Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 June	13 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passion 4 Communication[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lack of significant independent coverage in RS. MB 23:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and promoted to mainspace by two new accounts. Passing mention of sponsorship in coverage of an event that a company co-sponsors is classified as "brief or passing mentions" to be discounted for WP:NCORP. Nor are my searches finding better; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep an eye on the accounts that tag teamed to get this into mainspace. It appears to be a promotional PR piece. 2Joules (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vertices Partners[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lack of in-depth independent coverage in RS. MB 23:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article placed by a recent new account, with repeated attempts (e.g. [1]) to promote this as "a leading Indian law firm"; one of the sources offers a more realistic description of it as "one of several boutique law firms that have come up in recent years" [2]. The given sources are a mix of routine announcements and articles by people associated with the firm, which all fall under Examples of trivial coverage in the notability guidelines. My searches are finding more of the same, plus a Startup Terminal interview with one of the founders, but no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and keep an eye on article creator. They've also been involved in Passion 4 Communication (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passion 4 Communication). Narky Blert (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did changed the content and I am contributing in Wikipedia to help masses, and its rude on your part to behave and talk like this. I am just contributing in terms of content. Abhishek Arora - Abby (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Arora - Abby - The user isn't adding this comment in order to be rude to you or make unfounded accusations - if you're new here, you should go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial as it will help you understand the principles of notability and how we judge created articles and whether or not they should be kept on Wikipedia. If you have questions, you're welcome to message me on my user talk page here. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah I understand that there are some guidelines and i am changing content as per your suggestions, kindly suggest me what all i need to change so that i can do the needful, the problem is it isn't the reason of deleting a page because i contributed in some other page also, kindly share the errors in this page so that i can change accordingly. Abhishek Arora - Abby (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Arora - Abby - This discussion process is about determining the article subject's notability - it isn't something that can be fixed by updating or improving the article itself; notability is determined by matters that are outside of Wikipedia entirely, including the availability of secondary reliable sources and the amount and significance of coverage by these sources. The general notability guidelines are listed here - I highly recommend that you review these guidelines (and if you haven't already) go through the new user tutorial I linked you to in my previous reply above. These are what will truly help you to improve your edits and understand the specific guidelines that these processes reference. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such coverage as there is seems tangential or promotional. Subject requires substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Burman[edit]

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

Non-notable, lack of in-depth independent coverage. MB 23:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete an ad for a lawyer and his firm. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional puff-piece for an individual who doesn't seem to meet general notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC
Delete. Such coverage as there is seems tangential or promotional. Subject requires substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Colton[edit]

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

A reporter for a regional cable news channel. She won a regional Emmy award which is usually not considered notable. Overall, there is not enough independent in-depth coverage of her to pass WP:BASIC Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Emmy Awards is considered notable. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not meet any of the criteria for notability for journalists. While an Emmy would be good for proving notability under WP:ANYBIO, the awards received by the subject are New York Emmy Awards, which are a much less prestigious, local award that probably aren't enough to show notability. Subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources sufficient to meet basic notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze, there's a huge difference between a regional Emmy and a regular Emmy. Ifnord (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datz Music Lounge[edit]

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

Shortlived music website, with coverage at the time, but doesn't appear to be much more than initial hype about the platform. Doesn't appear to offer encyclopedic value. Sadads (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as the nominator says, all that's available is initial hype. This fails WP:SUSTAINED. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and StraussInTheHouse. No references in almost ten years proves the lack of WP:SUSTAINED and almost every external link is dead. Ifnord (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naphthalene-1,5-dione[edit]

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

Previous Draft that was promoted to mainspace on the arguments that it could survive XfD. No claim of Notability, No way to verify any potential claims of notability because it's 100% unreferenced. Article consists of a 8 word prose and a bunch of template information that appears to be procedurally generated as predicted properties and predicted spectra graphs. Was originally developed in mainspace, then sent down to Draft namespace in May of 2016 (when it was cited for lacking a notability claim, was an orphan, and did not cite any sources). A user decided to promote this page out of Draft because "Preventing out of hand deletion of a promising draft". Author of the page last edited in September 2017. Last substantial improvement to this page was in August 2016. I do not accept Draftification as we've already done that dance only to have the page end up back here no better than it was before it was Draftified.

CC Users (Eddie123e—Ra0808—Pichpich—Wgolf—Frietjes—ChemNerd—Godric on Leave—Legacypac—Chenzw—Godsy) who have interacted with this page in a substantial way. Hasteur (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why folks are wringing hands about this junker, surely there are more important things to deal with than a flakey looking article by an absentee infrequent editor. I already explained that the compound and the article are not notable for the following reasons: "(1) It is unknown. (2) a substituted derivative has been described but even that report is lightly cited (i.e. no one cares) (Synthesis of a 1,5-naphthoquinone Schmand, H. L. K.; Boldt, P. Journal of the American Chemical Society (1975), 97(2), 447-8.) (3) the compound has attracted a grand total of 39 citations (4) this draft contains very little content." A lot of the content is very low quality but I doubt that many editors outside of the chemistry project are in a position to judge the situation. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smokefoot. Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a substance that has not been made, and not notable thanks to no selective publications. I nearly tagged this as a hoax before, but the information was calculated on the ChemSpider web site. Note that ChemSpider appearance does not help towards notability or even show it exists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my interaction was submitting it to AFC along with a bunch of other pages tagged as "promising draft" so they could get feedback on why they were acceptable or not.I have no idea how to evaluate it but it was declined at AFC and I believe the detailed analysis provided above. Yet another example of why "promising draft" should be one person's opinion without any special powers. Should have gone G13 a long time ago Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Spinningspark/Naphthalene-1,5-dione which would likely prevent deletion for as long as Spinningspark remains active giving them ample time to personally improve it or seek collaboration on it. Clearly not ready for the mainspace. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What magic do you think that Userfication is going to help with that hasn't been done in two years? All Spinningspark did was promote (with exceedingly poor judgement) an proseless and unreferenced content that does not establish a credible claim of notability. Userfication is inappropriate as the promotion was ill considered at best and pointy at the worst. Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NODEADLINE. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Glad you agree with my view (RE View 1: Don't rush to create articles) Hasteur (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are better ways to spend the time than trying to develop this page. There would be more than 10,000 chemical articles that remain unwritten on actually notable topics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not an experimental chemist and my organic chemistry is rusty, but have I got this right? The compound has not been synthesised. The list of properties are just estimates. The spectra therefore must be false. If that is correct, this article should be speedy deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Besides the apparent hypotheticality, the mroe imrpotant problem is that there's no claim for notability. Why would anyone even care what this compound would be like? Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I pulled this out of G13 on the basis of this ChemSrc page which does give a synthesis route for the chemical referenced to this peer reviewed paper. If that is correct, several delete !votes here have been made on an invalid premise. If that is not correct, then I defer to those who know more on the subject than me. There is also this paper which contains the sentence "Based on this scheme, the first step is the formation of 1,5DAN ox which can then be hydrolyzed to naphthalene-1,5-dione", but that is only from a snippet, I can't read the full context. SpinningSpark 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a physicist, not a chemist, but reading the latter reference, it looks like naphthalene-1,5-dione is synthesized as an intermediate step of the reaction they implemented (a green chemistry production of 4-imino-4H-dibenzo[a,h]phenoxazin-11-ol from 1,5-diaminonapthalene). XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound even if the sparse references to it in the scientific literature are verified. There is simply a lack of significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. ~~As a extremely minor tautomer of 1,5-Dihydroxynaphthalene, it could be redirected there (tautomers are generally considered to be the same chemical compound).~~ ChemNerd (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't thin they are tautomers. The supposed synthesis path should also produce an H₂ molecule, unless my count is off. So I do not think a redirect is in order. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: You're right, I missed the difference in oxidation state. I've struck that part of my comment - this page shouldn't redirect. Thanks for catching my error. ChemNerd (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG. If a page existed at dioxynaphthalene or naphthalenedione, it could be a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the discussion, MacLellan does not currently satisfy NHOCKEY or GNG. I would not be opposed to its recreation in the event that he plays a game in the NHL (ie meets NHOCKEY) or otherwise can be demonstrated to satisfy the general notability guideline at some point in the future. Until then, this is simply WP:TOOSOON. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack MacLellan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a hockey player, whose claim of notability has not actually improved since the first deletion discussion. This was deleted in December, then restored to userspace in May per request, and then moved back into articlespace the next day with no further changes, on the grounds that he passes WP:NHOCKEY for playing in the NHL. But that's a complete misrepresentation of reality -- he got drafted by an NHL team, but spent his entire "NHL" time playing with the farm team, and never once hit the ice in a single NHL game before getting sent back down to the juniors.
That is not an NHOCKEY pass, however -- a person has to get onto the ice in a real NHL game, not just be drafted by an NHL team and then never actually get called up from the farm team before being let go, to clear NHOCKEY on NHL grounds. And the amount of coverage shown here is not enough to claim that he passes GNG in lieu -- it's four-fifths the primary source content of his own teams, and one-fifth the university student newspaper of his own alma mater. This is not the sourcing it takes to make him a special case over and above most other hockey players who never made it higher than a farm team.
Technically, this is speediable as it's literally unchanged from the original deleted version — however, since the first AFD discussion just stated that he failed NHOCKEY without really going into the specifics, there was plenty of room here for either a misinterpretation of NHOCKEY or a good faith disagreement about his passage or failure of it. So I felt it more appropriate to relist for a new discussion, with more detail about why he fails NHOCKEY than was actually offered the first time, than to just speedy it. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom's cogent explanation, which should honestly be unnecessary. I'm at a loss as to why this was userfied in the first place, since the subject's been out of professional hockey for several years now and wasn't likely ever to bolster his non-existent claims to notability. Valoem's insistence, without a scrap of supporting evidence, that this ephemeral player in the mid-minors played for multiple NHL teams is equally baffling. Ravenswing 10:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even remotely meet WP:NHOCKEY. Didn't play in the NHL. The sources in the article and anything I can find in a search are routine or passing mentions so he also fails WP:GNG. Had it not already been Afd'd I would have Speedy Deleted it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject still fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Unless I am reading this wrong, he clearly passes NHOCKEY. NHockey states:

Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they

Played one or more games in the National Hockey League, Czech Extraliga, Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League or the Swedish Hockey League, a top level Canadian amateur league prior to 1909, the Soviet Championship League, the Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League or the World Hockey Association;
Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in the Mestis, Deutsche Eishockey Liga, Slovak Extraliga, HockeyAllsvenskan, National League A or the American Hockey League;
Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star) in the Eishockey Liga, Belarusian Extraleague, 2nd Bundesliga, GET-ligaen, ECHL, Elite Ice Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Western Hockey League, Elite.A or the Beneliga;
Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American) in the men's play versions of the Atlantic Hockey, Big Ten Conference, ECAC Hockey, Hockey East, National Collegiate Hockey Conference, Western Collegiate Hockey Association;
Are a first-round draft pick of the NHL Entry Draft; or
Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year (Note: playing in lower pools that do not actually contest for the World Champion title is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements).

