quotes validates Rob Enderle as one of the most influential technology pundits in the world". Hmmmm ... I'll pass. HighKing++ 19:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - no significant RS here, as others have said, lacks in-depth analysis Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Nance[edit]

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

Nothing about this subject stands out as even remotely notable. MizukaS (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sourcing is far short of GNG with IMDB not being a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, no where near enough references to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Barnes[edit]

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

No notability other than acting as Wesley Snipes' lawyer at one point. NapoliRoma (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm unable to verify some of the information. Yes, he represented a famous person, but the Times articles don't focus on the lawyer. He appears to be a good lawyer, but not a notable attorney. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talantbek Chekirov[edit]

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

Article is sourced to non-RS. A BEFORE fails to find any references in Google News, JSTOR, or newspapers.com. There are two highly incidental references in Google Books, but not enough to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OH COME ON! It seems like anything I create, Wikipedia automatically destroys! You may not perceive him as notable, but earlier today, I saw his name in a paintings shop, and immediately looked him up on Wikipedia, and was unable to find any mention of his name. Therefore, I created the article. Leave it be.--Macaroniking (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems like anything I create, Wikipedia automatically destroys!" Just to clarify, destroying articles is a manual process. It is also time consuming and can take days to accomplish, which is why reading the WP:BLP before creating an article is appreciated! Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you may not think he is notable. I, on the other hand, after seeing his paintings in various places for a while, wondered who he was and decided to look his name up. I am sure there are other people who would like to read about him. In a sense, you are denying people the right to read about something. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to be a place of knowledge. There are some very obscure things on Wikipedia, but I still believe they should be there, because someone may want to look them up. Talantbek is something which some people may probably want to look up, and is not necessarily un-notable.--Macaroniking (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. I don't even see an assertion of notability never mind any proof of it. The above discussion shows a complete misunderstanding of what notability means here, hence the inability to comprehend why this is up for deletion and that this is in no way a disparagement of the artist. Hint: When used on Wikipedia, the words "notable" and "notability" mean something more specific than they do colloquially. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Girl (band)[edit]

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

Band fails WP:MUSICBIO - founded in 2014, it released two albums on indie labels. Sources in article are non-RS. "Wolf Girl" is a (surprisingly) common term but doesn't seem to meet GNG on a BEFORE. Chetsford (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One source is the website of a Swedish daily newspaper (Sydsvenskan), have added another from a UK magazine (Diva (magazine)) based on this. Disagree on reliable sources, no worse than many other articles for bands.Yealdgate (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I translated the Swedish paper and it has a paragraph on them, the diva magazine is another paragraph. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Refs don't support notability, they have mentions but nothing substantial. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Church Talk 04:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - many references doesn't equal notability. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mouse and the Roborats[edit]

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

I don't see evidence that this film meets the WP:NFO notability criteria. Enwebb (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFO. Centibyte(talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ran some searches, not able to find any RS for this - looks like a non notable movie, direct to TV? Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the poster it is a cinema film but can't find much as this is pre-internet Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to SBA Airlines destinations. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SBA destinations[edit]

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

This article duplicates the content in Santa Barbara Airlines destinations. Rhadow (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cups 'n Strings[edit]

Cups 'n Strings (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 was unable to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm finding quite a lot of coverage actually such as here FloridaArmy (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. The link above is a republished press release about a routine corporate appointment. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having difficulty finding notable coverage of the page in question.BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R "Ray" Wang[edit]

R "Ray" Wang (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 best sources are this interview with "small business news" and this interview with Tech.Revolution. The others are primary sources. Interviews in such obscure sources do not tend to demonstrate notability. My own searches have found some quotes by him in RS: [3] [4] [5] but I still don't think they are enough to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Constellation_Research,_Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which Wang founded as I do not think it meets WP:CORP. There are plenty of quotes from it's analysts in RS, but I can't find any which discuss the company in sufficient depth to meet CORP. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both due to lack of sustained and nontrivial appearance in reliable sources. A lite biz resume doesn't make it here. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nova Mob (album). Spartaz Humbug! 00:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old Empire (EP)[edit]

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

does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM Enwebb (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nova Mob (album) – all four songs on the EP can be found on this album in studio recording form, and the title track (which is a belting song from a songwriter sadly no longer with us) is a plausible search term, being arguably the band's best known song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - next time, try redirecting to the artist page before nominating for deletion formally. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been made some improvements to the article, hopefully indicating enough coverage to satisfy notability criteria. --OttoJohn (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per nom rationale, this is the only relist I'll do, if there is no more improvement I'm probably going to close this as redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nova Mob (album). It's a CD single with the lead track taken from the album, with three radio session tracks included. It can be adequately covered in the album article. --Michig (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Hart[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO; suboptimal sourcing. Apparently played a few non-minor roles but those productions do not appear notable and have no articles. It could be a WP:TOOSOON case... Input welcome. —PaleoNeonate – 16:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DSLinux[edit]

DSLinux (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)

Had some minor mentions in the gaming press in its time as a curiosity, but nothing significant. Does not pass the WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Barely any sources cover it, generally unnotable. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 18:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Centibyte(talk) 22:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Titans[edit]

Battle of Titans (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)
  • Apparently fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEMOLISH. Updated to include references and citations. User:Adaminblack 13:36, 11 February 2018 (EST)
    • Considering WP:DRAFTS exist, that isn't really much of a viable argument. Either way, the argument is that no matter how "built up" it is, it will still fail WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasonable point ZXCVBNM, probably should have used WP:CHANCE. Game is barely a month of open-beta now, hasn't even seen full release in the entire EU yet, no US release expected for several updates. Working to source and provide appropriate refs as-available now. Would appreciate protips. User:Adaminblack 16:54 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Concur with User:Adaminblack. The article's under development. User:HopsonRoad 19:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Couldn't find anything from the WP:VG/RS google search (here: [6]). Most mentions just refer to the phrase. The sources added to the article do not meet WP:RS-- one is the Facebook page of the game, and the other main source, "Mech Spectrum", is just a Wordpress blog and has no editorial policy on its website. Looks like an interesting concept but it just isn't notable yet. Nomader (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apptime might not be in English, but that's not required? Looks like the page could link to a better location in the website, though: here seems better. User:Adaminblack 04:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at a Google Translate version of the article that's already in the Wikipedia page and the staff page you linked here, it looks like that it might not have been written by a staff member but instead by a normal user (linked here)? There also isn't any sort of editorial policy other than the fact that there are staff members, so it's of questionable reliability. Unfortunately, you really need more than one really reliable source to establish that an article meets WP:GNG, so I still am keeping my delete !vote. Nomader (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of third party reliable sources that cover the subject in detail - fails the WP:GNG. I also don't buy into the "DEMOLISH" defense - quite the opposite, its a rather bad sign if the game has been out for a month already and hasn't seen any coverage in the form of previews or reviews. I don't see any particular reason to believe they're coming any time soon. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG (WP:VGSCOPE specifically) in its current state. If sources and coverage magically appear then this could be revisted, but right now it's not notable and nothing more than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Attractions[edit]

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

The subject of article appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The article is sourced almost entirely from the company's website - not a reason for deletion in itself - but that perhaps reflects the lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources. In the required WP:BEFORE, I noticed that the company may possibly be a subsidiary or subcontractor of Ride Entertainment Group - no prejudice to a WP:REDIRECT to that article. Otherwise, all the mentions of this company in google hits would seem to be those that would be expected of a "run of the mill" company: amusement park industry news, company listings and so on.
As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All sourcing from the company's website. Lacks independent, in-depth sources. A search shows a number of PR related items, but nothing to support inclusion into Wikipedia; however, I would support a redirect. reddogsix (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game Top[edit]

Game Top (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 SPAM Advertisement post, submitted by the company associates in order to gain Search Engine credibility via linking through Wikipedia. Company does not have any credible verifiable references, all references provided are paid press releases. 167.160.109.39 14:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the few references are a press release, a peripheral reference, and several article written by the subject. Nothing demonstrates WP:NCORP notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tokkor[edit]

Tokkor (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. One trivial mention and one unreliable source. Fails WP:NFILM Mar11 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who are you to decide which is reliable or not? This is a newspaper, I didn't give any fake sourcing like facebook or instagram post. Makhamakhi (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep - The article had one trivial mention at the time of Afd. But later, another two sources were added, one of them being Daily Star, one of the best newspapers in Bangladesh. So, easily passes notability, the cast has several well-known actors of Bangladesh. Makhamakhi (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the creator of this page, Makhamakhi, has been indefinitely blocked because of "Disruptive editing: Continuation of same behavior on a shocking scale, even after they were explicitly warned that they'd be indefinitely blocked if they kept it up" by Swarm. --আফতাব (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFP, WP:NFILM. Any type of source from a leading newspaper doesn't mean it's automatically notable. First two source are purely promotional news (I dont know how this is a significant coverage) & i don't see how third source is related to this article. --আফতাব (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Prothom Alo piece is based on a phone interview with the TV channel's general manager of programming, and contains nothing more (cast and crew, plot, broadcast schedule) than one could discern by watching an episode. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, NewsBank, and ProQuest, including by Bengali script name, found no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing deeper than "so-and-so is in blah, blah, Tokkor, and blah". Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:TVSHOW. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Levin[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Zawl 09:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist #1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Penybryn, Tywyn[edit]

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

Article is about a primary school which, though having a long history, seems to be unremarkable. The article is cited to a local archealogical report, but the building does not appear to have any merit (it doesn't have any heritage listing). the third source is WP:OR, being the school's log book. Wikipedia's default is that primary schools aren't automatically notable, time for this one to go? Sionk (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1st relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is indeed a primary school, there are 3 refs but no assertion of notability. Tywyn has a population of 3,000. Szzuk (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasmat[edit]

Phantasmat (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've failed to find any evidence of notability. The article cites three sources: 1 was published by the maker of the product, 2 gives a "not found" message, and 3 does not mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1st relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the subject's own home page and two gamer reviews are insufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Actually looks like many games under the same banner metacritic and GameRankings brought up zero reviews. Is only WP:ITEXISTS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 00:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Brewer[edit]

Robert B. Brewer (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)

Robert B. Brewer was a career U.S. Army officer.During World War II, he served with the 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment and was seriously wounded in the Netherlands. After a break in service following WW II, he rejoined the Army and eventually was promoted to colonel. He served as an intelligence officer with the OSS and CIA during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Much of the information on his page is sourced to a family web site. Brewer does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:SOLDIER or based on any significant coverage after his retirement. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Brewer article is one of those that could be greatly expanded if his accomplishments were on the public record but he was an intelligence officer and they're not. The only reason I've left the text sourced to the family page in the article is that I knew the AfD was on my list.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very interesting article and subject but it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for substantial coverage in reliable indeoendent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted by nom, the bulk of substantive information is sourced to a family website, or to sources which establish rudimentary information like DOB from the SS death index. A RS source from the Center for Military History simply recounts the subject's involvement in the Battle of Quang Tri City but provides no more detailed information. Article fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I saw only a few name checks in Google Books, and no coverage in depth in a web search. Fails notability tests.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage of his Vietnam role + we have the usual band of brothers coverage. Regarding Vietnam: - [7][8][9][10][11] (and some others). Note that being a province senior advisor with the following staff - [12] -may qualify as NPOL/SOLDIER. Note there are quite a few hits as Bob Brewer - e.g. in "Bob Brewer" "Quang Tri" google book search.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage and sources identified by Icewhiz. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice search. I had only found the one ref to Quang Tri. If the result is to keep, we can use these.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hard name (Robert, Bob, and Brewer are all common) - and seems he mostly went in Vietnam as Bob (appearing in many books - including some that he is all over the place (e.g. Team 19 in Vietnam: An Australian Soldier at War where he is on 29 different pages (referring to him as the CO in various instances) - as only the rather informal Bob). Had to filter by his service record. By my count his Quang Tri is present in at least 10 books (+ a journal article) - I didn't assess each one for RSness/quality (but they do appear legit).Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not a notable military figure. There are other websites for this sort of celebratory material. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    His main claim to notability is his CIA career, and particularly his role in managing Quang Tri. While formally he was in army service during his CIA career - this was for the most part a mere formality - evaluating notability via the military perspective would not be correct.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With all due respect to an American hero, the only claim to notability is that the subject was portrayed without credit to the actor in one episode of a miniseries. That is insufficient for purposes of WP:ANYBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rpclod misstates, there is coverage in several books, some already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is SIGCOV of his activities in Vietnam, and note that an individual does not have to qualify under SOLDIER if he has received sufficient coverage for other reasons, in this case, intense post-war analysis of the American role in Vietnam has led to several detailed discussions of his role by writers including Stephen E. Ambrose in his his book Band of Brothers (book).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified above. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the role in Vietnam does not appear to be significant, and the coverage is in passing and / or incidental. Not notable for the WW2 career either, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Icewhiz. This is not a 1E article because Brewer is notable for his role at the CIA managing Quang Tri and for being portrayed on Band of Brothers. I believe that even the former would already justify an article because of the extensive coverage found by Icewhiz. Davey2116 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree that he does not meet WP:SOLDIER, but service in WWII and Vietnam seems to have attracted enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Brewer's service with E Company consisted of parachuting into the Netherlands and being shot; he did not return to the company until late in the war.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz Humbug! 00:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farmacia Central[edit]