He has played for the Nashville Predators an NHL team NHL.com, so he passes "Played one or more games in the National Hockey League, Czech Extraliga, Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League or the Swedish Hockey League, a top level Canadian amateur league prior to 1909, the Soviet Championship League, the Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League or the World Hockey Association". Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You keep on claiming that, Valoem, but you are wrong. We do not accord presumptive notability for an organization signing a player (which is all the link you've repeatedly posted states), but for a player actually taking the ice for official game action, and more than one person has said this to you now. Organizations sign many players who never play a big-league game ... and indeed, hockey doesn't hold a candle to baseball in this respect, where an organization in which as many as one player in five who plays for a Rookie League or Single A team sees so much as an inning of major league action is a startling outlier. Ravenswing 00:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably don't need to pile on at this point, but he hasn't played for the Predators. He only signed with their team. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear fail of NHOCKEY, as his available databases attest, and I do not see anything that would satisfy GNG.18abruce (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we come up with a more restrictive gudeline than hitting the ice for a major league team. However since MacLellan never did that, he is clearly not notable. The article explicitly states that MacLellan didn't play with the predators. Even if he had by chance been on their main roster, someone would need to cite an actual NFL game he played in to show notability. The one game rule, and the whole structure of hockey notability, seem to be a ludicrously low bar still.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't. It is extremely easy to find sources for every single player who played a single game in the NHL and all NHOCKEY does is show when its is 99.999% likely a player meets WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the point is confusing at best; this is an obvious delete by a player that failed to go anywhere, what evidence is there that it is "high time" to do anything? The evidence, as born out by recent AFD's, is that the bar is significantly higher than other sports, and unpopular in that regard to some wiki projects.18abruce (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "one major professional game = notability" bar's been the case for sporting articles since sports notability criteria were first set. I agree that it's silly, in that it enshrines the notability of someone who played five minutes for the Montreal Maroons in 1927 over someone who played five hundred games in the WHL/AHL, but it's just set so deeply into granite that no one's ever going to budge it. Ravenswing 22:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that Johnpacklambert seems to think the Predators are an NFL team shows he has no idea what he's talking about. His constant crusade against sports notability criteria makes me question whether he is truly here to build an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, in this case he's right. Merely signing with a team doesn't confer notability under NHOCKEY. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eh, I can hope that we can disagree on various principles without presuming that anyone who doesn't share our POV is a vandal with some hideous agenda, the same way I hope we realize that everyone makes typos. Ravenswing 19:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Robot[edit]

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

Notability concerns; a research project with no independent references in the article and none found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; optimistically, WP:TOOSOON, but in any case insufficient coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of municipalities in New Brunswick. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in New Brunswick[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Wholly redundant to List of municipalities in New Brunswick. The main list is not so long it needs to be split, contains additional and more up-to-date information, and has municipality type as the the default sort, so there is no reason to have another page just for the towns, villages, or rural communities. Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK these duplicative articles are discouraged. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of municipalities. The municipalities list was created in 2008 in this version; the town list was created in 2013. Redirection saves the edit history and any possible content that could be resurrected, and is okay as an alternative to deletion here. The list of towns can be seen within the table of municipalities, sorted by type of municipality, with--I believe--all the fields of info currently in the towns list. --Doncram (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RELART. A "town" is a separate definition from a municipality, and it's not an improper sub-article. SportingFlyer talk 19:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A town is a type of municipality, but per List of municipalities in New Brunswick there is no difference other than size. These are not "distinct but related topics", but the very same topic - all content is simply duplicated and not even presented differently. This does not meet that section's examples of direction at difference audiences or interrelated people. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. Towns and municipalities are defined separately by New Brunswick, even though I understand a town is a subset of a municipality. If you look at articles for other provinces, they all follow the same format: municipality page, with lists broken out by village and town. Deleting these articles would remove compatibility with other provincial municipality pages, even though each province seems to define sub-municipalities a little bit differently. These are valid lists, and the "sortable" argument doesn't work considering not every browser or mobile device will allow things to be sorted in the same way. SportingFlyer talk 23:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of municipalities. Everything is already there, including a sortable table, so if some one want to know only the towns, they could sort it. No need to duplicate information.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of municipalities, since this is essentially a duplicate of that info. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. GNG and YOUNGATH are met. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 15:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kezo Brown[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Most of the references are excluded for the purposes of notability by WP:YOUNGATH, and the local coverage of his signing with LaVar Ball's not-yet-extant league isn't sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As creator of this article, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:YOUNGATH, as most of the sources listed go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage, and not all of them are local. Only one of the sources mentions him signing with Ball's league, unlike what nominator has suggested. Toiletpaper101 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources seem to be routine coverage of a high school athlete. Of the nine listed sources, five sources are from the Chicago Sun-Times Prep Sports Editor and another from Max Preps (the others aren't national sources either). I'd need to see sources showing coverage from outside a local prep sports beat, particularly since the subject hasn't shown that a professional career at the highest level is beyond a doubt. Bwabwa7 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Bwabwa7 - Almost all of the sources are not "routine coverage of a high school athlete," with all of the Chicago Sun-Times articles going in great depth about the subject (not passing mentions), as defined by WP:NOTROUTINE. Apart from the Sun-Times, there are also several other sources listed that are not routine coverage. Toiletpaper101 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pass WP:GNG with multiple, independent, in-depth articles on the subject itself. WP:ROUTINE regards events and is thus immaterial to a biography.--TM 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- True. I think what people should be referring to WP:SPORTBASIC, which deals with routine coverage of athletes. But this subject looks like he may have more substantial coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with multiple reliable sources. It will be interesting to see the level of competition in the JBA though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I do get some of the concerns at hand, especially since the only players that have actual articles at this point in time are LaMelo Ball of the Los Angeles Ballers and Semaj Booker (an article I created partially because of his interesting story as a runaway before entering LaVar Ball's new league) of the Seattle Ballers (and neither one of those teams have actual Wikipedia pages, let alone the other Junior Basketball Association teams, and that's including the fact that the Chicago Ballers article doesn't have the full roster ready yet), at the same time, if some of these players have substantial sources and material included like this one does, I say keep the articles up! – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As I wrote this earlier on, I didn't realize that there was also an article on Greg Floyd Jr. at that point in time, which also included a brief college stint as well. Still, it does help further the point I'm trying to make here (with the idea that the teams also need proper articles as well as some of the more notable players entering the JBA). – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and in any case WP:YOUNGATH does not apply because he's 18 and no longer in high school. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrià Gallego[edit]

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

Someone dePROD, but the player has no appearance in WP:FPL, so still fail WP:NFOOTBALL, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft - Fails WP:NFOOTY at the moment but signed for CSM Politehnica Iași who play in Liga I which meets WP:FPL. so could be looking at an appearance for them next season. NZFC^(talk) 21:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am happy to draftify, but leave other people comment. Hhkohh (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I don't see what purpose moving to draft has here. Giant Snowman 07:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy The player currently fails GNG and NFOOTY, I don't mind someone taking this on into their user-space if they will monitor when the player actually gets a game. I am not sure draft is the best option as it might get deleted again for hanging there too long. Govvy (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry for bothering you. I just assumed he met WP:NFOOTBALL and didn't actually check. Should I just upload the article as is next season or is there a special process to revive a dead page?Katz191 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalippu[edit]

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

A film that has been "upcoming" since 2015 with no sources even showing that principal photography has begun. It was recently hijacked by a SPA who has created many versions of his autobiography and now changed all the names in this article (adding his own name among them) as well as a bunch of sources - all of them crowdfunding sites. (That was probably because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalipp ended as "delete" - I assume Kalipp was the same article as the hijacked version of Kalippu). These self-promotional issues aside, the film clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence filming ever began, no part of the production is significant enough to have a stand-alone article. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stewman[edit]

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

The subject has not received substantial independent coverage in reliable sources, as is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure PROMO, lacking a scintilla od notability. wikipedia is not a free billboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks more like an ad than a WP article. Goharshady (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a sales trainer. No independent coverage exists which could prove his notability. Beth tils (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Benner[edit]

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

No in-depth, independent coverage found per WP:BASIC. Notability apparently hinges on being "part of a team" that received the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, which might arguably satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST. However, despite the press release from Benner's alma mater, and Benner's New York Times bio page, I can find no further verification or details warranting an encyclopedia article: her name does not seem to appear in any of the stories listed at http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/new-york-times-reporting-led-jodi-kantor-and-megan-twohey-and-new-yorker-reporting-ronan (although the soft paywall prevented me from fully examining all New York Times articles). While Benner's stories have been cited or mentioned by a variety of sources (relatively unremarkable for any journalist of prominent publications), coverage of Benner herself seems to consist of rather routine mentions in trade websites or unreliable sources (e.g. Adweek, Talking Biz News) largely based on statements from companies, which is non-independent. As Benner has worked for a variety of publications, I see no clear target for a redirect. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not have the level of coverage on which to base a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: aye, not enough significant coverage for an article at this time. —Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Europeans[edit]

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

No inherent notability or independent sources for the organisation. A Google search only shows the organisation's own website and social media accounts. RaviC (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The group is mentioned a lot in reliable sources and is clearly active. But there is no significant coverage — there's always just a one-sentence description. That's not enough to pass the general notability guideline. Ralbegen (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group is considerably active. Matt 190417 (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being active doesn't make an organisation notable. --RaviC (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It seems like they could possibly be notable based on their activities, but I don't see the significant coverage in third-party reliable sources that would demonstrate it. The existing sources in the article are almost all from the organization itself, so they are basically press releases that don't help meet notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP We are a hugely influential civil rights movement fighting for the rights of EU citizens in the UK and Britons in Europe and a Europe of the citizens. there are numerous references to our work including in the Guardian, Financial times, BBC, The Parliament Magazine and elsewhere - we will update our Wikipedia site shortly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogercasale (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC) — Rogercasale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not "your" site. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Ifnord (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking significant coverage. Lorstaking (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the article's creation, I have twice sought to expand the article further. Maybe half of the sources I have used have been self-published or from affiliated organisations, but there is now sizeably more detail about the group's activities since the AfD was originally created. Matt 190417 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The self-published sources do not count for notability. Sources that do count (such as the BBC) mention the subject in passing only. The BBC reference is mostly an infographic of election results. Ifnord (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Flintstones (film series)[edit]

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

Two films is not enough to make an article about a film series. As the other films have little in common with these two (they are animated and these are live-action), it cannot be sensibly expanded. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yabba-dabba-delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since two films is not enough. Three films is a sufficient threshold because trilogies are common enough (as opposed to duologies), and it allows for a reader to make a second article visit to see the combined details (the first article visit being whichever individual film article they started with). With two films, a reader can easily go from one film article to the other and learn everything they need to know. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Rai[edit]

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

Two dead references and two to Facebook do not qualify as reliable sourcing as required by WP:NBIO, I took a quick look online and couldn't find much more. It is also, not surprisingly, full of pov original research. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACTOR fails WP:GNG. Only mentions found in Forums (possible self published). Possible Autobiography/Fanpage. --DBig Xray 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities. There's consensus that this is one list too many. But there are concerns that the lists we have are not the right ones. The redirect preserves the history and allows editors to figure out editorially how to organize these lists such that they make sense to readers and are not redundant. Sandstein 09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national capitals in alphabetical order[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:2601:183:101:58D0:9C15:8D0B:3367:7B21, whose rationale is basically that this page is redundant to List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities, which can be sorted by alphabetical order. ansh 666 18:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant page (see also List of national capitals by population and List of national capitals by latitude, which should IMO be combined into an overarching List of national capitals, or the list mentioned in the nomination) with not enough incoming links to justify a redirect, being linked almost exclusively in nav templates and See also sections. This is likely a relic of an era where sorted tables weren't possible. ansh 666 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with a rename/merge. If this was the original list, then the others can and should absolutely be merged into this one. ansh 666 06:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 18:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: really not much to justify the continued existence of this page, honestly. Given that the other two pages, population and latitude, allow one to sort their tables alphabetically, this page is superfluous. (I also read the argument by User:2601:183:101:58D0:9C15:8D0B:3367:7B21; it is correct.) —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 19:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant list which can be easily obtained by using the sortable table in List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities. In fact we should not even have lists whose sole distinction is that they are listed in alphabetical order. Ajf773 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was created in 2001(!), and should not be deleted lightly. The other articles mentioned may be quite derivative from this. I strongly prefer some further consideration about history of this and related articles, and some wp:ATD (alternative to deletion) should be found. At worst it should be redirected. Perhaps a derivative should be deleted or moved out of the way, and/or some history merge should be done. It is important for the internal history of Wikipedia to keep the edit history here, I think. --Doncram (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article was developed before tables were sortable, and perhaps before tables existed. --Doncram (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the original page. And yes, back in the day we had to painstakingly map things out with tabs and hard spaces, because we couldn't create HTML tables, let alone sortable tables. I don't think there is any real value in preserving the page, or even the history of the page, because in the grand scheme of things, it is fairly trivial. We created hundreds of "alternate" pages like this to deal with our inability to sort things, and many of them have long since been removed for the same reason. Manning (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for hand-craftting the original version, and for being willing to give up credit for it, but there were lots of major contributors since, and your memory is (understandably) faulty: it was created in 2001 simply as the list of capitals, not as an "alternate". You did the good thing back then. BTW, your version had what might have been a redlink, pointing to a suggested alternate version which was created later, in 2002, which was later redirected to something created in 2007. The 2001 creation, which was quite large for the time, seems to be the oldest surviving. --Doncram (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and redirect~~ Keep and move to List of national capitals. The other articles on this subject should redirect there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC) (amended power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- After further thought, I'm convinced by Doncram that this is the article that should be retained at List of national capitals. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists can now be sorted so this is redundant. WP:LISTCRUFT Acnetj (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes kids, way, way, way back in the day (2001 or so) we created pages like this because we couldn't create sortable tables. I am amazed this page is still around. Manning (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst Redirect (presumably to List of national capitals or List of capitals). This AFD is an uninformed trainwreck. There is NO decent argument above that this should not be at lest redirected. This is a decent alternative to deletion which we are obligated to consider, and which is more important for such an ancient article. Votes of "delete and redirect" are invalid or certainly should not be interpreted as merely "delete". --Doncram (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But note, this long existed as List of national capitals, but it was trashed by being moved to List of national capitals in alphabetical order in 2012, which can be seen more easily in history for that. If it was still with that name, we wouldn't have this AFD at all. The history of wikipedia does matter, IMHO, and it is not right to allow for original major works to get trashed and then deleted. The trasher was permanently blocked a month-and-a-half later, as a sockpuppet.

Further note that "List of national capitals" was redirected to List of capitals with a note that there are other lists of national capitals (listed in the List of capitals). Note there are:

What makes sense now is to combine some or all of these by merger back to THIS ONE, THE ORIGINAL ONE, which should get moved back to "List of national capitals". --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is better for the purpose than the page mentioned in the nomination, as when that list is sorted by city name some cities are listed twice because of the structure of the table. The population list can be sorted alphabeticallye and the latitude list already is, so it could be redirected to either of these. Page view statistics (for 90 days, an average of 1596/day and minimum of 1154/day) indicate that people are looking for this information and it wouldn't be obvious to look in the list by latitude so this shouldn't be deleted. Peter James (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some words of wisdom. The latitude column to sort by is kind of interesting, but we don’t need separate article for it, and it was created in 2014. By population one was created in 2009. Both can be merged into THIS 2001 original. —Doncram (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename this list back to List of national capitals. There is too much overlap between the various national capital lists, but it is those lists that should be deleted or merged into this one, not the other way around. It was a poor move a few years back, but that doesn't mean the original national capital list should be trashed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT Information already at List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities you able to click to sort it by alphabetical order. If you click on "what links here" it shows that there are links to this place, so best to put a redirect here. Dream Focus 05:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Styron[edit]

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

Notability TropicalFishes (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Styron meets the criteria for notability for creative professionals (WP:AUTHORS), based on what is in the article. In any case, the article is poorly sourced, with a dead link, an IMDB link and a link to Styron's own website as the main sources TropicalFishes (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plenty of mentions, but little in the way of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Portable hole. Merge per consensus of discussion participants. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 15:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portable hole (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Tagged for citation improvement for four years. There was one reference, which I removed because it was total garbage. Everything here is WP:OR. My guess is a lot of it could be sourced to the various rule books, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources. I guess this should redirect to Portable hole per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) - I suppose it is a matter of opinion as to whether the Geek.com link that was removed it valid or not, but I think that could be merged. BOZ (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portable hole, which is a more congruent target, and which already discusses this. bd2412 T 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to portable hole per bd2412. Seriously, how does WP have TWO articles on this topic? — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to portable hole; none of the existing content appears to be sourced and most of it doesn't need to be merged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some detail to Portable hole that I could reference to reasonably solid sources (although, I actually suspect both of those are copyvios of the original books). I can't find anything else that's well sourced, and adding much more to Portable hole would generatge WP:UNDUE issues, so I think this is about as much as we can do. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if somebody also wants to add something to Magic item (Dungeons and Dragons) , I have no objection, but the same concern about merging unsourced material applies there. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Magic item (Dungeons and Dragons). Vorbee (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to portable hole and update the link already extant in Magic item (Dungeons and Dragons) to point to a new section there. The D&D usage of a portable hole is a specific case, and distinct enough from other fictional portable holes to merit a section. Also, undid removal of sole reference--it's not appropriate for a nominator to remove a non-abusive reference and then nominate an article for deletion. It may be a borderline reference, but that's for the discussion to decide, not for the nominator to prejudice by removal. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to portable hole per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portable hole. It might also need mention at Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons); don't set up a false dichotomy here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. GNG met and notability, once established, is not temporary. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 15:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewell water filter[edit]

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

Appears to be just one of many hundreds or proprietary water filter systems developed. Such proprietary systems were very common in the late 19th and early 20th century. There is nothing about this one that suggests notability, even if some of the claims made were backed up by good sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as creator - I am ok with this being merged into Sand filter but I think Jewell filter's were quite well-known - I found one in operation in a town nearby and this led me to create the article. It is apparently standard knowledge for all civil engineers in India - also see the hits for "Jewell water filter" and "Jewell filter" - interestingly the main Google site provides little of relevance to naive searchers which was an extra motivation for me to create the article. Shyamal (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone interested in water filtration (I happen to live near a large park used for this purpose) I think anything from 1900 and earlier that is still functioning for this purpose is fascinating. The old pump systems near me in the Netherlands are considered provincial monuments, and they are from the 1920s. If a NYC company won significant commissions in India while under British rule, then that is notable, and such an article can be used as background for any articles about individual installations, especially if they made significant improvements to municipal health (as such installations did in the Netherlands). Jane (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It already looks to satisfy GNG with more than two references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than satisfies WP:GNG with a number of reliably sourced references. As notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP, the fact that the system is from the late 19th and early 20th centuries is not relevant to a deletion discussion. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Vachon[edit]

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

As much as I enjoy this show, I am nominating this article for deletion or redirect for two reasons:

1. This article does not cite any references, let alone secondary ones, which completely torpedoes its notability.

2. This character only appears in the third and final season of the show whereas the articles that were once in place for characters like LaCroix and Janette, who appeared in every season, have either been deleted or redirected. Shaneymike (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. But willing to revisit if better sourcing found Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Harwood[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, whose notability claims are referenced 8/10 to garbage sources, like blogs and YouTube videos and Twitter tweets, that cannot carry notability in a Wikipedia article. Of the two sources left that are actually reliable ones, one is a genuinely strong and substantive source while the other is a short blurb that, when translated, is really just a brief summary of the other rather than a standalone piece of new reporting -- so they count as one reliable source combined toward WP:GNG, not two. But passing GNG requires multiple reliable sources, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Enigma^msg 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I chopped the bad references, and there are just a few decent refs left. There is an article in Marie Claire that covers Harwood, so there seems to be other coverage. I would bet there will be more, so weak keep. FWIW, when cleaning up the references I noticed they had been oddly but competently formatted, which made me think this was a professional editing job.104.163.139.33 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete sourcing on page is inadequate and I cannot find reliable sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savaari (company)[edit]

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

A company that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the existing references are funding announcements/press releases.This article was suggested as more substantive coverage on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promising company but doesn't meet WP:ORG. There are many references but nothing that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The references offered by creator are routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company has been in existence since the last 12 years. It has coverage in print but online references are few Coverage prints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajkGuj (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: RajkGuj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
- Comment Press releases are not independent sources and are not considered for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable WP:ORGCRIT Heshiv (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy[edit]

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

I searched in vain for reviews of this book; other than Goodreads, all I found was a specialized blog, which I've added to the article as its first reference. Our notability standards for books are low, but unless someone else can find more reviews, I don't believe this book meets them. PROD placed by another editor was removed with a request to AfD instead. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to be a lesser-known sequel/companion to a notable book; my inclination would be to merge what little information this article has into that one, or to Wayne Barlowe, if this article cannot be made to stand on its own. (Also, this book is just old enough that reviews of it might not be online in convenient format; I will try to dig for them when I'm in range of better databases.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I requested an AfD because deletion discussions sometimes lead to additional sources being provided. I have EBSCO access, but was unable to find anything relevant, so I am not surprised to hear that Yngvadottir "searched in vain for reviews of this book". Merging might be the best option. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "...because deletion discussions sometimes lead to additional sources being provided" is an invalid argument. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment First pass found this print review in the fanzine Crypt of Cthulhu, issue #96 1997 p. 30 by Robert M. Price but didn't find it online. Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials had some reviews accessible by EBSCO so I thought something might be there, but the prior comment says maybe not. There is a mention in Kirkus Book Reviews which could add to the article. StrayBolt (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an alternate book choice from The Science Fiction Book Club for January 1997 (blog source, published ad source). Fletcher Vredenburgh of Black Gate (magazine) said how it influence him to buy 5 books based on the images. Maybe there are other refs showing its influence, like this. StrayBolt (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Vredenburgh mention. If there were indeed reviews that are simply not on-line, I hope one or more of you will find them and add them. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate the work that went into the improvement, but I don't see the added value. In fact, I just removed something, because the source was an advertisement. The reviews added were from fanzines, and the one book that was listed among the references, The Year's Best Science Fiction, literally only mentions the book. A redirect may be fair, and the contents may be merged, though that table of contents is in no way ever valid encyclopedic content. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The material is not a table of contents. It is a list of the species and beings described in the book, and it is perfectly reasonable, considering that describing those species and beings is the point of the book. There is no absolute rule against providing a list of a book's chapters in any case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said when I removed it, it's a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. It's not the job of an encyclopedia to list everything that appears in a book; our job is to summarize what reliable sources have said about the book, which is why I added a statement about its contents based on a review. In other words, it may be the point of the book, but it's not the point of our page. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - One can make a case for or against including that material, but Wikipedia is not a directory truly is not relevant. The material isn't any of the things that page says Wikipedia is not about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If the author is notable, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, there being a valid target for merger and redirection. James500 (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google check boiled down to a mere 140 hits, most of them booksellers and libraries. As notability is not inherited, the book should prove its own notability as the author does not makes the book notable. The Banner talk 19:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Could you post the url for getting 140 hits? What were the search terms/settings to help you get down to such a short list? Starting with the "Find Sources" above, it starts at "About 13,700" (yes, many "booksellers and libraries"). While I have scanned some restrictive short lists, I would like to learn new ways to speed finding sources. StrayBolt (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a new way of searching, it is just going to the last page of the search results. The Banner talk 08:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh… right. Guess I changed my search after seeing the estimate. Two orders of magnitude drop, but I've seen more. StrayBolt (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since sources were provided. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the already removed link to a booksellers-advertisement? The Banner talk 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I mean the sources still in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know the ad was unorthodox, but doesn't it qualify as WP:SELFSOURCE? Many articles on books include them being selected for some "Book of the Month".[3] This was a January 1997 alternate so not as notable (I'm guessing). StrayBolt (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep scrapes by on sources. Artw (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the sources that FreeKnowledgeCreator and Artw refer to; the Kirkus review and the Blackgate one are basically trivial mentions in the context of Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hamilton[edit]

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

Based on the information given here, Prof. Hamilton doesn't pass the notability guideline for Academics, there is no assertion of notability in the article text, and there are no independent sources given. Slashme (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON for academic notability and this case seems no exception. Google Scholar citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1 and there is no evidence of passing any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable professor. Too soon. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Larson[edit]

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

No independant indication of notability. Sources available are either connected to him (as employer/employee) or very minor routine coverage of his firing from a previous job. As there is a lack of any significant coverage in reliable independant secondary sources, this should be deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not established in Google news or search Accesscrawl (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every local news talkshow host is notable, and nothing suggests that Larson is notable by any more restrictive standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the discussion, Facebook views do not imply notability and the article does not satisfy GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divya anveshita[edit]

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

We have consistently rejected the claim that the number of viewers on Facebook implies notability, and this is the only claim. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks indeed like she does not have a notability clams outside FB.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Far from WP:GNG. No sources are established enough to be trusted. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Hendrickson[edit]

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article. Sports agents are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This SFGate article is substantia. There's a lot of "transactional" coverage such as [4] but that's barely better than press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Gill[edit]

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

Promotional article. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, completely promotional as per nominator. Was thinking a few weeks ago of putting it up for deletion as well. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 00:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely promotional and no claim of significance or importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yicai Global[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Founded in 2016, cannot see how it can pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Lacks substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Yicai Global has been at the centre of a lot of undisclosed paid editing and WP:CITESPAM on Wikipedia^[1]. COI users previously added a huge number of citations to "Yicai Global" across Wikipedia using a network of sockpuppet accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowynina) and various other IP addresses. I think the problem is still ongoing. A serious and long-term case of abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes, contrary to our policy on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Shanghai Media Group. Per nomination, I agree that these COI edits shall be reverted in general. And I can't find much information supporting that Yicai itself outside of SMG can be notable. Xinbenlv (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala flyover[edit]

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

A plain overpass, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting notability established by the references which are merely standard news items (nearly every construction project will get mentioned in local media but that doesn't make it notable). P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nom may not have read the article carefully because the subject is not a "plain overpass" but a 2.26 km flyover (a kind of elevated highway) that presumably allows a driver to bypass some significant surface traffic in India where traffic is often brutal. We routinely cover highways and significant streets in the US and other countries with stand alone articles and this is a combination of those two types of pages. I'm not aware of any merge target here but if there is a page on a highway or street this could be merged into, or perhaps this can be built out more, as it is a new page. In general I see no benefit to deleting pages on significant public infrastructure. This is not promotional and no one profits from the page except the reader that wants to know about the topic. There is plenty of spam to focus our deletion efforts on, we don't need to target useful info on significant public infrastructure. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The length by itself doesn't make it notable. As it is now, there is nothing here that warrants an article IMO. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The length is very relevent because you incorrectly termed it a "plain overpass" which suggests it just goes over a highway. This is a much bigger chunk of infrastructure. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have a fair bit of coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is nonsense, none of the sources in the article are "local". They are all national news sources in India. SpinningSpark 21:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All three refs mention the personal involvement of the chief minister for the state. Evidently a significant road project 2.25 km of elevated two lane road. Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Significant public infrastructure and the first in the state.I fail to understand how a flyover is a plain overpass and how national media units could be percieved as local media. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per User:Winged Blades of Godric. Bingobro (Chat) 05:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the discussion, the article has been greatly improved since nomination and now satisfies NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys and Dolls Like Vibes[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM or even WP:GNG. Standard brief overview in AllMusic, which by itself does not meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability. Beyond that there are some brief or passing mentions in a couple of books (not used in the wiki article). The article is simply a listing of songs and personnel, and since notability is not inherited, it appears to violate WP:NOTCATALOG. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddie Costa or with Eddie Costa discography.Vorbee (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - To Eddie Costa discography. There simply is nothing practical to merge since this stub is basically a track listing. The passing mentions and a brief AllMusic review do not cut it for GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot verify most of the sources, but I will AGF and presume that they are more than passing mentions. Considering that the album is from the 1950s, I understand that not as many sources are readily available and thus can weakly support keeping the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"weakly"? You can find the Billboard review by searching here. You can read the Wilson review here, although citing the physical book looks better. The others, except Penguin, are not hard to find, even if Google books at first doesn't show the required text. So: 4 reviews cited, at least 2 more readily available (all from leading authorities), and paragraphs in books published by Yale and the OUP. Pretty much any 2 of them would be enough for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." EddieHugh (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has now been expanded beyond the All-Music Guide review. Probably other sources available given two of the sidemen are much better known than the leader. Philip Cross (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added reviews from Billboard and The Penguin Guide to Jazz. That gives it reviews in three major publications, which is more than enough for WP:NALBUM criterion 1. I expect that it's covered in biographies (books) of Bill Evans too, but I don't have access to them. (Update: just clicking on "books" in the links above shows that there's enough... reviews in Gramophone and DownBeat are clearly visible.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added some information from the Peter Pettinger 1998 biography of Bill Evans. Possibly not enough on its own to demonstrate this album can be considered notable enough for inclusion. But the issue is clearly in the process of being resolved. Philip Cross (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Thanks. Now up to 6 good sources, without bothering with DownBeat and Gramophone. It's tempting to keep going and then give it a GAN, but it's not a priority. EddieHugh (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AfD inspired editors to dig up some quality sources and the article has been improved to at least the level of a quality stub. That's a fine outcome to this process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article on album with significant performers. I am saddened that the original proposers did not try and improve the article themselves before their AfD. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now meets notability requirements. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the substantial sources and article improvements now established. Meets the first criterion of WP:NALBUM. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Libric[edit]