Farmacia Central (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:CORP, a pharmacy, speedy deletion was requested twice, but the SPA creator of the article improperly removed the tag. Rusf10 (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supportive Community – Women's Business Development Center[edit]

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

Started by SPA. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. as a press release -- possibly even byspeedy. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has been here for years, has 7 (seven) references spanning more than 3 (three) years of coverage and these references are unrelated to the subject matter. This article seems notable enough to be here, and the original creator is not blocked nor can I find information that they are socking. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, now I see, the author is a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet so this is WP:COI-editing, but still the subject of the article appears notable and indecently supported. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Grameenphone. Any properly sourced content can be merged from page history. Alexa rank isn't an indicator of notability. ansh666 19:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bioscope (Live TV)[edit]

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

Not a notable app, main content is "this app is free and available for ios, android". Does not satisfy GNG or product notability. The sources are nearly all primary (app store, google play store source), either the developer's web site or vanity sources or promotional press releases. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to draft. Does not meet GNG in current state. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to be a product of the notable company Grameenphone, so it strikes me that it may be notable. I can't find reliable sources about it in English, but I suspect there might be more in Bengali, which sadly I don't speak. CapitalSasha ~ talk 07:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think being a product of a notable company would make this more fit for redirect/merge unless we can find some sources. Also seems like too much information for a product unless it really has attracted a lot of users and attention. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that redirect/merge to Grameenphone would be appropriate until/unless additional sources are found. CapitalSasha ~ talk 08:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Bengali source are promotional, same as english source. e.g "watch ... on Bioscope", "Grameenphone launched a new app for watching... " Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete(superseded by below !vote):Note that is a WikiProject Bangladesh. Which has been rated as Low- importance on the project's importance scale. This is not article of an app. This is a dot com company bangladeshi article and bangladeshi currently not too much developed that's why the references are poor. But the website is officialy launched by Grameenphone Limited.Bioscope is first Bangladeshi Live TV. So it is the first article of dot com company. So let me improve and please don't delete it. Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete @Aftabuzzaman: You may wish to start a similar discussion on bnwiki. mahir256 (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete: Hi, Bioscope is an app by which people can enjoy live TV and more streaming. This page is important due to it's uses. This app achieved awards so this article should not be deleted. AhmedLutfeInam 05:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed Lutfe Inam (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - enough coverage for a Bangladeshi site, very good Alexa rank. Störm (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated- The references are updated now. You may watch now.Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 06:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the users who said that this should be merged with the owner Grameenphone. And (a little joke) congratulations to User:Störm for creating history on AFD; once in a blue moon event on AFD. :)  M A A Z   T A L K  14:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, this is rare but I usually avoid voting keep in obvious keeps. Störm (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Your keep vote should be equivalent to 2 instead of 1 (just a wiki joke). :)  M A A Z   T A L K  16:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: Nope! Siddiqsazzad001 (Talk) 15:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Siddiqsazzad001: It most certainly was. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Ammoury[edit]

Tarek Ammoury (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:NHOOPS or WP:GNG. I don't believe that he ever was on the Lebanese national team. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There isn't much about him in the English spoken media but as far as I can see he has spent his entire career in the Lebanese Basketball League so there is a possibility that there is something about him in the Arabic media if anybody wants to give it a shot. Dammit_steve (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed unsourced statement that he was prepping for the 2015 FIBA Asia Championship. True or not, he ultimately did not make the team [13]—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find evidence that he meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in independent sources. Nobody has come forth with non-English coverage, and nothing in SNG that presumes notability for this player.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nyon Energy Park[edit]

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

No indication or evidence of notability. Cannot find evidence that this was ever built. There are many "tank farms" in the world, and it's unclear why this one would be notable, if it was ever constructed. PKT(alk) 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not yet exist. Too little coverage to make it notable without existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chip 'n' Dale merchandise[edit]

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

Article is non-notable and very low-quality. See WP:LISTN. Centibyte(talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Manufactory[edit]

Startup Manufactory (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:CORPDEPTH AFAICT. Created and maintained by an SPA inserting increasingly promotional content. Following earlier CSD-A7. "Puffery but salvageable", quoth the declining admin, but it's only getting worse. Kleuske (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete the article as we had the discussion before. The firm is an integral part of the EU startup ecosystem. This discussion has been resolved before. A repeated threat of unnecessary deletion by a KNF despite earlier CFD-87. Suggested changes reverted back to meet Wiki standards. Discussion closed. (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jennymiller: Please provide a link to hat discussion, since I'm not aware of any. Kleuske (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please clarify "CFD-87" and "KNF". Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a coi article of a nn company, lots of refs that don't support notability. The company had net assets last year of £147 according to company data. Article creator removed afd notice and appears unaware of WP guidelines. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ties record for the lowest ratio of (sources showing notability) to total sources cited. Not notable. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Hill, Suffolk[edit]

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

No sourced content about the place, no indication of independent notability (its got a post office? and?). Should be redirected to Ipswich. Nilfanion (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually add something about it then. Demonstrate how we need this article to talk about Castle Hill. As it stands, we can say everything we need to by having a line in Ipswich saying "one of the suburbs/wards is Castle Hill".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case like Lower Allithwaite it gives some info. It is both a ward and settlement on the OS, see WP:GEOLAND, which makes it a legally recognized place (unlike White City[14]). Unless it is similar to a census tract, which it might be as wards change a lot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A ward isn't a place, and while a ward may be notable, this article is about the place. The area is a "populated place without legal recognition" as a housing estate, and a deletion candidate per GEOLAND. The fact OS records it does not mean it qualifies, they record all sorts of places which aren't notable.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A ward has official boundaries (see the source) just like a state or country has. And if the settlement isn't notable in its own right then the ward doesn't require a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the place. Not the ward. One thing that is clear is that the ward is a completely different area to the place, so should not be handled in the same article.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article can still have facts about the ward, even if it excludes some of the settlement and thus is about both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wards are not the same as census tracts (which are equivalent to the UK's output areas). Peter James (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After some searching, I'm confident Castle Hill is a 1950s-era housing estate built as part of the post-war expansion of Ipswich. My understanding is those are rarely notable.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what Suffolk Churches seems to imply, there is also this, the same appears to be the case for Chantry but that one appears to have more coverage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Fails WP:GEO, the article is about the housing estate not the ward, so needs to pass gng and it doesn't. Szzuk (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I misread, the ward is legally recognised and it is populated, doesn't matter what is in the article really. I misunderstood because I assumed the ward would be called castle hill and dales or something similar because there is a nearby housing estate called the dales that is included in the ward - so we'd fall foul of naming conventions. But the ward is called just 'castle hill' - so no problem. Szzuk (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be an article about both - boundaries may be different, but these are not usually split into two articles, unless they are large enough places with significant differences in boundaries (cities with boundaries including other towns and rural areas) or are entirely different areas. Peter James (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like many basic articles, this is a valid topic; it could be expanded, e.g. referencing the castle (even though the article says there never was one, but see GENUKI Ipswich), or merging with the castle article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NGEO as a populated, legally recognized place. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avishek Karthik[edit]

Avishek Karthik (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 actor, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I can't see if the actor has played a major role in any of the film listed in the article except Kaathadi which is not yet released so fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR third in the credits (credited as Deva) in Nadunisi Naaygal and the leading role in Kaathadi which is released next week which perhaps indicates that both the article and the AFD are slightly premature Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: Do you have any reliable source to support your claim? was his role notable/major? Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of anyone ever credited in a film. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This source [15] confirms leading role in Kaathadi. The WP:NACTOR exact criteria is for significant roles rather than notable/major and he has two significant roles as a lead and a third billing.Having a lead role in a mainstream film is not run of the mill. Atlantic306 (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking for the source about his role in Kaathadi which is alrady there in the article but for other film where he played a significant role which is missing to support this claim. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 11:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. Credited as a part of the main supporting cast in Vaaranam Aayiram and played one of the three lead characters in Nadunisi Naaygal. Both are films by the very notable Gautham Menon. Kaathadi will be out this week. The article also features sources primarily concerning him. Meets WP:NACTOR. Editor 2050 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC) (creator)— Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
As above, the character he played in other films must be notable/major to pass WP:NACTOR and there is no such sources that I can find to support your claim. There is not a single source that talk about the subject directly and in details so this article should be Deleted or Redirect to his upcoming film per WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - added new sources including [16] and [17]. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See I'm very confuse with your soruces above, this source reads Deva owes it to Gautham Menon and this source read For the special screening of Sri Devi's nephew Karthik's debut movie Erra Gulabilu which is very unclear whether the source talking about Avishek Karthik or some other person go with the same surname, now I can't understand who is Deva? if he is Avishek Karthik then we need a source that say he was credited as Deva in Nadunisi Naaygal which I can't find so I hope you understand and cooperate in finding a soruce. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Erra Gulabilu is the dubbed Telugu version of Nadunisi Naaygal - I guess he used "Deva" only for the Tamil version. "Deva" and "Avishek Karthik" are the same person, he's just gone in for a new stage name. Here, he talks about his experience of working on his three films. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the link to Youtube video above is not in English and I can't understand what they are talking about but I listened to the whole video and tried to understand and I think they were talking about the film Kaathadi but I can't find where he said that he was credited as Deva in Nadunisi Naaygal. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Simpson (triathlete)[edit]

Scott Simpson (triathlete) (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 can't find enough independent non-local WP:RS to indicate that he passes WP:GNG. There is no WP:SNG for triathletes, but I suspect that simply competing in the world championships isn't enough in the absence of sourcing.

I checked Google, GBooks, GNews, and found very little. The one book result is a first-person account of running a triathalon, and the result from Dignitas International says right at the bottom that he works for them, so it isn't independent. Otherwise all coverage is local to Toronto. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm not sure how I managed to miss that. But yeah it looks like he doesn't meet the bar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Carol[edit]

Dina Carol (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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. reddogsix (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources in both the English and the Indonesian articles are either self-published or mention her only in passing (1). I found two more sources (2, 3}. Neither is substantial, and I doubt whether the inforitel.com source is independent. Indonesian Wiki has no articles about her TV shows or Goifex or Elite Group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EIRSAT-1[edit]

EIRSAT-1 (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 yet seem to pass WP:GNG. Google News only gives a few results, and they all seem to be routine coverage only. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has a few articles, including BBC coverage - no doubt more articles will appear as project progresses. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. The project is part of a nn Fly Your Satellite! (FYS) program; if the program were notable, I'd say redirect there. But since the article does not exist, there's no suitable redirect target, so it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schizoid pop[edit]

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

Unsourced atticle about yet another putative musical genre, something the world needs like a hole in the head. Actually there was an interesting programme on the wireless yesterday about trepanning; on second thoughts that should be even less than a hole in the head. TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just a term used by one band to describe their music. Not really a genre and definitely not worth an article. --Michig (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it was a term used by a local journalist in Columbus, Ohio to describe Twenty-One Pilots back in 2012 when they were an up-and-coming band [18] – that doesn't make it a genre, and it doesn't mean that ukeleles and rapping are notable features of the "genre", just that this particular band use them occasionally. As far as I can tell the other three bands are mentioned in the article because that's the term they have been tagged with on Last.fm, which is user-generated content and therefore is not reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero reliable source about it. Just because one journalist used it doesn't mean it become anything notable. Also the article author has been blocked as vandalism only account. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Embrich[edit]

Michael Embrich (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 references are mere mentions and are not about the entity. A google news search shows no results of actual articles about this person. The edit history showed that it failed AFC and was published anyways. It looks like an advert created to promote a politician on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor official to be sure. I'm always suspicious about bios the read "he was a member of the military" or words to that effect wihout explaining the significance of the service.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG per my BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, the subject fails WP:GNG. Secondly, it fails both WP:POLITICIAN & WP:SOLDIER, considering the subject as a politician & a soldier respectively. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable soldier or politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cant see anything in the article that shows anything noteworthy to have a stand-alone page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change User is one of the original authors of the Post 9/11 Montgomery GI Bill. Most certainly a notable person who has appeared on cable news and in print with significant coverage. There are multiple artifices that are soley about this person in the refernces, maybe you didn't look at them all. I don't see the difference between this persons page and any other political figures page. A quick google search also shows he is a spokesperson for the US Army. But, if it violates some Wiki-policy, by all means, change the page back to just being about his work lobbying for the GI Bill, thank you. Demsfan12 (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Page seems to have enough references for stand alone page for his lobbying work. The extra stuff can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:8A (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahaveer Junior College[edit]

Mahaveer Junior College (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 junior college not listed in the Pune school lists. No significant coverage provided, only some random profile articles with passing mentions or the school website. Article was created by a user blocked for COI. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A privately owned, for-profit college. Given the background of creator, it is very likely that paid editing is involved. Also, surprisingly, all three contributors to that article except myself are now blocked. One of these three (and his socks) only edited articles of junior (PUC) colleges, and the second one is also suspected for paid editing. This particular article fails WP:GNG, paid editing might be the case here. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable college. Edit history is also surprising, contains edits of blocked COI editors. Capitals00 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY, hopefully a new trend has emerged to actually start following policy regarding non-notable listings Atsme📞📧 12:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kashish News[edit]

Kashish News (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:NMEDIA. MT TrainDiscuss 14:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:GNG, WP:Corp and WP:NMEDIA.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were sourced properly (and had some actual substance to it), then it would certainly be kept per WP:NMEDIA — but it's not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists. For one thing, on a Google search I'm not finding any hard evidence that it exists as an actual television channel — what I'm finding is significantly more suggestive of a non-notable new media startup on YouTube than an established or reputable newsgathering organization. If I'm wrong about that, then source it properly, because it's the sourcing that determines whether it's notable enough for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Family[edit]

Take the Family (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)

Speedied this, but the speedy removed cos there is sourcing. The editor who removed the speedy replaced it with a PROD, commenting that the coverage was run-of-the-mill. Which I agree with. And the PROD removed by (eyes do not widen in disbelief) by page creator. In a word. fails WP:GNG. TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclosure: I created the page. I would disagree that it fails notability, the site was created in 2003 and is probably the number 1 family travel guide website in the UK. They have been mentioned multiple times in the Guardian and the Daily Mail - as per sources. Surely the references speak for themselves: "The site has been rated among the '50 Best Travel Websites' in The Independent[4] and in July 2013 it was described by the Mail Online as 'Easily the best family travel website pitched at UK holidaymakers'." - You are basically disagreeing with competent travel journalists that actually know what they are talking about. If the biggest newspapers in the UK are "run of the mill" that what hope is there for any reference I would ask? - Colinmcdermott (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist know what they are talking about??? I think not.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked the refs, they are trivial mentions or daily mail. Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ignored sock vote Spartaz Humbug! 00:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noorin Shereef[edit]

Noorin Shereef (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 individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.41.59 (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Created for IP using rational given in speedy delete tag ~ GB fan 12:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Genuine Article ATK55 talk 13:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Fbofficl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notable model and beauty pageant titleholder who was crowned Miss Kerala Fitness 2017 with reliable sources. She acted in a film and another one is in pre production. even pre-production movie's cast aren't notable to be encyclopedic but as she acted in a film and won the crown Miss Kerala Fitness is notable for encyclopedia and the topic is well covered in media. Passes WP:ENT and WP:NMODEL. --119.30.38.137 (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — 119.30.38.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per nomination, not yet notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC, or as winner of a non-notable local beauty pageant per WP:NMODEL. The two-paragraph Deccan Chronicle reference from January notes that she's so far only had one minor role in a feature film. I can find no substantial coverage of her in WP:RS online, only passing mentions of her in articles about her upcoming film in pre-production, along with the usual promotion on social media. The article is WP:TOOSOON, though she may well become notable as her career progresses. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sub-national beauty pageant winners are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per @The Mighty Glen AyaanLamar (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jacob[edit]

Peter Jacob (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:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate for public office. All of the coverage surrounding him is about his campaigns and he doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC) I would support redirecting this article to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018 per the standard outcomes at WP:POLOUTCOMES. 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: failed politician bio. Quis separabit? 19:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes failed politician bio but passes the general notability guideline. As a reminder, the politician rule says Just being ... an unelected candidate ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and Jacob easily passes with in-depth coverage here and here and here and here and here and here and elsewhere. The nominator's argument that All of the coverage surrounding him is about his campaigns and he doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG is bogus -- it would be like saying that all of the coverage about Henry Ford was about his automobile business, therefore it doesn't count and he doesn't meet the GNG. Politicians get covered about politics; business people about business. Both Ford and Jacob are notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Tomwsulcer --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 08:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage in reliable and verifiable sources above and beyond his political activities that meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage of all candidates in all election campaigns always exists, but we have a rule that because we do not want Wikipedia to devolve into a collection of campaign brochures for unsuccessful candidates, the bar that a candidate normally has to clear is "wins the election and thereby holds a notable office", not just "has coverage of the campaign". If having some campaign-related coverage in and of itself were all it took to get an unelected candidate over GNG, then we would have to always keep an article about every unelected candidate who ever ran in any election at all. There is admittedly a "special case" provision where a candidate can keep an article just for being a candidate if they can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for unelected candidates — i.e. Christine O'Donnell, who got so much coverage and became such an international household name for her witch thing that our article about her is actually about 50 per cent longer, and cites three times as many references, than our article about the actual officeholder she lost to — but the volume and depth and breadth of referencing here are not marking Jacob out as an unusual case who got more coverage than most other non-winning candidates for Congress also got. It's not showing him as a special case whose candidacy was more notable than everybody else's candidacy — it's just the completely normal depth and range and volume that every candidate could also show. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You mean you have a rule; we (the community) have rules clearly specified by WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG -- please read them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not have my own special personal rule for determining the notability of politicians outside of existing Wikipedia practice — every word in my comment was and is correctly reflective of Wikipedia's established consensus about how a non-winning candidate for office becomes notable enough to have a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate. It is not sufficient to point to how an article technically meets the letter of a Wikipedia inclusion test — rather, you need to be familiar with the corpus of how AFD has actually responded in similar situations: campaign-related coverage always exists for all candidates, but we do not automatically accept all candidates as notable for that per se, so the coverage does have to expand significantly beyond what every other candidate could also show before it makes mere candidacy an includable notability claim in and of itself. NPOL is significantly outdated, in fact, and requires a significant rewrite that just hasn't been undertaken yet, so the fact that it doesn't already explicitly say that doesn't mean it's not true. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you, Bearcat, know the correction interpretation of WP:NPOL, but the guideline as written, is outdated and wrong. Seriously?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all what I said. For one thing, not one syllable in NPOL suggests that anything I said is even slightly wrong in the first place. And for two, I'm not expressing a personal opinion that differs so much as one iota from established consensus about unelected candidates. The simple fact is that Wikipedia does not automatically accept an unelected candidate for political office as notable just because some campaign-related coverage exists, precisely because every candidate for any office could always show some campaign-related coverage. The key to making a candidate notable enough for an article because candidate per se is to show that she's significantly more notable than the norm by virtue of having generated outsized coverage that goes significantly above and beyond what every other candidate could also show — not because I said so, but because AFD consensus established that years ago. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Bearcat said is what has always been my understanding as well. There are many political candidates for every elective office and there is invariably news coverage of them, but to establish their enduring encyclopedic notability, we need to show that the coverage extends beyond local and routine coverage of their candidacy. Marquardtika (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Show us the rule that says this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL + WP:POLOUTCOMES + WP:ROUTINE + WP:MILL Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL is official policy; it suggests Jacob is notable since he passes the WP:GNG. WP:POLOUTCOMES is not official policy. WP:ROUTINE is about events not people. WP:MILL is not official policy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have always agreed that the election campaign is notable, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010" --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL: No, a candidate for office does not pass GNG just because campaign-related coverage exists — as I've pointed out several times already, campaign-related coverage always exists for every candidate in any election, but we have an established consensus that every candidate in any election is not automatically notable. Making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article does require evidence that he or she is substantively more notable than most other candidates who don't qualify for articles — namely, by showing that significantly more coverage exists than usual — and is not demonstrated by the mere existence of the same depth and range of coverage that everybody else could also show. People have to pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, not just to be temporarily newsy, to qualify for Wikipedia articles — which means officeholders, not unelected candidates.
POLOUTCOMES: Per WP:ONLYESSAY, precedents listed at Common Outcomes are binding in the absence of a compelling reason to make an exception, and are not ignorable just because they're not "policy" per se. Guidelines exist as clarifiers of how policy is actually applied in actual practice, not just as floating randomness — the principle is that policy states what to do, while guidelines state how to do it, and so they work in tandem with each other. So guidelines do matter and do require good reasons to break them.
ROUTINE: No, routine is not only about the notability of events themselves, but rather many of its own stated examples do speak to whether certain types of events count toward establishing the notability of people involved in those events — see, for example, the part about how wedding and death notices don't establish the notability of the bride, the groom or the corpse in and of themselves.
MILL: See what I said about POLOUTCOMES, because the issue is the same. It's an accurate reflection of a genuine issue on Wikipedia — we really, truly can't maintain an article about every house in existence just because every house in existence is technically sourceable somewhere, and on and so forth — so it's not ignorable just because it's an essay. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The people voting keep have confused widespread coverage of the election including incidental coverage of the candidates with actual widespread coverage of the individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reply is that one can't dis-associate people from what they do. Farmers farm. Writers write. So coverage of a farmer will be about farming. Ditto political people: coverage will be about their positions and statements and endorsements etc, and disqualifying this information is nonsensical. And the "incidental" versus "widespread" distinction is a POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the point is that every candidate in any election can always show some coverage about their positins and statements and endorsements. It's ROUTINE and MILL, because every candidate for any political office could always be sourced to that kind of coverage — but we explicitly don't accept that every candidate for any political office is always notable. The key to getting a candidate over the bar is to demonstrate that either (a) his or her candidacy is somehow more notable than everybody else's candidacy, by virtue of having garnered a lot more and/or wider coverage than everybody else could also show, and/or (b) that he or she would already have qualified for an article for some other reason completely independent of the candidacy and its attendant coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tomwsulcer, substantial in-depth coverage so I think Jacob passes GNG. Davey2116 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every candidate in any election could always show campaign-related coverage, but Wikipedia has an established consensus that candidates are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates per se. The coverage shown here is not marking Jacob out as a special case who's more notable than most other candidates for any reason. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- Failure of WP:POLITICIAN and his non-political activity is not notable. There is one, just one article about him before his candidacy [19]. And really the article isn't about him, its about an organization he coordinates. And the article is not even in a notable publication, its in the town newspaper, even though it is hosted on the star-ledger's website, it was never published in that paper. At the top of the page it says "suburban news" which is basically just the local town newspaper (I guess the Star Ledger owns it).--Rusf10 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. If the depth and breadth of coverage shown here were enough to get a candidate into Wikipedia on WP:GNG grounds despite not passing WP:NPOL, then every single candidate for any political office at all would always qualify for an article on GNG grounds despite not passing NPOL, because every candidate always gets at least this much coverage in the context of the campaign itself. But our rule is quite explicitly that candidates don't qualify for articles on here just for being candidates per se — a candidate has to be shown as significantly more notable than most other candidates before he qualifies, and the sourcing here isn't suggesting that Jacob's candidacy is anything out of the ordinary. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe the depth and scope of coverage here helps pass WP:GNG. There's a lot more written about Mr. Jacob than for most candidates for office. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there really isn't. Of the 14 footnotes here, five are to sources that can never be used to assist notability at all — Ballotpedia, YouTube, a non-notable activist organization's self-published website — and what's left after those are taken out is not an unusual volume or range or depth of coverage for an election candidate. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The person does easily pass WP:GNG despite losing an election. And no, in-depth press coverage by the national and state press do not always cover every candidate. In fact, there were many congressional races when a candidate of one party or another was the overwhelming favorite with their opponents not even getting support from their own party who did not receive GNG passing coverage. For example Congressional Democratic incumbent Nancy Pelosi's most recent Republican opponent Bob Miller did not receive GNG-passing in-depth coverage, despite running against such a high profile candidate. --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that not every candidate receives a huge volume of coverage equal to what an already nationally known figure like Nancy Pelosi would get, but every candidate does always get enough media coverage that they could at least try to claim that they had passed GNG on "media coverage exists" grounds (a test which some people wrongly think is passed the moment the number of sources in an article exceeds one.) Media coverage of candidates does not fail to exist, even in the case of fringe no-hopers — unelected candidates do not fail to get any coverage at all, but often do fail to get enough coverage to make them more notable than most other candidates. And eight or nine pieces of proper media coverage is not an unusual volume of coverage that would satisfy the "more notable than most other candidates" criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer, Tomwsulcer, AlansohnDjflem (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- As pointed out by Bearcat above, I've got to say that the sourcing for this particular article is incredibly weak even when compared to other unelected candidates. Other one Newark Star-Ledger article and the subruban news article mentioned above, I wouldn't consider any of the current sourcing in the article to be reliable. And the Star-Ledger articlesaren't even exclusively about the subject so the requirement for in-depth coverage is not met. The only in-depth rs coverage comes from the local Morristown Daily Record and that's just one article. I don't see this article passing WP:GNG under any circumstance.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following publications/websites are among those used as references in the article and support the article: The Times of India, Politicker Network, NJ Spotlight, Daily Record (Morristown), Our Revolution, CBS News, Washington University in Saint Louis, The New York Times, NJ.com/The Star-Ledger, Insider NJ, India West NDTV Justice Democrats, The Economic Times, The Hindu Djflem (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just added some of those. The Times of India article might help. The New York Times doesn't count, all it has is election results, its not an article. The Washington University source is basically nothing more than a press release highlighting a former alum. I already discussed the Daily Record and Star-Ledger above. And the rest of them are not reliable sources. The only in-depth independent rs coverage comes from the Times of India and a local newspaper, that's it. That hardly passes GNG (if at all) and does not pass WP:NPOL--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us who actually write articles know about Wikipedia:Verifiability, thank you.Djflem (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you should know is that just because something is verifiable does not necessarily mean it also is notable, thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from telling me what I "should know". Wikipedia:Verifiability states that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, which they can do for themselves and thus ignore the opinions of one editor. Djflem (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since initial listing and re-listing, article has been expanded with significant refs addressing concerns.Djflem (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commont "more common than the norm" is from an essay and is not part of any guideline, nor is it supported by any history of decisions here. (I am not necessarily saying it shouldn't be considered, but it has not been.) DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently meets GNG. I think most losing candidate from a major party for national office in the US two party system probably could be shown to be notable , if enough effort were made for sourcing. SAnd obviously all or almost all references for a politician will be about their political career--that's what politicians are notable for, unless they happen to be notable fortheir prior or subsequent careers also) All the NPOL says is that they are not considered so by default. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability outside the election... which he lost. Fails npol. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is "notability outside the election" a valid requirement for any politician? Yes, Jacob lost election but meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every candidate in any election would always meet GNG if coverage of the campaign itself were all it took to get a candidate over GNG. For a non-winning candidate to be deemed as passing GNG despite their failure to win the election, the person does have to be shown as clearing another notability standard for another reason outside of the campaign itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above with its example, every candidate does not receive GNG-passing coverage such as this person has.--Oakshade (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018, as per the standard outcome as discussed in WP:POLOUTCOMES, per my comments above. All of the coverage of the subject appears in the context of the election. It takes a lot of effort to keep Wikipedia an area free from becoming a repository of campaign information. In the version I am reading, there are quite a few statements that are positive spin from the candidate or their supporters, that are either unreferenced or creep into original research. Much of the information on the existing page, can live in the page about the election (either 2016 on 2018). --Enos733 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Cybersecurity (book)[edit]