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

Non notable. Refs are mix of blogs, site listings, company definition site, forbes /sites and the info about the company bouxtie. Out of the 12 refs, 1 is a primary, the rest are non RS and junk. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; a HuffPo list of "10 Entrepreneurs to Follow in 2017" is completely ignorable, and others are about his company (which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan hip hop[edit]

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

This article is formatted almost like a school project, and it uses far too much common language, and borders on violating WP:PROMO at places. The Copyvio tool shows that multiple individual sections have been directly copied from other sources, with others being altered slightly. bojo | talk 14:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes, there are problems. However it seems to pass GNG and articles like these have solid precedent. Maybe we need to break out the fire and brimstone, but this is clearly a GNG-passing subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with nominator that the language falls short of encyclopedic standards, though the subject matter satisfies WP:GNG. Major rewrite is required, including deletion/paraphrasing of copyrighted sections. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work. Deleting the article would be unhelpful to all concerned. I've done a little copyediting on the article, but there's a lot more that needs to be done.- ක - (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is notable and there are plenty of independent verifiable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Am prepared to undertake a rewrite of the article, with assistance to bring it up to scratch. Dan arndt (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by user:Ansh666, G7 author request. SpinningSpark 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Athirala[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Non-notable individual. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Obvious conflict of interest based on author contribution history. The1337gamer (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I never knew the CSE could show no results until now. JOE BRO 64 13:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing to support notability, fails WP:RS and WP:ANYBIO Edidiong (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Bitencourt[edit]

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

The article is in the process of being deleted in the Portuguese wiki. Accused of Self-promotion. The creator of the article created the same article in several languages and this seems to be his only contribution. The Portuguese wiki is known for its totalitarianism, but the sources really do not seem to satisfy WP:GNG. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Has a small arguable amount of nobility, but it seems a lot of the links are to his own sites. Seems to violate WP:PROMO. bojo | talk 13:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -

PT wiki pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Paulo Bitencourt

Its result was delete with the comment Consensus for deletion, and none of the sources shown prove notability. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ES wiki es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Paulo Bitencourt Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the discussion, most likely run-of-the-mill coverage/insufficient independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Urdu Academy, India[edit]

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

The lead says the institute was started in 1972 but the only citation in the article, the academy's website, says that the academy was established in 2005 and not much was done after that. This says the Academy was not even recognised by the government of Punjab as an education institution as late as 2013 and "failed to get wider acceptance in the absence of recognition". Its present status is not clear. I propose the article be deleted for not qualifying WP:Notability. Ankit2 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hanging on the edge of being passing Wikipedia notability requirements for me with a few reliable sources that could be found (albeit quite hidden). [5] and [6] which talk about the Academy. However the articles official website's "about" section conflicts with the sources. What makes my vote a delete is the quality of the article, it does not cite any reliable sources, some of the information is incorrect such as the established date (compared to the reference) and it only cites one source. Araratic | talk 04:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I could find only two reliable sources mentioning this "Academy"(both are linked above)....However the two sources do not represent the quality of reporting expected from these sources. The articles are at the best WP:MILL coverage... accidental coverage when the main intention was to cover the minister's comment...Thus none of the sources confer notability to the subject — F R ⁺ 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need to draw this out, WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha Henry[edit]

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

See also Enchanted (Aretha Henry album) and Beautiful (Aretha Henry album). Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The second album to chart was on an Amazon.com chart, while all other positions are on charts for a seemingly non-notable music pool. Edited by a SPA who created the album articles and likely has a COI, though most of those contributions have been removed, except possibly the references. Now turning to the sources:

A directory listing with no information.
Possible dead link.
Dead link.
Official website.
Directory listing, includes some material from this article.
No professional reviews at AllMusic.
Not working, reports as busy.
iTunes listing for a various-artists compilation by a non-notable record label.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
Dead link, labeled as an interview.
Looks like a primary source.
Same website as [12].
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
Does not mention Henry, her album Superhuman, or whatever "Masterpiece" is.
Having difficulty loading this one, but according to @Richard3120:, it is "a reproduction of a press notice advertising the album."
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
Short press release on her record label, Oz Avenue Entertainment. Oz Avenue Entertainment is not notable.
An interview on YouTube.
A directory entry with no information about the artist.
Short "reader-submitted" local announcement of her wedding.

According to a Google search, it may fail WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on point 18 above - at the bottom of the source in question are the words "The post 'New Music: Aretha Henry Releases New Album Superhuman' appeared first on Business Press Release Service", with a link to the original press release. Richard3120 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted by LaundryPizza, see also the two album AfD's (not bundled together because they were nominated by different people). LaundryPizza has a fine analysis of the sources used in the singer's article; all are run of the mill song listings or self-generated promotional items, and the charts are of suspicious validity. Over at one of the album discussions, Richard3120 did a search and found this newspaper piece: [7], and I have been unable to find anything else. Good luck to the singer but she is in pure self-promotional mode right now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like mentioned above, lack of WP:RS and possible WP:COI. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I wish Ms Henry the best in her music career, but to date the article from her local newspaper (linked by Doomsdayer520 above) seems to be the only substantial independent source available. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NMUSICBIO. Good promotional work, folks, but what can you do: These AfDonauts are something else. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neha R. Krishna[edit]

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

The author is not notable. Fails notability. Also no suitable references can be found in the net that can substantiate the importance of this article.Beverfernandes (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAUTHOR. Doesn't seem to really meet any of the criteria for nobility. bojo | talk 14:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The only sources found were profiles on goodreads, social media accounts and mentions in few unreliable websites...Ex:[8][9] etc — F R ⁺ 10:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takahiro Mitsuyoshi[edit]

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

Has been tagged for notability since 2013. Created by a SPA that also created all the articles in other language Wikipedias. Has only made one film which itself might not have passed notability requirements. Japanese article has a number of citations, most of which are not significant or reliable sources. Citations in the English article are insufficient to prove notability, and searches in English and Japanese find little else. Has apparently been elected to the town council of a small town of less than 8000 people, but that doesn't pass WP:NPOL. In summary, fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have given spa and inexperienced users less weight in evaluating arguments than established users. Alto, claims of sourcing were unsubstantiated despite a request for detail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Moreno de Aponte[edit]

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

Hello. This article was deleted following an AfD on 5 May 2018, and it was recreated by the same user 20 days later. CSD G4 was rejected because "this new version has multiple references", but I do not see any mention of the subject in these references. The only source we have right now is an obituary in a very local newspaper. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same issues as the previous nomination. Fails WP:PROF and the obituary that is the only ref isn't sufficient. It should be noted that the only mention of the subject in the thesis is a dedication by actor Marco Aponte to his mother, and that WikiProject Venezuela in the Spanish Wikipedia has a list of almost 200 women biographies to create, among which this article is not included. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG/BASIC. The obituary at Berkeleyside is not a reliable source that counts towards notability. Source no. 2 and no. 3 do not mention her. Source no. 4 is a thesis by her son, Marco Aponte, where she is mentioned, but the source is neither independent nor is the coverage significant. The article was created by an account with the username Marcoaponte, who also created Marco Aponte. Sam Sailor 17:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A little off topic, but Marco Aponte should be evaluated too? A worry a little about possible conflict of interests. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jamez42: I vetted the sources in Marco Aponte and nominated it for deletion. Likewise the closely related article Actors of the World, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors of the World. Sam Sailor 07:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have created Carmen Moreno de Aponte's entry twice. The first time the article was recommended for deletion, so I included relevant references because I think it is important that the profile of prominent Latinos and other minorities in the United States appear on Wikipedia. Now the article is recommended for deletion again. I am not sure anymore what to do to keep it there. I think it is a bit unfortunate that in 2018 Wikipedia's editors are recommending the deletion of an article on a prominent woman of color in the United States. Especially when there are so many articles on Wikipedia of white men, whose lives were less significant than Carmen Moreno's. Unfortunately she made her career, and was a prominent figure in her home country, in the 1960s-1980s, before the internet, so sources are limited. I really hope the article will not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoaponte (talk • contribs) 02:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Marcoaponte (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
@Marcoaponte: You said that Carmen was prominent and the article mentions she has held "several prominent leadership positions in the Venezuelan government". Which are they? Sources do not have to come from the Internet, if there's a book that mentions here accomplishments notability could be demonstrated. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42 As far as I know, if the articles and books that mention her are not published on the internet there is no way to list them as reference. Again, she held prominent positions in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. before the internet. If you know of a way for me to cite these articles and books, please let me know. I think her accomplishments deserve notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoaponte (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcoaponte: While editing, Wikipedia offers the option of "Book citation" in the "Cite" tab. It allows to include all the information of the book, including author, published and ISBN. In any case, the question remains, which are these prominent positions? --Jamez42 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Just read the article and looked up references. Don't see a problem. 2601:644:400:52F7:6199:8521:E7E0:CAC7 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — 2601:644:400:52F7:6199:8521:E7E0:CAC7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MCE MC1[edit]