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

This article is about a book and appears to have been written by one of the book's authors. I have been unable to find any reviews of this book online and believe it fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I didn't see any reviews for the book other than those on Goodreads and Amazon either. Centibyte(talk) 17:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Betty McGuire[edit]

Betty McGuire (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: insufficiently notable American actress. Quis separabit? 03:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete We really should make having only IMDb as a source grounds for speedy deletion, with the only way to stop it being to add a source other than IMDb. Nothing short of that seems likely to end this mass misuse of this non-reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems excessive, plenty of actors mentioned on the IMDb have references elsewhere, speedy deleting based on that criterium wouldn't give the articles a fair chance to be referenced by other more reliable sources. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 10:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yarnsdale[edit]

Yarnsdale (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, as per the article it is a "small sandstone quarry", so I really don't see its significance. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Other than a few trivial mentions in local guides, nothing to show this passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article, or in the trivial mentions, shows it meets WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 TT me 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND because it's a named natural feature. Yarnsdale is a dale – and its name means heron valley, on account of its water and birdlife. The quarry is a particular feature which is now of interest to climbers but there's plenty more to say about the place. Andrew D. (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable per WP:GEOLAND, and WP:GEOFEAT is not applicable. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Which part of WP:GEOLAND does this fall under? Populated Places? Nobody lives there. Disputed Regions? I don't think so Named natural features?- A quarry is man-made, not natural.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you were it a quarry: per sources, it appears to be a valley (Named natural feature) which contains a quarry. Quarries don't contain streams, see: [20] SportingFlyer (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is Yarnsdale not Yarnsquarry, a dale is a natural feature and it is obviously named. Szzuk (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has emerged in this discussion. Sources were presented later in the discussion by a user, but no other participants have provided a critique of those sources. Also, the second delete !vote (after the nomination) appears to be assessing notability based upon the sources presently in the article, which differ from those presented later in the discussion. Note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is to be based upon overall available suitable sources about a topic, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America1000 19:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explore (education)[edit]

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Five of the six "sources" here are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and the one real media footnote just verifies a fact about an affiliated school but completely fails to even mention this topic at all in conjunction with it. Which means there's no WP:GNG pass here, because the only reliable source in the entire article is completely tangential to the article's topic. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Keating, Nicole (March 1989). "The Summer Language Bursary Program: A Canadian Success Story". Canadian Modern Language Review. Vol. 45, no. 3. pp. 457–463. Archived from the original on 2018-02-17. Retrieved 2018-02-17.

      The "Summer Language Bursary Program" was created in 1971 and renamed to Explore in 2004.

      The abstract of the 17-page article notes:

      Canada's Summer Language Bursary Program is a joint national-provincial effort providing immersion in French- or English-as-a-Second-Language to Canadian students. Despite 18 years of success and the benefits gained at small expense, the program is not well-known and risks losing funding. Self-promotion and lobbying are necessary. (Author/MSE)

    2. Rosenthal, Judith W. (2013) [2000]. Handbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Routledge. pp. 197–198. ISBN 113567664X. Retrieved 2018-02-17.

      The book notes:

      The Summer Language Bursary Program (SLBP) is an important program for Canadian students that supports end of secondary and postsecondary French and English learning <www.cmec.ca/olp/, 1999>. Intensive 5-week immersion courses in either or both languages, supplemented with cultural activities and contact with native speakers, are run by some 40 postsecondary institutions across Canada for students between Grade 11 (Quebec high school graduation) and second-year university. Bursaries, awarded across the country by lottery, defray the cost of tuition, instructional materials, and living expenses for between 3,000 and 4,000 Canadian students each summer. The program is funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage and administered by the government department responsible for postsecondary education in each of the provinces and territories in conjunction with the Council of Ministers of Education (Department of Canadian Heritage, 1999).

      The Official Languages Monitor Program (OLMP) is another program that encourages postsecondary langauge learning and that provides financial aid to students. It is also funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Program is for bilingual postsecondary students who agree to study outside of their home province, usually in an area where their second official language is dominant. They work in tutorial or teacher's aid positions in schools or postsecondary institutions in their first language and receive fellowships to help cover their tuition fees. This program benefits not only the over 1,000 students who participate annually but also the second language programs in which they work (Department of Canadian Heritage, 1999).

    3. Hayday, Matthew (2005). Bilingual Today, United Tomorrow: Official Languages in Education and Canadian Federalism. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 077357736X. Retrieved 2018-02-17.

      The book notes:

      The Canadian government also created two programs related to official languages in education outside of the BEP umbrella. The Summer Language Bursary Program was launched in 1971 to provide grants to postsecondary students who wanted to undergo a short-term intensive training program in their second-language during the summer months. In 1973 this was followed up with the Official Language Monitors Program, under which students from either official languages would work together with a teacher in a school where their language was the minority-language. These programs were funded completely by the federal government and administered by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC).

      The book also notes:

      ... Feeling specifically targeted by the federal government, Quebec refused to commit itself to future involvement in the Summer Language Bursary and Official Language Monitors programs (which were normall negotiated separately) until the BEP issue was settled, effectively freezing these two programs. (The Summer Language Bursary Program allowed university students to travel to another province to spend several weeks learning their second language in an immersion environment. The Official Language Monitors Program paid university students, usually from French-language communities, to work as teaching assistants with second-language teachers.)

    4. Fäcke, Christiane (2014). Manual of Language Acquisition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 501. ISBN 311030225X. Retrieved 2018-02-17.

      The article notes:

      In addition to the adult-oriented programs listed above, Canadians can participate in intensive immersion courses through the federally sponsored Explore program (cf. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 2012). This program provides students with a $2,200 bursary that covers tuition, meals and accommodation for five weeks in the spring or summer. It is an opportunity for francophones to immerse themselves in English and for anglophones to immerse themselves in French. The bursary is not guaranteed and is distributed through a lottery system. Successful applicants are placed in one of 30 different institutions for the study of French (mainly, but not exclusively, in Quebec).

    5. "Students rally against rape culture at government funded Explore Program". Daily Hive. 2015-07-24. Archived from the original on 2018-02-17. Retrieved 2018-02-17.

      The article notes:

      Founded in 1971, the Explore Program was created with the intent of providing students with opportunities to learn French in an immersive cultural experience.

      The five-week program has spring and summer sessions, consisting mostly of high school and university students who travel to over 20 participating institutions. The Explore Program (age 18+) and Destination Clic (grades 8-9) are funded through the Council of Minsters of Education, Canada (CMEC).

      For Explore, most full-time applicants will receive a bursary to the tune of $2,200 (per student), paid directly to the institution to cover tuition, accommodation, food, and recreational and leisure activities. It’s a significant government investment in developing Francophone language and heritage across Canada.

      I couldn’t find numbers of how many students go through the program every year, but it’s so popular that there’s actually a lottery draw for applicants. The most popular destinations (Montreal and Quebec City) are invariably oversubscribed, so most students wishing to attend school within Quebec usually end up in a smaller town like Trois-Rivières or Chicoutimi.

    6. Hayday, Matthew (2015). So They Want Us to Learn French: Promoting and Opposing Bilingualism in English-Speaking Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 0774830077. Retrieved 2018-02-17.

      The book notes:

      In 1971, the Secretary of State started funding the Summer Language Bursary Program (renamed the Explore Program in 2004), administered by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), permitting university-aged students to spend several weeks immersed in the other language community. In 1973, it added the Official Languages Monitor Program (renamed the Odyssey Program in 2004), also with the CMEC, that funded university-aged students to work as teachers' language assistants in communities across the country.

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Per the uncontested sources proffered by Cunard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bennetts Associates[edit]

Bennetts Associates (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 can't see how this meets WP:CORP. It's an architecture practice, and has worked on several notable buildings; some of that work has received coverage in the press, and the company has been mentioned in that context. It received a nomination for the Stirling Prize in 2011. Apart from a couple of sentences in this book, I can find no significant in-depth coverage of the company itself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (suggest the WP:AFC process for a possible Rab Bennetts or Denise Bennetts article) I've only been able to locate a handful of sources, the best amongst them listed below. At the time I first received a COI edit request for the Bennetts Associates article, the founder was listed (alone) as Rab Bennetts. On the website he is listed as Denise Bennetts partner. The COI editor who made the request wanted her listed as co-founder. He has received an OBE[1] and she is listed in Who's Who.[2] For the article to remain, I believe it should be established that the firm on its own is notable. But I don't believe it is notable, as the other architects at that firm haven't established a presence that goes beyond the Bennetts — in other words, the two Bennetts are the firm — and the firm's notability would not exist without them. Yes there should be a Rab or Denise Bennetts article but No there shouldn't be one for the offices that these two work at. According to WP:ARTN, notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. By having an article named Bennetts Associates, the assumption is that the firm is the subject. But the subject to whom that notability is conferred to is the Bennetts — for it is they who are the subject of the article, and not their firm. If anything, the article is mislabled, and the information contained in it should be proposed through AFC as an article on the Bennetts. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Commission for Architecture and the Purpose-Built Environment — Appointments and Reappointments — Biographical notes: Rab Bennetts, OBE" (PDF). Gov.UK. UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport. December 2010.
  2. ^ "Bennetts, Denise Margaret Mary, (born 26 Jan. 1953), Co-Founder and Director, Bennetts Associates Architects, since 1987". Who's Who & Who Was Who. Bloomsbury Publishing plc., Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.58789.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Weston, Richard; Carolin, Peter; Duffy, Frank; Lovell, Vivien (2005). Bennetts Associates: Four Commentaries. London: Black Dog Publishing. ISBN 1904772153. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

      From https://www.amazon.com/Bennetts-Associates-Commentaries-Peter-Carolin/dp/1904772153:

      Since its foundation in 1987, Bennetts Associates has won numerous awards for its work and has established itself in the UK as one of the leading architecture practices of its generation. This is the first book to examine the firm's ethos and the themes behind its buildings. Four aspects of Bennetts Associates' work are considered in depth-Perception, Form, Construction and Process-drawing on over 30 built projects in detail, as well as many others in various stages of design and construction. These projects, include Hampstead Theatre, the Wessex Water Headquarters, Brighton Central Library and the New Street Square development in the City of London.

      Each of the underlying themes is examined in turn by four well-known writers or commentators - academics Richard Weston and Peter Carolin, design process theorist Frank Duffy and art consultant Vivien Lovell.

    2. Edwards, Brian W.; Naboni, Emanuele (2013). Green Buildings Pay: Design, Productivity and Ecology (3 ed.). Oxon: [Routledge]]. p. 183. ISBN 1136179003. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

      The book notes:

      Queen Elizabeth II Court is the headquarters of Hampshire County Council (HCC), which carries out administrative functions for a large area of southern England. The building (known formerly as Ashburton Court) houses today 1,100 staff although, when constructed in 1960, it housed only 600. Hence, this example of eco-refurbishment is not only the result of green retrofitting but of improving the efficiency and intensity of the use of office space. The project was undertaken by architects Bennetts Associates, one of the UK's most successful designers of green buildings.

    3. Yudelson, Jerry (2012). Green Building Trends: Europe. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN 1610911342. Retrieved 2018-02-15.

      The book notes:

      Rab Bennetts founded the eponymous Bennetts Associates Architects and is one of the leading proponents of green buildings in the United Kingdom. Bennetts is well known for several landmark projects, including the Brighton Library. He started the firm in 1987 and now employs about seventy people at two offices in London and Edinburgh.

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • That the architectural firm Bennetts Associates was the subject of the Black Dog Publishing book Bennetts Associates: Four Commentaries written by academics Richard Weston and Peter Carolin, design process theorist Frank Duffy, and art consultant Vivien Lovell strongly establishes it is notable.

    Cunard (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As per 2 of 3 the sources provided by Cunard above. The second source is a mere mention-in-passing but the other two meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zippr[edit]

Zippr (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 does not prove its subject to be notable. It looks like a run-of-the-mill mobile app, like billions of others, that come and go every day. (Actually, the article is about an app, a company and a scheme.) It does not seem to have any impact. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zippr is mentioned in multiple good sources, such as
  • It's potentially important in India, where addresses follow no rhyme or reason, from what I've read. Centibyte(talk) 17:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable company who claims to have introduced a new concept for addresses, but does not provide any references to support the claim that it is widely adopted. All references are primary and can be sourced to the company as a promo. Fails WP:GNGWP:NORG and is a case of WP:TOSOON. If there is enough traction on the concept then it can in the future have an article. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 00:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a pretty minor product at best. I don't see any hope for notability, but maybe it's just too soon to tell. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Srabonti Kar[edit]

Urmila Srabonti Kar (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 actress. unreliable sources and no notable works or awards whatsoever. Mar11 (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very notable actress, you search in bengali "ঊর্মিলা শাবন্তী কর" Makhamakhi (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's true that there are no awards, and the notability of roles/shows is difficult to evaluate, but I replaced the unreliable celebs website with a reliable newspaper article, and added some potential sources to a "further reading" section. The only source of substantial depth is [21], but WP:BASIC allows multiple sources that individually are not deep to be combined in order to demonstrate notability. For that purpose there are also these 33 subscription hits on HighBeam. I feel that's enough without analyzing the 67 Google News results in Bengali. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep--Not too convinced about encyclopedic notability but seems a borderline-pass.~ Winged BladesGodric 12:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelbee Myne[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly an in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as the XRCO Award category ("Unsung Siren") is not significant and well known. Significant RS coverage not found. Being on a list of "Ten Underrated Porn Performers We Love" strongly suggests a lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails PORNBIO, and sources to support subject meets [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]] have not been found. Sam Sailor 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Weekley Homes[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:ORG Most reliable sources are typical news reports; no indication that this passes WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article created and edited by multiple WP:SPA accounts. The given sources are poor, the best being a listing at no.16 in a "2017 Builder 100". I can also see indication of some "Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago" awards ([22] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ): enough to confirm a company going about its business but not for WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent reliable sources. The "2017 Builder 100" text is written by the company, from all the "we's" in it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - badly fails any test of notability that I know we have. This is little more than spam (see the Builder 100 source cited above). Bearian (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Rowell[edit]

Doug Rowell (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 seems to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Despite a very long list of references, none of them appear to discuss the subject in any depth. The article is basically just a resume and neither WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO seem to be met. Note that some of the more RS referenced do not even mention the subject: e.g. [23] [24]. SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MoonShell[edit]

MoonShell (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 homebrew software application that doesn't pass WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Zutons. Merge as you will Spartaz Humbug! 00:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boyan Chowdhury[edit]

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

No notability outside the band, fails WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. — Zawl 09:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Most famous for" ≠ "only known for". Has notability of his own and has been involved with other musical projects. See this source about another band he's been involved with and this one for a collaboration he's done with another artist, both reliable sources discussing him specifically. ElAhrairah inspect damage⁄berate 11:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some local coverage, some peripheral, nothing which supports WP:MUSICBIO notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline is more important than MUSICBIO. ElAhrairah inspect damage⁄berate 19:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Has done something else" ≠ "notable for having done something else". Elahrairah's assertion that Chowdhury has notability of his own beyond The Zutons is unconvincing. The brief announcement in NME of his forming The Gravity Trap ten days after leaving The Zutons is the press squeezing a smidgen more out of the departure-from-The-Zutons news cycle. Nothing more is ever heard of The Gravity Trap. The sum total of information about his third band, The Venus Fury, is one sentence in the Southport Reporter giving the lineup for a local music festival, and four sentences in Liverpool magazine Waxxx. This is not the meaty coverage from which a comprehensive biography can be constructed. As for the Liverpool Echo piece, it's an interview in which Chowdhury is touting the show, so it is not evidence of notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Zutons {{R from member}} per WP:MUSICBIO, because individual notability has not been demonstrated, and he does not meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Attention participants (Zawl—Rpclod) Would either or both of you be satisfied with redirect? Can we avoid this being relisted again, or worse yet kept because of no consensus? The name is a plausible search term; redirects are cheap; and redirection is a well-established alternative to deletion, solidly grounded in policy - an alternative particularly appropriate for non-notable members of a notable group. The most common argument I hear against redirection is that some editor might turn it back into an article. I, for one, am prepared to watch the title for a few years to make sure that doesn't happen unless substantial new sources are presented. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with redirect to The Zutons, without expressing any opinion regarding the notability of the group.--Rpclod (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Refs are too weak for a standalone article. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject meets GNG as he has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources which establishes standalone notability. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't received such coverage separate from the band he was in, and we already have an article on the band, so WP:MUSICBIO advises redirecting his name to the band. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close I have returned it to draftspace. The article was unilaterally moved from draftspace to mainspace by someone other than the author or an AFC reviewer, it is in fact still pending review at AFC. . Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (web framework)[edit]

Phoenix (web framework) (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 satisfy software notability or general notability based on in-depth independent coverage. The sources are not independent, but are associated with the developer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Philip Morris International#Controversies. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 01:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad (Philip Morris front)[edit]

Libertad (Philip Morris front) (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 non-notable organisation that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. No coverage in significant reliable sources, with the only substantial coverage on the company being from wiki site SourceWatch which seems to source it's content from primary tobacco industry documents. No content worth saving, and the title would not be a plausible redirect. Kb.au (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any chance of a Merge with Philip Morris? There's not a lot there, but perhaps a sourced sentence could be added to that page. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. Merge the article into the Phillip Morris article's Controversy section unless someone can find enough info on Libertad to merit keeping it. The information we already have is significant and should be kept on Wikipedia somehow. Centibyte(talk) 18:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There's no independent value. If it is because of Philip Morris and therefore should belong to Philip Morris's article. Acnetj (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Crow#In other media. J04n(talk page) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Crow (card game)[edit]

The Crow (card 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)