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

Hypothetical sports car floated by non-notable companies. CGI images were released in January 2008 and it never made the news ever again thereafter. Obvious case of non-notable vaporware. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see the same pattern of hits. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same pattern as what? ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming they meant the same pattern that I saw of a brief flash of publicity on or around the release date in January 2008, and after that, nada. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Murdoch (venture capitalist)[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable person. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP Misterpottery (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person. - Delete --Lauranos (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SuperNET (company)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about yet another unremarkable blockchain related company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Possibly native advertising, as the creator has only two edits outside this topic. MER-C 09:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Users in clack channel is not a good indication of notability per N:SLACK. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable company; no good references nor claims of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing a deletion consensus here. Discussion about redirect or merge can continue on article talk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Words (1997 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary film with no significant coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Agree with nom.~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--I fail to make heads or tails about the redirect target.I can understand a redirect to the director, but to one of his other films?! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is the footage was shot for that other movie, part of that production, and was only released because the other film had stalled. StrayBolt (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we can't find enough sources, seems like most of it should be merged into a new section of Nema aviona za Zagreb with duplicate material being removed. Change this to a redirect to that section. StrayBolt (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge/redirect per StrayBolt. Hoverfish Talk 16:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hoverfish and StrayBolt: and what about verification? are we going to use those passing mentions? GSS (talk|c|em) 16:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any indication of OR, "beliefs or experiences of editors" here. I thought the article was nominated only for lack of notability. Hoverfish Talk 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did say, "If we can't find…", but I think there are more RS out there for notability, perhaps some in Dutch(nl). There are only a few minor claims that would be nice to have more support, although they may already be in the refs provided. StrayBolt (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could be merge/redirected to Nema Aviona Za Zagreb, including the interesting information about the gatefold of Who Came First by Pete Townshend. The article was written before Nema came out. Beyond Words is, however, in all Louis Van Gasteren's filmographies, a film he was apparently proud of. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On thinking about it, it's one of the films of Louis Van Gasteren, who made many short films, and contains material not in Nema Aviona Za Zagreb. Removing this film and not other shorts by Gasteren is simply bias, and has nothing to do with notability. All Gasteren's films are obscure and not well known or written about. The only reason this film was nominated by Winged Blade is that it has Meher Baba in it. He has nominated over a dozen articles with Meher Baba in the last few weeks, and openly admits his intention to perge articles with Meher Baba. See Talk:Meher Baba where he says this. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dazedbythebell:--Are you fucking crazy? This was nominated by GSS, not me.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, I can assure you that I will seek deletion on those other films of Gasteren which doesn't pass our notability guidelines. But, for now this's a ridiculous argument.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dazedbythebell: As the follower of Meher Baba it is reasonable that you think it should be kept but you must be aware that we have some very strict guidelines such as WP:NFILM and general notability guideline which need to be followed. I agree this can be a redirect to Louis van Gasteren#Filmography but there is nothing to merge. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake as to who of the two started this nomination, is not such a serious blunder as to make one fucking crazy. The rest of Dazed's arguments are true. A heavy bias on attacking Meher Baba related topics is loudly expressed by the very words of Winged Blades of Godric. In this case, the notability excuse is just the means for purging the topic. Hoverfish Talk 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If lack of notability is an excuse for deletion, let be it.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoverfish: as I replied to Dazedbythebell above being a follower of Meher Baba your reaction is reasonable but it doesn't grant you the permission to point the finger on other editors. As per my understanding this article nowhere meets our notabilty requirments which is the reason I nominated it for deletion. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 16:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: what you mean by per above? we don't have any policy called above but yes we have this essay WP:AADP#Per others, which states, Simply going along with the crowd does not present any new ideas. If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good. Also for your kind information there is only one Keep !vote above which was made by one of Meher Baba's follower and that was not a policy-based reason for keeping this article so can you please explain why this article should be kept as per our policies and guidelines such as WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? I wrote "per comments above", not "per above". The comments and points made by others in this discussion are persuasive. This film, by noted filmmaker Louis van Gasteren, is a fine example of the genre. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? please don't forget WP:NOTINHERITED it doesn't mater who made the film or who appeard in the film the topics of our articles must be independently notable. I agreed with other users above that it can be a redirect to Louis van Gasteren#Filmography but keeping this article only because it's a work of a "notable person" is not at all a valid reason. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Quite a lot of keep !votes but no substance. So Why 09:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Taylor (comedian)[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet the standard set at WP:GNG, therefore this article should be deleted. 2Joules (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comedian is notable. I’m a nerdy comedy fan and saw @hipsterocracy tweet a link to this Wiki. I noticed it was very sparse. I had never edited Wikipedia before but wanted to add to it and thought it a great opportunity to create pages for other comics that didn’t have pages themselves in the future. I’m a nerd, I like that kinda stuff. I’m sad to see it nominated for deletion especially after I put so much time into learning Wikipedia working so much on this page (and others also). Also Johnny Taylor, Jr. is notable and I thought I cited very well. I ask for reconsideration.

Also when using Taylor’s twitter handle, there are many news sources available. See below: )

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

~~Tim Anthony Johnston (talk) 28 May 2018 (UTC)~~ Struck !vote of confrimed & blocked sock.104.163.139.33 (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hispterocracy tweet search above leads to numerous articles where a single tweet of his has been republished to illustrate a larger theme rather than Taylor. Not SIGCOV; they are all just republished quotes, basically. A regular search turns up too little to meet GNG.104.163.139.33 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the comedian is notable. I too am tired of wiki ham fisted decisions on who is worthy of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statelywaynemanor (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is not about your opinion; you need to cite evidence.104.163.139.33 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple google search of “Johnny Taylor Comedy” shows this person is notable for stand-up comedy and social media influence. Because of its easily-verified content, the page stands as accurate. Why delete it, other than personal bias? I suspect that is the reason for the nomination to begin with, as John Lambert, who subscribes to antiquated views of marriage and family, is likely not a fan of Taylor's more liberal views.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.182.1 (talk)

The discussion is not about your opinion; you need to cite evidence.104.163.139.33 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something fishy going on with the keep votes above.104.163.139.33 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs input by established users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Johnny Taylor is a notable comedian worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, far more than many already listed. Taylor is regularly booked feature and headline performer with Live Nation and regularly performs at their Sacramento, Philadelphia, and San Francisco Clubs. Actor/Comedian Brian Posehn has had Taylor open for him for years as well. Taylor is a frequent guest on Sacramento's Capital Public Radio, and has had his writing and tweets featured prominently in several major publicaitons, already cited in this piece. His album, "Tangled Up In Plaid" (Stand Up! Records) was a Top 10 iTunes Comedy Album release, and his special/CD release of his next album "Bumming With The Devil" will be released later this year. I run retroCRUSH.com (which has a Wikipedia entry, for what that's worth) and have personally given Taylor a press quote that was used on his album. He's also filming a pilot for a TV Show, "Sick Joke", as well. He's a veteran performer who has more than 159,000 followers on Twitter (@hipsterocracy), including legendary comic Richard Lewis and other industry greats. He has been on the cover of Submerge Magazine in Sacramento, and has been prominently featured in The Sacramento Bee, Capital Public Radio, and The Sacramento News and Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrocrush (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — Retrocrush (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Insufficient depth of coverage per WP:BIO; having your tweets mentioned by news/comedy sites doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article on yet another unremarkable cryptocurrency. MER-C 09:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - advertisement for non-notable product, fails WP:GNG with zero coverage online outside of the usual (amusingly named) CC promo sites. TMG^talk 11:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable crypto-currency, fails the GNG. Only non RS mentions from sites that cover any and all CC. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to pass GNG. Lacking RSs. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources to pass GNG not found. Sam Sailor 18:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although there were several keep !votes, none directly addressed the lack of in-depth sourcing. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maiko Yūki[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. It's unclear who called her "Japan's AV Girl of the Year", perhaps the film distribution company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article seems to include information someone close would have, presumably not being written in an unbiased fashion. Since the article has survived thus far since it's creation back in 2007, it might be best to check back and possibly restore the article to a point where it had reliable sources (the current page seems to have some issues with it as well), or see if there are any current sources available now. -Handoto (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some help (note the red notes in the Reference section) but it has some good information and companion articles written in six other languages in Wikipedia help to show this person's appeal. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As pointed out above, there are six other language versions of this page. To me this shows international opinion that the article deserves a place on WP --John B123 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no claim of passing WP:PORNBIO, and references don't support passing WP:GNG. As for the keep arguments, a Wikipedia article's longevity is no indication of its subject's notability. The Porn Project has many 10-year-old articles that are getting cleaned out. Presence in other Wikipedia editions is a circular argument as they tend to copy from en.Wikipedia. The other articles also use the same or similar low quality references. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOTTIE GNG etc. Other wikis having articles, that means nothign except that she does indeed have "appeal" and that "international opinion" would want her on wiki. She's an AV star, to be expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs)
Delete other wikis are not evidence of notability. A blp requires proper sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sources to justify an article. We have now gotten the Japanese Pornographic actresses category down to 68 articles. Now if we could only make a reasonable dent in the articificially inflated American pornographic actresses category we might be getting somewhere. Back in 2007 it was the wild west days of Wikipedia articles. I recently nominated an article that has existed since 2004 and never in all that time had even one source. Lots of junk created in 2007 still lingers on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Wall Ventures[edit]

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

A $212 million venture capital fund is relative insignificant these days, and it is not surprising that there isnot enough material to show notability .Almost all the references are the expected mere announcements, with some of them ore extensive ones being PR. Even otherwise good newspapers publish PR-basedarticles in this field, and they have to be discounted. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as per Nom. Most of the sources are clearly rewrites of PR material. The worst are Forbes and Bizjournals who have not even bothered to paraphrase the PR bumpf. venturebeat and La business journal are not much better. The rest is routine announcements. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to consider moving this to Draft instead of deleting. I would have no objection to doing this. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally a draft article that was moved to mainspace by an inexperienced editor who has participated in 2 Afd in 2015 and 1 in 2016 on an article that they created which was deleted as a redirect and doesn't seem to have much experience in other discussions concerning notability. This move was made at the request of the article creator who was paid to write this article. I would say if the article creator has more sources then he can post them here. If in the 7 days that the discussion remains open he has not found sufficient sources to convince any delete !voters to change their minds then I doubt very much that its incubation would have made any difference. For me this looks like trying to game the system to avoid a deletion which I understand is not very good for the image of the client who paid for this article to be written. WP:DRAFTIFY is normally for 2 cases; after deletion in an undelete request and during new pages review. This page was reviewed back in february so that boat has now sailed. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good anti use-case for the new WP:NCORP standard. scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have WP:COI as declared on the article. I am preparing an update, which will have many new sources, including a second fund (VCs raise multiple funds), more articles about the company, and about 20 investments they've made, each covered by reliable sources. I suggest editors give me 24 hours to post the proposed updates to see if this sways them (since I can't edit directly, I have to use a sandbox to do my work) In the interim, I will note the following:

The formation of a large new VC fund to exclusively invest in real estate technology is not a routine announcement, even if the sources discussing the new company prominently mention the size of the fund. The main reason this new VC fund was covered by the mutiple reliable sources at launch is because it reportedly is the first or among the first to be focused exclusively on funding real-estate tech (companies in this category include, for example, WeWork and Airbnb), and was funded by some of the most important real estate companies in the world. This made it stand out from the very large crowd of general-interest VCs. Also, it was of interest to reliable sources because one of the principals founded a company that went public for $6.7 billion. So multiple reliable independent sources deemed it to be worthy of significant coverage, such as the Los Angeles Times, Forbes, TechCrunch and The Real Deal.
Regarding the size of the fund. VC firms raise multiple funds over time - as the funds become fully invested, they continue to be managed, and the VC firms raise new funds to make other investments; $240 million ($212m big raise plus $38m prior) is a very healthy first fund, if we are making subjective judgments here. By way of comparison, the first fund raised by the one of the most well-known VCs, Andreessen Horowitz was $300 million, as stated on the Wikipedia article about them, sourced here.^[2]
Not in the article yet is that it has been reported that the company filed an SEC report declaring they had already raised $60 million toward a second $200 million fund. The company didn't verify this, but the press recently picked it up from an SEC filing.^[3] This coverage is significant especially because there was no press release, no comment by the company, no announcement of any sort - just reporting by multiple sources that interpreted the SEC filing to be worthy of coverage.
This company had not issued any press releases when that article was created and sourced, and since then, has only issued one, related to the lead financing of a company not covered in this article. In short, suggestions above to the contrary, all the articles cited in the article are based on original reporting from the secondary sources (such as interviews with the founders, review of SEC documents, analysis of the reporter based on their industry knowledge), since there was no press release to rewrite or spin. Articles, even from reliable sources, that just rewrite press releases or make trivial mentions, don't help to establish notability under WP:NCORP. But that's not the case here. The interviews and analysis from source to source are unique. I suppose some of the reporters might have copied from each other, but when they do, they almost always cite and link to the other publication. Some sources, like Forbes, are bullish on the opportunity for the fund, but that's the analysis of their staff real estate reporter based on her knowledge, not a lazy PR rewrite.
Among the sources establishing notability: an extended feature in the tier-one reliable source, the Los Angeles Times, with extensive reporting^[4]; this Forbes Magazine staff article from their real estate tech reporter that analyzes the company, and its prospects in the industry; ^[5] this feature from TechCrunch^[6]; an extensive second story in Tech Crunch when the firm launched an accelerator^[7]; and multiple other sources cited in the article discussing the formation of the company and its significance in the VC and real-estate industry. As per WP: NCORP, independent sources covering the same event each count as a separate source.
I will suggest other new sources and language in a proposed update that show the company has been steadily in the news (and not as a result of press releases from the company, since there was only one), enabling the article to continue to be written and built out so it's much more than a stub, as per WP:NCORP. BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

References

^ "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowynina/Archive", Wikipedia, 2017-12-29, retrieved 2018-06-20
^ Maney, Kevin (6 July 2009). "Marc Andreessen puts his money where his mouth is". CNNMoney. CNN. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
^ "Fifth Wall raising another $200M for retail tech startups". The Real Deal New York. 2018-05-24. Retrieved 2018-06-06.
^ "The nation's biggest real estate companies are trusting two men in Venice to find them the next Airbnb or WeWork". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2017-10-31.
^ Sharf, Samantha. "New $212M Venture Fund Goes All In On Real Estate--Can An Innovative Model Force Change In A Dusty Industry?". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-10-31.
^ Loizos, Connie. "A new venture firm focused on real estate has raised $212 million from real estate industry giants". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-10-31.
^ Shieber, Jonathan. "Real estate venture firm Fifth Wall launches an early-stage accelerator". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-10-31.

That's a lot of techcrunch sources...you might want to have a look at this discussion. [[10]] Dom from Paris (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, Fifth Wall Ventures had issued no press releases at the time this article was written, so any reporting done by Techcrunch, the LA Times, Forbes, L.A. Business Journal, The Real Deal or any of the other cited sources is not based on re-hashed PR. These are multiple independent reliable sources that wrote significant original articles because they viewed the story as newsworthy. And as I'll show with the update shortly, the company has stayed in the news consistently since the article was published.BC1278 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I find this almost impossible to believe as most of the articles are dated 2 May 2017. Did all the sources all of a sudden have an epiphany and write on the same day including the same information about this company? Dom from Paris (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And almost all of them use the same photo to illustrate the story and they all contain the same facts more or less..can this be a series of amazing coincidences or did someone feed them the news story with the basic facts and a photo to use all on the same day? Dom from Paris (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be more precise about what I was saying, of the 7 sources that talk about them raising 212M$ 6 are dated 02/05/2017 and 1 28/04/2017 (I don't have access to this article for GDRP reasons), the 2 sources that talk about the accelerator programme are both dated 12/07/2017 (1 is behind a pay wall though). Of the other 2 sources about Jared Kushner one (The real deal) is reporting the other (WSJ) and mentions 5th Wall in passing. The real deal article from 28/05/2018 is routine coverage of the extra 200M$ padded out with a rewrite of their 2017 article. So for me we have 9 sources that seem to be written from information fed to them (not sure about the LA Times though) 2 passing mentions and 1 source from 2016 that is behind a pay wall (WSJ) and 1 routine coverage from last month. I have serious doubts that this is enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They spoke to the press, of course. You can read the quotations in the stories. The timing of most of this was dictated by public SEC disclosures when a new fund is raised, after which the company pitched some interviews and the company responded to some interview requests. They may have also done several interviews on a black out in the days before the SEC disclosed the new fund. I don't know what happened here-- but getting an interview on black out until a set date was common when I reported. You can search BusinessWire or PRNewswire for press releases and you won't find one for that time period. I did find a blog post, though, but it was not mass distributed. I didn't say the company didn't interact with the press. And I'm sure the co-founders described their mission and strategy in similar terms when doing different interviews, so of course, the press was influenced by that. The big problem with reliable sources and press releases is if an otherwise reliable source does nothing but reprint or paraphrase the press release or some garbage story the company writes for them. If a staff reporter at the LA Times or Forbes got caught doing that, they'd get fired (unfortunately, this is not the case for bloggers with the Forbes Contributor network, which is non-staff). But I don't think Wikipedia policy says that just by a corporate CEO or founder giving or arranging an interview, an article about a company is tainted. The non-participation of article subjects is policy on Wikipedia and malpractice in journalism, BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Comment: I've done a major update to the article, in a sandbox, here: User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall. The changes are underlined. I have also placed them on the Talk page as proposed updates, as I cannot do a direct edit because of my COI. There are now 24 sources, instead of 12, and the stories appear pretty much every month since this article appeared. I should note that my new source list (just since this article was published in January 2018) is at about 105 sources, but for multiple press covering the same topic, I just picked one source, or at most, two.

Among the new RS (not in the article now - those are discussed above) that offer significant coverage of Fifth Wall is a feature in the L.A. Business Journal,^[1] a feature in The Real Deal after they discovered an SEC filing showing the firm had already raised $60 million more for a $200 million fund (the company declined to comment, as I believe it must during a fundraise under SEC rules). There's also Fast Company magazine story interviewing the co-founder of Fifth Wall, along with other top VCS, about the most important tech trends of 2018.
Most of the rest of the stories concern Fifth Wall leading investments in companies - I tried to choose the source among the several available for each investment that described Fifth Wall at some length and included interviews with them about what their thinking was on the investment. I should note for purposes of clarity from my previous comment about Fifth Wall itself, that companies receiving investments may have issued press releases, though I've read through all the stories and tried to exclude any that looked like press release rewrites without original reporting. For the non-lead investments, there are also stories with very brief mentions of Fifth Wall, which I included in the update just to have a comprehensive overview of their continued business activities, not because every source has substantial coverage.BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

References

^ "Create an Account | Los Angeles Business Journal". labusinessjournal.com. Retrieved 2018-06-07.

So we have gone from there was no press release, no comment by the company, no announcement of any sort and all the articles cited in the article are based on original reporting from the secondary sources (such as interviews with the founders, review of SEC documents, analysis of the reporter based on their industry knowledge)