Collectible card game that does not appear to pass notability guidelines. The only sources listed with substantial information are brandonlee.com and cardboardconnection, neither or which appear reliable. My own searches don't come up with any information. Pretty much just a one-time release of Crow-inspired cards that was really not notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that sources that are not online, are not substantial? Isn't that a fallacy of logic? Two of the sources are full on books in my possession. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are collectible card game guides. Being listed in a guide does not establish notability. The full on books are not books about the Crow and they do nothing to establish that the topic is any more notable than any other entry in the book. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
El cid, el campeador Can you show me this policy in Wikipedia? I'd like to learn more. Where does it say that a book or magazine has to specifically be about one subject matter to be notable? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
El cid, el campeador Let me guess, there is no policy per your argument, as determined by your silence. Willing to stand corrected though. Addendum: Doing a little digging here, and it appears to me that per WP:PSTS, these guides, or "compendia", are tertiary sources and Wikipedia states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." So, it doesn't specifically rule out tertiary sources, in fact, you can interpret that to say articles can use them to support articles. I've always known you can use primary sources in limited fashion, but tertiary sources are also useful to support the existence of something. These tertiary sources are reliable, because they are published by major publication companies such as Random House, Krause, and McFarland, which means they go through editorial review. So far, your statement "the only sources listed with substantial information" is blatantly and factually incorrect. It appears to me that The Cardboard Connection, could actually be a secondary source as it has dozens and dozens of articles from the company, which I imagine are probably peer-reviewed, and are definitely referenced on other Wikipedia articles such as trading cards. There is substantial information in two sources you don't have direct access to and you're trying to outright dismiss one of the online sources. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Leitmotiv: - can you try to learn how to actually notify users before you lose your mind at them? Goodness. Being listed in a guide does not establish notability - why would it? Try to apply common sense. Stop taking things personally for no reason. *eye roll emoji* ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
El cid, el campeador My response was calm and metered and you were adequately pinged (twice). All I'm asking is for a direct answer to my question... which you still haven't supplied, but have instead only provided your opinion. So in response to your personal opinion, I ask again, "Where does it say that a book or magazine has to specifically be about one subject matter to be notable?" Please don't repeat yourself like you just did. I have offered Wikipedia policy, something you have not done. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv: WP:GNG. That is all the policy I need to nominate this for deletion. And stop making strawmen, as I clearly never said a topic had to have an entire book about it to be notable. Nothing about your reaction has been calm, and you really don't know how to ping people (twice). I am not going to respond to this thread anymore because you are just taking this AfD personally and I don't want to get dragged into the muck. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
El cid, el campeador, it appears that pinging got your attention again. Read whatever tone you want into my statements, but you're the one hearing the tone in your head (your own inner voice), so look no further than the mirror for your reality.
Of course you won't personally respond (the onus is on the you to defend your AfD nomination), because your running out of rebuttals. Your blanket reply of "WP:GNG" without pointing out specifics suggests you don't have any, and you're throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. Your argument sounds hollow, because it is. Even the policy you're quoting defines notability "[generally]" but not "specifically" but you do specifically state a "guide" is not notable without specifically stating how, not even in "general" wiki terms.
But I'll respond to WP:GNG: It states "significant" and "independent" coverage, which a book or guide is specifically just that and your own source even states it "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Many would argue a book is a secondary source, even a "guide". Your stated Wiki policy is "general", whereas the policy I stated (WP:PSTS) goes into further detail allowing even tertiary sources. Your whole argument is devoid of substance and full of things you claim I'm doing. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge - El cid, el campeador's argument against the sources was: "the full on books are not books about the Crow", suggesting books need to be solely on one topic. But his own citing of Wikipolicy WP:GNG says the opposite: "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Leitmotiv (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge it's clear it exists, but there's not a lot of significant independent coverage out there online. Upper Deck was considering a reboot a couple years ago, but there's another card game called Crow which also comes up which is played with a 52-deck set of cards. If there's a suitable merge candidate - perhaps the movie, it was a movie, right? - that might be best. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Have you reviewed the sources supplied in the article. They are suitable secondary sources which qualify as significant and independent. There is nothing that says Wikipedia can only use online sources. Response? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I personally don't think two card game catalogs qualify as significant in this context. Not a whole lot here, really. Probably worth merging here: The Crow#In other media SportingFlyer (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer These aren't catalogs. I could add more from the "catalogs", but I didn't see the point as it would mostly discuss gameplay. I don't think you've reviewed the sources like you claim you have and I consider it an outright lie, unless you were answering another question. The Scrye guide is used extensively in Collectible card games because it has in depth analysis of the history of the market as well as each game separately. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I view them as a catalog of prices even if they're not selling specific cards. I simply don't see how listings in two price guides gets this past the WP:GNG threshold. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not appreciate the accusation. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't appreciate your miscategorization in attempt to support your argument. I get it, you have your opinion, but techinically speaking, these aren't catalogs. They are however, legitimate secondary sources. So when you say "Yes" to my question of have you reviewed them... then yeah, I might get a little pissed off, because you clearly have not if you're suggesting they're catalogs, so maybe I'm right, or you're the leading example of hyperbole. I'd have more respect for you if you admitted you didn't review the books, but instead suggested that title makes you think they're catalogs. That I can get behind (but you'd still be incorrect). As I stated before WP:GNG says it "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Please show where in Wikipolicy where there is a breakdown on different types of secondary sources that you suggest don't qualify. Btw, the guides have plenty of prose, which demonstrates to me you haven't reviewed these sources one iota, you just looked at their covers. Straight from an Amazon review: "Quite useful listing of collectables with some information besides being just a list of CCG (Collectable Card Games)." Leitmotiv (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has four sources, two of which are "game checklist and price guides" without any reference to any article within those game checklist and price guides apart from being listed; being listed in a price guide or game checklist does not convey notability. I don't need to have a physical copy of these magazines to review the prose in order to vote on a deletion. One of the other two references is a press release saying the game may be rebooted but wasn't, and the other one is a Crow memorabilia website. I get it, you're fighting for an article you created, but based on a review of all the sources it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question, which seems to be pretty convenient for folks with arguments they can't defend. Please show me where in wikipolicy that certain kinds of secondary sources are not notable, or where books need to cite a specific article within (but for the record, it would cite the subject matter at hand; that's how the guide and reviews are structured). WP:GNG does not state anything you're offering up, but you're pretending like it does. You may not need a copy of the guide to have an opinion, but you've lied like you've reviewed it and you continue your charade like you know its content. Now your circling back to the title of book as if that describes the entire content within, and I've told you, you're glaringly wrong.
Honestly, this has little to do with me fighting for my article, I can see another way to fix this that I'm perfectly suitable with, but I'm very upset with the principle of the matter in some of these AfDs where people vote for stuff, offer up wikipolicy that doesn't exist, and then lie about their review of the content (in another AfD someone nominated, the reviewer said he reviewed the sources stating they were blogs and wikis, and none of them were). That's my concern! Look at it from my point of view - you haven't quoted me any specific wikipolicy to show me why the secondary sources I provided don't qualify - and to top it off, you basically repeated the dude before you. That's why I'm angry. You haven't reviewed the sources cited, just like you probably haven't reviewed the argument someone made before you and was shown to be baseless when I quoted exact wikipolicy that contradicted what he was arguing. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you cite the same page number in one of the sources for three different card games? Eagles (card game) and The Dragon's Wrath all share a page number from the same magazine as this article. Same with C-23 (card game). That tells me there's nothing significant about this coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. As someone who votes on deletion over a range of topics, the fact you're asking me to track down a 15-year-old magazine to show notability for an article shows the article isn't notable. Notability requires existence of sources. Even assuming these are full-length articles on the game, that wouldn't necessarily make it notable. There aren't many sources for this game, and it appears from a directory source not a lot of people own it or have played it: [25] SportingFlyer (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a page number, but total number of pages. It could be I'm using the wrong template from something I learned years ago on here. So your assumption I'm using the same page number to reference these games is wrong. I'm citing the whole book. If you want me to go in and cite specific page/s I can. I would have to look at the template for the citation again to see how its done. Also, this is not a magazine. As I've told you what feels like a couple dozen times now, these are books. Though Scrye used to have a magazine too, which may be why you're confused. The Scrye guide I'm citing is a paperback book with two editions: one from 2001 and one from 2003. The 2003 one has 688 pages. The book is quite good and details the history of CCGs as well as the games separately, and I quote directly from the cover: "'Descriptions and analysis for more than 550 CCG releases!" (bolding emphasis mine) But again, this is all besides the point. Magazines and newspapers are both secondary sources, even catalogs, though catalogs may be tertiary sources, but even Wikipedia policy says tertiary sources are acceptable. Please answer my question and tell me where it eliminates the secondary sources you are suggesting. Also, your last statement sounds a lot like original research to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, the citation should refer to the page number the information is found on, not the number of pages in the book. Second, the difference between a book and a magazine doesn't really matter: it's not a significant mention of the game, as you're basically citing an encyclopedia of card games. (I assumed the same when I said it was a catalog.) It proves existence and it would be a great way to flesh out an article, but listing it in let's call it a card game encyclopedia doesn't show notability. That means every card game in that encyclopedia would be presumptively notable, but this game isn't notable on its own. Again, there are four sources: two card game books/encyclopedias which list the game since it was a card game that was released, one press article saying the game might be re-released, and one movie fan site. I've looked for other sources and found the boardgamegeek page, which can't be used as a source anyways, but helps show it's not notable. It's not original research since it's not in the article. There's not much chance to expand the article past a stub, and it's not a popular card game. A very justifiable delete vote. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, there is no difference between a book and magazine and a newspaper, all are secondary sources. "Proving existence" is a primary source, don't confuse your information. But so far you still haven't quoted me wikipolicy that backs up your argument. WP:GNG does not support your argument as I laid out above. So put up or shut up. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your books do not constitute significant coverage of the material. If they do, it still doesn't establish notability per the presumption. The other two sources are promotional. I can't easily find any other sources. You can't really write more about this article. Also, WP:PRODUCT suggests this is better off merged into the main movie article. That's my argument. I'd also like to remind you of WP:UNCIVIL. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNCIVIL applies to your original instance of lying, btw, which is why you find me responding the way I am. So if you want a more productive conversation from me and not reciprocal behavior, keep that in mind. I've asked you many times to cite sources per your claims, but you constantly circled back to WP:GNG which did not support your argument and why I was getting frustrated. I'm not opposed to being wrong, but the onus is on you to back up your claims - perhaps finding evidence for something that doesn't exist is why you had so much trouble and fell back to WP:GNG? This time however, you did supply something to back up your reasoning for a merge (which I'm fine with) by citing WP:PRODUCT and that's constructive, thank you for that.
You are however, again, unable to back up your claim that a book, specifically the books I cited, are not significant coverage - I can however: per WP:GNG it says the books I cited "[constitutes] significant coverage" (your words) and states "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Those books match that description to a "T". That establishes notability per the headline of WP:GNG where it discusses "General notability guideline"s, the very thing you are contesting. Also, I see one aspect of your argument also fails WP:NTEMP. Changing my vote to merge, per your argument of WP:Product, but definitely not because of your misunderstanding of WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This'll be my last response. The books you have discuss "over 550 card games" or the prices of "40,000 cards" (quotes describing the sources from Amazon.) There aren't any other reliable sources I can find! I'm answering the question: does the fact this card game was listed in two separate price guides (or card catalogs) get the card game across the WP:GNG threshold? Since the goal of these two price guides is to discuss all card games, or at least all card games by specific publishers, in my opinion, there's nothing notable about the fact the card game was listed in these guides. I don't have these books, but I am familiar with their purpose, and the fact the game was listed in them in my opinion does not automatically convey notability in the absence of other notable sources. Also, please be mindful of WP:BLUD. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up interesting points, but are these points reflected in wikipolicy? So far you have not demonstrated that. So while I may be guilty of BLUD, you are guilty of hollow arguments, but you continue to vote as if you're informed. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep the game meets the GNG, in the specific sense (which is the only important sense) that the facts about its publication can be reliably sourced. There is no reason that WP should not have an article on every published CCG that meets this GNG requirement, regardless of whether or not people who don't play CCGs consider the game noteworthy. That subjective evaluation is not a GNG requirement. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are other factors to consider as well with regards to WP:GNG though, including significant coverage and depth of coverage. This is a topic with only about six sources I could find; three of them appear routine/trivial/fan sites, and three of them are checklists or price lists (including the books mentioned above.) If the CCG notability rule is that the game was published and someone independent has published a price list, that seems to me to fall short of the spirit of WP:GNG; I think you'd need to be able to find at least a few more sources that aren't checklists or price guides or fan sites (not of the card game but of the movie, in this case). SportingFlyer (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have any trouble finding independent reviews of the game online, either, for what it's worth. But in any case, SIGCOV is not an additional standard of depth; the requirement is simply that the sources address "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." I don't see any original research here. I would remind SportingFlyer that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" - the standard is most certainly not "multiple sources that are not checklists or price guides", it is independent reliable sources for the material in the article. Such should exist in the case of any published CCG. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial, I think this is where I'm having trouble: I've found independent reviews of games similar to this one, but I've only found a limited number of sources for this game, and I've done a lot of searching. There are a couple very similar games I've found reviews for, would you mind pointing me towards those reviews? Thanks. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Boardgamegeek, for a start. Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, but I was hoping for something more substantial than a single forum post, honestly. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Newimpartial, or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The argument that all that is necessary for inclusion is to find sources to show existence is a direct contradiction of the basic policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We usually analyze this by the GNG , which requires substantial sources about the subject -- that is , about the subject, not just showing the subject exists. Price lists do not prove notability, but just existence. Forum posts are almost never considered reliable sources. It is often possible to argue in either direction about the meaning of substantial and similar terms in the GNG, but this seems an extremely strong example of exactly what is not meant by substantial & reliable. For games, books, and the like, the only usually accepted sources for notability are independent reviews--no other coverage is at all likely to be substantial. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DGG, I had more respect for your opinion on notability before your Olga T. Weber nomination. It is simply not true that only independent reviews of games count for notability, though of course they are the preferred standard. NBOOK does not apply here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG you should read the comments preceding yours as most of what you claimed has already been addressed and most of it is not supported by Wikipolicy. So far as I know, there is no wikipolicy stating a book of "price lists" doesn't meet notability standards, though I'm willing and waiting to be proven wrong. To the contrary I see price lists fit the definition of tertiary sources which is allowed by wikipolicy. But that's all besides the point, because the main source of this article is more than just a price list and fits WP:GNG as they aren't just price lists but are full on review, analysis, and history books. The mere fact that you suggest one of these books is merely a price list shows you haven't review the source at all. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - nothing notable about the game. Not even a claim of notability. No sources support any notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From a policy standpoint, no "claim of notability" is required. The above !vote is therefore not policy-conpliant and should be ignored. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cute but you missed the first part... nothing notable about the game. oh and admins are really good and deciding how to weigh !votes. Happy editing GtstrickyTalk or C 00:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz Humbug! 00:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siamak Taghaddos[edit]

Siamak Taghaddos (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)

Since neither of his companies are notable, I don't see how he is likely to be either. The many lists and notices he is on are PR, designed for that purpose and do not show notability no matter where they are published. Mentions in various books doesn't do it either. Created by an editor named "IranianEntrepreneurs", so it is almost certainly promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Sands Hotel & Conference Center[edit]

Atlantic Sands Hotel & Conference Center (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)

Declined PROD. Non-notable local hotel Dough4872 18:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly backed with primary sources so it is nothing more than self promotion. Mattg82 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is just one of the similarly sized hotels in an area. Acnetj (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot (EP)[edit]

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

does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM Enwebb (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS. Also fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage. — Zawl 10:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There have been made some improvements to the article, hopefully indicating enough coverage to satisfy notability criteria. --OttoJohn (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OttoJohn: The two new sources you added don't even discuss the album. They mention a song and it's not even much. — Zawl 09:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland, Tennessee (disambiguation)[edit]

Cleveland, Tennessee (disambiguation) (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 disambiguation page was created with a list of entries that were all partial title matches. It was PRODed, deleted, recreated, PRODed again, deproded, and then trimmed down to its current state. Unless there are more entries to add, the page serves no discernible purpose. - Eureka Lott 05:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing is actually being disambiguated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Disambiguation about what? Acnetj (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dead wood on the Wiki tree, plain and simple.TH1980 (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing is being disambiguated because there is only one Cleveland, Tennessee. All disambiguation for Cleveland is already accomplished by Cleveland (disambiguation). If necessary, add a protection against a recreation of the page. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page, as originally written, had a bunch of other entries, but none of them were valid. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Stverak[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only one of the three sources on the page even mentions him. He's deputy chief of staff for a Member of Congress, which doesn't make him notable. Marquardtika (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify.Best option since notability was failed to be well-established, by itself, in the course of the debate.(non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 00:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and Central Asian Association[edit]

Afghanistan and Central Asian Association (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 a WP:SOAPBOX piece written by a user with a decalered WP:COI. The sources are either declared as having been written by members of the association (2, 5, 6, 7) the associations own web site, the profil of the association on the charity commission web site or 2 unverifable "assessments" which are not proof of notability even if they were verifiable. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy There seem to be some sources to support notability like [26] and [27] but a COI article should have really gone through the AfC process to begin with - it may just be too soon, but I think it's possible additional sources will be available in the future, and I would support an outcome that won't prejudice future recreation. I would support merging to Rabia Nasimi for the time being but we don't have a standalone article on her yet.Seraphim System (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are secondary sources. They may be from students on placement, but for a minority community like this they are reasonably objective. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garden window[edit]

Garden window (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, also WP:NAD Enwebb (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. WP:NAD is irrelevant as, per WP:DICDEF, this is a stub, not a dictionary entry. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks a bit ridiculous now, but common architectural elements can generally sustain a short article (although those tend to be weakly referenced - see e.g. dado (architecture) or stoop (architecture)). Search results do show abundant use of the term. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain See sash window and bay window for individual window articles. Article has been converted to meaningless or even inaccurate redirects (not a window box) which don't contain information about the topic, and most of the edits to revert to something of a stub have mainly been to see what the editors do with the topic in general. John Moser (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as demonstrated in sources; one reference has been added. A merge into and redirect to Window#Types would be a possibility, if the article is not expanded in the future. Sam Sailor 22:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annalyn Cyrus[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Annalyn Cyrus (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 child actress. No indication of notability. No real sources, other than IMDb. It was deleted at AFD in July 2011, and re-created eight months later. I started trying to find sources, and there's nothing really out there other than IMDb, which lists pretty much every actor, notable or not.

It is probably eligible for a G4 Speedy Deletion, but without having seen the prior deleted content, I can't say that it is a "sufficiently identical copy" of the deleted page. TJRC (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the article has absolutely no reliable sources. IMDb is not reliable. Twitter is not reliable. An article like this should be speedy deleted for being on a living person but lacking any reliable sources to demonstrate anything. It is a total violation of our policies on biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No RS. Article is clearly orchestrated PROMO by a group of SPA accounts. Agricola44 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adonis Uceta (baseball)[edit]

Adonis Uceta (baseball) (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)

Player is non-notable, because he has not appeared on the major league level. Fbdave (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems like the claim of WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG being met don't hold up insofar as all the sources are contested on the grounds of non-independence or non-substantiveness, and these contestations have not been rebutted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Abbas[edit]

Zainab Abbas (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 to meet WP:JOURNALIST. no in-depth coverage in reliable , independent sources. many of the cited sources are either non-independent of the subject or are unreliable. Saqib (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she has significant coverage in many sources, so passes WP:GNG. Frankly, if she was male then no-one would be questioning her notability. Another example of the systematic anti-female bias of Wikipedians. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: she has got significant coverage in affiliated sources such as dunyanews - the news channel she works for. --Saqib (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are nine sources about her in the article not from her company. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but many of which are unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the only in-depth coverage where Zainab Abbas is the primary subject, and it is is not an independent source. This is a press release. The other sources are trivial brief articles, mostly reactions to twitter posts, gossip, etc, many focused on her being a "hottie" or "crush", with no substance. The weakly-sourced gossip, vague blogging and social media about family connections with politicians and controversial events add a compelling reason not to keep an article like this around, attracting edits with more dubious claims. The risk of defamatory content appearing and not being removed is high, while the benefit of covering a notable person is hard to identify. At least one in-depth, reputable source, independent of the subject, that was primarily about Abbas would change my mind. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is widely recognized in Pakistan, especially as a cricket expert, and is frequently cited or interviewed in the Pakistani press, both in English and Urdu.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which source says "she is widely recognized in Pakistan" ? Please establish notability by providing sources. --Saqib (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Zainab is a sports journalist and is notable enough as a journalist. On the other hand, she is also a well known Pakistani cricket journalist in her nation. Abishe (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She clearly fails WP:JOURNALIST.. which source says she is "well known Pakistani cricket journalist" ? --Saqib (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PROMO and likely fanpage. Arguments by Dennis Bratland seem apt. Agricola44 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not at this stage. Nothing accomplished yet. We can't give free-entry to women because they're journalist, professor etc. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Störm (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Subject has received significant press coverage in Pakistan and abroad. Also received significant media coverage in India especially after subject commented on Indian cricketers. See these Hindi news articles from mainstream Indian news media CNN-News18 (in 2018), NDTV (in 2017), and AajTak/IndiaToday (in 2015). However, most likely fails GNG as per WP:JOURNALIST guidelines. Sahrudayan (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to read the language to see how trivially brief those linked stories are. The first link is a story about somebody else that happens to mention Zainab Abbas halfway down. The second link is just that "selfie curse" joke that went around Twitter. "Significant" coverage means real journalism that tells us something in depth about the subject, and why they are so important, not bloggers who gossip about people because they're easy on the eyes. Keep in mind that any significant coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG; failing WP:JOURNALIST isn't really a problem. The problem is that the subject hasn't had enough coverage for anything, not just journalism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Abbas was male then we wouldn't even be having an AfD discussion. This is an example of the problems with systematic anti-female bias on Wikipedia. She clearly passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly passes how? Can you cite one example of significant coverage in an independent source? We've seen brief personal profiles written by her employer to promote her. She is their TV presenter. That's not independent. We've seen sub-50 word blog posts about guys who got bad luck form a selfie with her. A post saying she's related to a politician, less than 50 words. I began with the intention of saving this article because it did look like a biased nomination, and I searched the best I could to find anything. I will change my mind if anyone can cite substantial coverage. This subject does not pass GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Elsasser[edit]

Jason Elsasser (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)

An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Coverage is mostly hyper-local, such as The Desert Sun. There's one piece of international coverage "The US town that wants to become the best place to grow cannabis in the world", but its coverage of the subject is based on an interview and is not sufficient for notability, focusing on his hopes aspirations:

  • Elsasser is president of the Desert Hot Springs Cannabis Alliance Network, a local industry group comprising 24 budding weed businesses. His hope, he says, is that the town will soon be “a Mecca for cannabis.”

As a president of the local trade group, it's natural that he does a lot of self-promotion, but this does not amount to encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage doesn't have to be international or even national to become notable, it just has to be by multiple independent sources for more than a single event, this is also why we have articles about local mayors. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 09:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we don't routinely have articles about all or even most local mayors. For smalltown mayors, the localness or non-localness of the sourcing is a much more significant factor in their keepability or deletability than it is for big city mayors — it matters a lot less to a mayor of New York City than it does to a mayor of Peoria, Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks significant reliable source coverage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capella Systems[edit]

Capella Systems (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 directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company founded in 2009. Significant RS coverage not found. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Rejected multiple times at AfC and then moved to mainspace anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete The entry reads like promotional material, not a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - purely promotional. I already deleted the product list in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Cemetery[edit]

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

Non-notable cemetery, fails WP:GNG. The current sourcing consists of the cemetery's website, a website that some guy created about local cemeteries, newjerseycivilwargravestones.org (also doesn't appear reliable), and obituaries for one of the people buried there (not significant coverage of the cemetery). A **WP:BEFORE** search doesn't reveal much else. So the inevitable question does not come up, I oppose a merge since there is very little information about the cemetery or its importance, there is nothing worth merging to another article. Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the notability and sourcing problems are identical:

Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COMMENT on DOUBLE NOMINATION: The above Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark) was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2018. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Olivet Cemetery, Newark on 13 Februry was KEEP Djflem (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Clearly, these are populated places. bd2412 T 03:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but when I read this I laughed. A cemetery is not a populated place. In order for a place to be populated, the inhabitants must be alive.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the rule that says so. bd2412 T 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rule? Its common sense. When the population of a country, state, city, etc. is stated it only includes living people. A city is a populated place because people live there. The population of the city does not include people who are buried in a cemetery. This is the way population has been counted for hundreds, if not thousands of years.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A place where large numbers of people are buried is as notable as a place where large numbers of people are alive. bd2412 T 04:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, is there are rule that says so? and even so, it still does not make it a populated place.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, these are still sufficiently notable places. They have been around since the 1800s, house notable corpses, and one of them has 500 Civil War graves. bd2412 T 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem:- I think each person, only gets one vote--Rusf10 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are TWO nominations. Make two separate nominations & I'll vote on them on them separately Djflem (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles, don't mean two votes, you could write something like "keep both" but leave it the way it is, I'm sure the closing admin can figure it out. Also, I should point out that just because something is old doesn't mean it is also historic or notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two (2) articles being nominated for deletion and I & anyone else can cast their votes based on the two (2) nominations. Since you're giving unsolicited advice about what I "could" do: you "could" make a separate nomination, "couldn't" you? I also do not need vocabulary lessons, thank you. Djflem (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification The nominator is of the opinion that "two articles, don't mean two votes". They are "sure the closing admin can figure it out". This AfD nomination, which includes the recently "closed as keep" Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark), has the potential for confusion among discussion participants and adds a extra burden to the closing administrator. For those reasons, for sake of transparency, and good faith I have asked nominator on their talk page to split the two. Djflem (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion is not a vote, and if articles get re-nominated without new arguments for their deletion then the nomination is very likely to get rejected. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 09:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vote is the word used by the nominator. Re-nominations should not be bundled and handled separated and not under cover of another nomination. Very likely IMO is not really a consideration in this discussion.Djflem (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem:You're the only one having a problem with this, I only grouped together two articles. Multiple article AfDs are allowed see WP:MULTIAFD--Rusf10 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under which critieria as stated in the link you have provided?Djflem (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That book doesn't even mention either cemetery. There is only a one line entry for a Mount Olivet Cemetery in the book, but that one is in Middletown, NJ Are there actually any sources on these cemeteries?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these articles already has multiple sources in it. bd2412 T 17:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but as I pointed out in the nomination, they are either, they are not reliable independent sources with significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated two articles for deletion, not one of which are in the source you presented. You argument is seriously flawed, you're basically arguing that if even one cemetery in New Jersey is notable, then they must all be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a collection of things is put forward as having a common reason for deletion, a determination that one of these doesn't match this reason should call all of them into question. bd2412 T 02:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one has successfully shown that to be true, but let me withdraw and renominate because I'm sick of arguing about a bunch of procedural bs that has never come up before in any multiafd that I have seen. To be clear, I have never heard of someone argue that because two articles are bundled they must be considered as part of a even larger group of articles which are not even at AFD. So let's withdraw and renominate so Andrew D can now come up with some other garbage "you can't delete" because I just invented a new rule argument. So go right ahead and just keep making up new rules as you go along.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fairfield, Connecticut. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlinson Middle School[edit]

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

Despite the level of detail here, this middle school does not seem notable. Tacyarg (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete middle schools are not notable. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads more like promotional material than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Middle Schools are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to community's article, as there isn't a school district article to redirect to. This is the usual practice with lower school's and I see no reason to deviate from it here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to community's article. Note that this procedure is a POLICY (not a guideline or something someone thought they read in a recent RfC that would be another good idea to mass AfD 10-year old school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect , whichwould be a good choice regardless of what one thinks about currnet guidelines. It's the best way of covering these. The WP:N provision that notability does not require a separate article is applicable here, and I see no reason why a reirect would be inappropriate & require a pure delete. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes We commonly redirect schools at the school district which is technically an inhabited place. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katee Doland[edit]

Katee Doland (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 bio has been tagged as needing Verification since 2009. She won some local and state level titles but the page mainly details how she lost various state and national level events. Subject ffails WP:ENT which requires them to have a significant role in a significant event. Per WP:NOPAGE her wins are best presented on the corresponding lists. Her later work in event promotion does not convey wikipedia notability. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no inherent notability for state level titleholders, have not been able to find additional third-party sources to establish notability. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete assuming state level titleholders do not have inherent notability as per above. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above (my news sweep didn't find anything).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have established that state beauty title holders are not default notability, so there is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Why are these not being redirected? These are valid search terms and it just means someone is going to have to redirect them later. GuzzyG (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanpage from early WP days. Agricola44 (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Frenette[edit]

Kyle Frenette (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:NPOL as a candidate in a US House primary, and no other claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • One alternative claim of notability is his title as manager of a significant musician (he received notable press from Billboard - https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1176842/kyle-frenette-30-under-30) -- Bon Iver has received multiple Grammys -- and it is particularly notable that he is simultaneously, or separately, running for public office. Much of the state level press in Wisconsin he has gotten has began by connecting him to Bon Iver. WP:MUS makes no obvious reference to whether managers of high profile musicians should be included. I have a fairly limited understanding of Wikipedia's notability rules, so I couldn't say on my own whether these things add up to a worthy article, but I think it should stay. If that means putting more focus on his musical career, I agree that should be incorporated anyway. Thanks for your insight! ArtisticLaudableOwls (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being manager of a notable artist is not in and of itself an "inherent" notability claim either — to make that a valid reason for an article, we would need to see reliable source coverage about him being a music manager, not just his own self-published music management website. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because of the election itself. But this isn't properly sourcing any preexisting notability for any reason. If what the first commenter says above, that he got media coverage for managing Bon Iver, is actually true, then I'm willing to reconsider this if evidence of that coverage actually makes it into the article — but just to be clear, that would have to be referenced to media coverage about him in the context of being a music manager, not just to mentions of his work as a music manager as backgrounder information in coverage being given to him in the context of being an election candidate or to glancing mentions of his name in articles where Bon Iver, not Kyle Frenette, is the actual subject. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the billboard link above, he hasn't gotten much coverage about his managing of Bon Iver. However, he has gotten some very significant national press, most notably in the last 12 hours, for being the manager of a significant music group and running for congress:

ArtisticLaudableOwls (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not coverage that assists in making "music manager" a notability claim. Any candidate's election-related coverage, by definition, is always going to mention something about their career background — so if that coverage were in and of itself enough to deem them notable for their prior careers, then every candidate would always have a free exemption from the fact that we don't accept candidates as notable per se. So no, I'm afraid that if you can't show that he was already getting coverage as Bon Iver's manager before he was a candidate for anything, then these links don't assist in making that a valid notability claim.
The way to make him notable enough as a music manager to get an article despite not being notable as a politician yet is to start out by pretending he's not a candidate — write and source an article which would already pass GNG without even mentioning the candidacy, or touching any candidacy-related sourcing, at all. Then, once you've got a fully keepable article about his music management itself, you can readd a brief mention of his candidacy as a piece of supplementary information. But his notability as a music manager cannot be stacked onto sources which are mentioning that as background in coverage of his political activities — it has to be stacked onto sources which are covering his work as a music manager in the context of his work as a music manager. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Blake Capwell[edit]

Lily Blake Capwell (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)

Ten years no references. I found no reliable ones. Rhadow (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Basically a plot summary. I am against merging because the material here is entirely unsourced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not finding anything on search. Artw (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no where near showing the level of impact needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be considered notable, a television character needs to be reliably sourceable to media coverage which suggests some real-world context for notability — it's not enough to just write an in-universe summary of her own story arc, if you can't demonstrate that she had any impact on real life. But nothing here demonstrates any real-world notability, and none of the content is sourced to justify merging. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenage California[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Miss Teenage California (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 variety of problems here. The organization appears to be a defunct WP:BRANCH of a national organization. The page has be tagged for notability concerns, COI concerns and [WP:V]] for 8 years but no one has addressed these real issues. The business is dead now, website gone, which is the primary source for the data. With a couple of exceptions where a subject went on to become notable, the winners are not notable and don't have pages about them or even refs to support the names on the list. In short, a minor business which operated in a limited geographic region and is no more notable than any of the other minor pageants around the world. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this topic was deleted in 2007 as not notable and a 2011 discussion failed to find concensus. Inclusion standards for companies WP:NCORP have risen substantially in the last few years. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious but when does an organisation like this become notable? Because although most references are from 2011 the organisation was mentioned again in 2013. And I get several results when I search for it and if I had the time would have expanded the article with. Isn't notability established if independent sources refer to an organisation for a long amount of time? --Donald Trung (Talk EMOJI) (Articles EMOJI) Respect mobile users. 09:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks widespread and broad coverage to pass notability guidelines for an organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green. And locked Spartaz Humbug! 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dale Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Steven Dale Green (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)

Procedural nomination of declined CSD G4 (recreation). I am not taking a position on this myself either way. The article failed AfD in 2009 on the grounds of BLP1E. The decision was upheld at DRV in 2014 but with no objection to recreation with new material. As far as I can tell, the only things that are substantially different are that the subject is now dead and that there have been a number of writings about him both academic and a play inspired by his life. However, all of these still essentially stem from the one event. The passage of time and the changed circumstances call for a new review at AfD rather than a speedy deletion. SpinningSpark 00:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locked redirect to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green Duplicative of that article's section and generally poor and unfocused writing in this article, which there is no need for a sole article of the subject. Nate • (chatter) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mrschimpf, you said the article has "generally poor and unfocused writing". But hasn't policy said that, with very rare exceptions, decisions on whether to delete, keep or redirect articles, should be based on the notability of the topic, itself? Doesn't policy call for weak articles on genuinely notable topics to be flagged for improvement -- not deleted? Unlike his comrades lots of RS have written about Green in contexts that transcend the Mahmudiyah incident. I suggest that is all that is required to establish his independent notability. Geo Swan (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locked redirect to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green Concur with "Nate". No reason to repeat all this and risk having the accounts differ.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (locked) to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green. WP:BIO1E not independentally notable from Mahmudiyah rape and killings.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locked redirect per the preceding comments, with which I agree. A clear case of WP:BIO1E. Narky Blert (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I was the one who put in place an updated version of this article.
Unlike his comrades, I suggest Green is of interest to readers for reasons beyond his involvement with the Mahmudiyah incident.
There is a widely staged play whose main character is based on Green. Niteshift36, whose {{G4}} triggered this procedural AFD, called it a "non-notable play" in a talk page comment prior to their nomination. His or her opinion is at odds with the American Theatre Critics Association, who awarded the playwright a prestigious award. People may come to the wikipedia to read about Green, because of the play, and have little interest in the Mahmudiyah incident.
Unlike his comrades Green was allowed to enlist in the army after a criminal conviction, but only after a "Moral waiver". These moral waivers have generated controversy. Some readers may come here due to an interest in these moral waivers, and have little interest in the Mahmudiyah incident.
At his trial distinguished experts were at odds over whether brain scans showed he enlisted with brain damage which would have left him with impulse control issues. There are other serial killers who were later found to have brain damage, like Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower Shooter. For readers who want to read about Green's brain damage the Mahmudiyah incident may hold little interest.
Green was charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Charges and convictions under this act are very rare. ABC News reported he was the "first American soldier charged and convicted" under the act. Since Green is one of just a handful of individuals convicted under the act, reader may very well come to the wikipedia to read about those convicted under the act, and, for them, the Mahmudiyah incident may hold little interest.
When a topic is related to multiple other topics, merging the article on that topic into one of the articles it is related to, is always going to be the less optimal choice. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Locked redirect. The first AfD was a proper close. While DRV didn't oppose recreation, but nothing more notable has actually happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_February_17&oldid=1142616624"