to they spoke to the press, of course and after which the company pitched some interviews and the company responded to some interview requests. I understand that you have to defend your client and the article but we are treading a fine line here, if you are not sure that what you are saying is true you should refrain from saying it just to defend your work. −Dom from Paris (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - in my view it is OK for a paid editor to directly edit an article while it is up for AfD, as this puts it in a more or less drafty state. Would anyone object to BC1278 directly updating the page while it is here? I will also note that DGG offered to withdraw the AfD and send this to draft, which I think would be a good move as well and probably better. Would everyone commenting here please state their view on these two things? Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging paticipants: User:Scope creep, user:DGG, User:Domdeparis, User:BC1278 Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I said earlier they can post the sources here (without a wall of text as per WP:PAIDTALK). It is not what is written in the article that is a problem but its sourcing to show notability as per WP:NCORP. The nomination says that there is not enough material to show notability and nothing about what is written. If after looking at the sources they are enough to sway the delete !voters then the modifications can be made as per WP:Edit Requests. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If it is improper for me to request some of the article creation fee for "unbiased support" then when Wikipedia uses the word "should not", supported by broad community consensus, this is a polite way of stating "don't". This is in reference to content in the lead of WP:COI: "Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.". The question or suggestion of an exemption to allow COI editing at AFD causes great consternation. As a volunteer I do not get paid to not go to work so I can study all the ways a paid editor, whose job oftentimes is to sit around and create articles that can include looking at all the various ways to nicely circumvent or otherwise "bend the rules" to get an articles "published" on Wikipedia, and to "fight" to keep the article on Wikipedia. I am amazed and will take a deep breath and repeat "assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith". Whew! That might have worked. This whole "not getting into long drawn out interactions with those paid to do so is turning into just that. The place to discuss article changes would still, I think, belong on the article talk page following the acceptable practices and not at AFD. If edits are approved there then this can be mentioned here, so it can be checked, is how it generally works. Involved editors here should take caution in approving or making any edits on behalf of a paid editor. If this cannot take place in the timeline (with any extensions), then the process, in case of a delete consensus, would be an editor request for draftifying. There is then another process to see if the paid editor can then "get it right". I am trying to be fair just as other editors should that there is a strict set of "rules" concerning COI editing for a reason. This prevents corporate money from swaying the editorial process of Wikipedia. I read Cabify that is full of advertising type editing, including "according to the company", and was shocked that something of importance as a controversy (balance) was buried within the article. It would take a lot of comments to convince me that paid editing was not involved when I saw "The murder of a young female costumer (sic) in Puebla, Mexico, by one of Cabify's drivers raises important questions about the credibility of any filtration process carried out by the company." tucked within in the description of the "Drivers" section. The end result is a well referenced puff advertising article for Cabify. I also read Identified (company) and some others that like to use TechCrunch, Forbes, and CrunchBase as sources to create articles. If a subject is notable then that definition would mean sources other than those above, general press releases, and interviews, that seems to specifically report on these type businesses, would have taken note and reported. If not then we have a circular set of sources, that are in some way involved, and a new article based on these sources that will not be neutral thus preventing a balanced article. These are part of the "Five pillars" right? Paid editors, and the companies they "work for" should continually be on notice that Wikipedia does not operate on corporate funding, nor does the vast majority of editors, so to prevent "advertising type articles" (part of what Wikipedia is not) the "rules" need to be "strict". If we start bending the policies and guidelines for COI editing then we slide down the slope of "money runs everything". I do not think we need to give any more rope than allowed because money will find a way to get an article on Wikipedia no matter what so let's not make it any easier. Otr500 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does anyone object to my putting a standard very short notice of the AfD discussion on the projects for WP: Finance, WP: Private Equity, and WP: Business? The AfD notice actually should have gone automatically to projects based on Talk page categories, but there seems to be a problem with this working. The projects for Company Articles and California articles should also have been notified automatically, based on the little I know about AfD alerts for projects added to Talk (I didn't add any of these myself.) The first two especially have worked extensively on what's proper for an article about a private equity firm.BC1278 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

There'sbeen enought explanation ofthe problems with sources: Looking at it a little more broadly: You say above 240 million is a very healthy first fund,... By way of comparison, the first fund raised by the one of the most well-known VCs, Andreessen Horowitz was $300 million, Please see WP:EINSTEIN-- Andreessen Horowitz is notable because they grew to $7 Billion--and they stayed small, they wouldn't have been notable either. "A very healthy first fund" is the equivalent of "not yet notable" . DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: "In perspective" $300 million is not a lot at all. A large bank would be one with assets in excess of that amount and we don't have articles on all of them because they are not, just on that amount, inherently notable. The army spent $300 million to get 6000 new volunteers. The Mega-Millions and power-ball jackpots hit $300, $350, $393, to $690 million and Floyd Mayweather's $300 million year tops the subjects first offering. Search source: [11]. Bill Gates might need to apply for food stamps as he is $4.2 billion poorer (Forbes) and the average wealth of a billionaire dropped $300 million. Some of them likely lost money in the Mayweather fight. The subject specific sourcing does give rise to advancement of advertising, company induced interviews, and the industry repeated carrying of the coverage, that will give the appearance of notability more than deserved. This can allow (if unchecked) corporate backed creation (certainly encourage) of otherwise non-notable (by Wikipedia standards) articles. I am not arguing that paid editorials are inherently bad but we either need to give up (give in) or stay vigilant because nobody here (sanely) can argue that corporate money is not allocated to "getting the name out there" and this is in part accomplished by getting listed high (or at the top) of search engines. Where does Wikipedia rank in that area? If I search for just about anything Wikipedia will be at or near the top. It would be close to impossible for the best in the world to convince me that Wikipedia is not a target for "getting included" as soon as possible. If not then corporate money would just wait for some editor to create the article and a ton of money could be saved. That would hamper the advertising write-off though so it is a vicious circle. Otr500 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related project listings: In answer to the "question" about related project listings: If it is within the scope of "fair notice" I cannot see a problem as long as those given notice are listed here. Otr500 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: The size of the first fund is just one factor, of course. But if this is your main concern, I wish we were having this discussion a couple weeks from now. If this had been moved to Draft, I would have kept it out about two weeks before proposing it be looked at again. The press already picked up on the SEC notice of the $60 million raised for the second $200 million fund. There could very well be more afoot, based on my personal judgment of how fast they are investing since launch, but SEC rules prohibit the company from making any comments about fundraising. Consider though that Fifth Wall has at least nine of the biggest real estate companies in the world as limited partners. Through Fifth Wall, they are funding a WeWork competitor, Industrious, which is very capital intensive. And with the new source I added on OpenDoor, you can see that in addition to the $35 million equity investment, they arranged for one of their limited partner investors to lend $100 million to the company, so their role is amplified compared to a typical VC because of their business model of working directly to match the needs of portfolio companies with their giant real estate investors. Forgetting all about Crystalball, the rapid-fire pace of investment is very telling. We could use the perspective of someone uninvolved who is a subject matter expert and ideally has worked on multiple VC article. I will post those AfD project notices. I suggest that prior to an AfD discussion closing, there should be a review of the proposed edits, now on Talk, to make it easier to consider the article with newly relevant content and sourcing. BC1278 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

So this a case of WP:TOOSOON? Another reason for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No it’s not, and personally I think it is not a case of WP:TOOSOON, the coverage is absolutely routine, and asserts WP:ORGIND, as it is the same routine press coverage as other funds receive when paid crowd decide to put up an article on WP. Most of the venture capital funds are entirely generic in nature and use the same business models and software to identify investment vehicles. There is barely any difference between one fund and another. They are entirely generic. That is whole point of them. Once the business model is produced and found to be successful, it is duplicated everywhere. That’s is the reason why we have so many articles of the same type. And the same routine press coverage trumpets the news to enable people to find the fund. Same model and process every time. What happened to doing the work, to see if they are actually different, instead of basing it on the crude measure of how much they have? It is the crudest measure possible. It always puzzles me why need to have these types of articles. We were supposed to be sort of learned society, and certainly policy and rules are written in that manner and the makeup of the editor crowd reflects that to some extent, but 10 years of attrition by the WP:PAID crowd has worn us down. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Scope creep I just want to point out, that while many VC firms have a fairly generic structure (limited partners who find people with $ willing to make some fairly risky investments) this one is different. It is similar to a fund that was raised in the biomedical space, called Enlight (ref) where big pharma companies came together to form a fund to invest in startups developing tools to do biomedical research. They did that because typical VC had moved away from funding these kind of companies and the pharma companies wanted more tools to find drugs with. This kind of so-called "precompetitive collaboration" has become more common in the biomedical space. Anyway, this fund is kind of like that. Big players in real estate got together to fund companies bringing IT to the real estate market. It is interesting, to me anyway, as somebody who thinks about how innovation gets funded and commercialized. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting, it might swing it as notable. Its certainly outside the mainstream, and as outlier it confers a kind of notabilily. Different enough to make it sufficiently notable. I don't know. Depends how granular you want to go. It could be the first of its kind, and that helps but refs are routine business news. scope_creep (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might. But this must be decided by those without a direct financial conflict of interest. The role of a paid editor is to present material and let the community decide, not to bargain with the community, nor to advocate for their view of an article. If they find that limited role incompatible with their assignment, then that's an argument against our allowing paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I agree that exclusive focus on the size of the fund is not a good idea and I addressed it because it was a primary reason cited for proposed deletion. I'd ask that you please see my updated version at User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall): you will see that the business model here is indeed unique, as is the sourcing of investments. a) the investors (limited partners) were limited to some of the largest real estate companies in the world; b) the investments are sourced based on the commercial real-estate needs of the limited partners - not to disrupt the entrenched industry leaders, but to help them, the exact opposite of the typical strategy of a VC firm. c), the limited partners agree to become the customers of the companies funded by the firm, which is exactly how it has played out as investments have proceeded (see the update); d) they claim to be the first real estate-tech VC firm, and there is a source for that, but I didn't include it because it sounds promotional to make a claim like that. -BC1278 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I have posted AfD notification on the Talk pages of the projects for WP: Finance, WP: Private Equity and WP: Business. -BC1278 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Keep passes GNG with the Forbes and LA Times refs. I don't doubt these publishers received a hot tip and accompanying photo, but does that immediately put the refs in WP:SPS limbo? I think not. Pegnawl (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pegnawl: I understand that this is a long Afd and with the walls of text one can get a bit lost but nobody is suggesting that these are self published sources. But that they are dependent coverage and especially any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism), and when say they got hot tip and accompanying photo this is not a fair representation as the information is identical and they all came out on the same day. I have just seen that these articles all rewrite a statement here [12] that was released on the 1st of May 2017 by 5th Wall. @Jytdog: @DGG: @Scope creep: @Otr500: and @Nosebagbear: I think this is conclusive proof that despite what the article creator said there was a form of press release on the 1st of May and ~~almost~~ all of the 2nd of May articles are rewrites of this press release. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is mighty long! Thanks for linking the dependent coverage section, I haphazardly grabbed SPS for its reference to press releases (though I now see that's buried in a footnote).

I don't like the use of the term 'identical' in this discussion - no one copied the PR verbatim. Obviously the articles are built on the same theme and with the same major points, but ... they are written about the same announcement. Both Forbes and LATimes sought out further information and provide unique quotes. To me this indicates that the PR was released, and tech/real estate staff at reliable publishers decided it was an interesting enough story to run with. Pegnawl (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not identical but the salient points are. This was not a Press release as such but an annoncement on a website, the photo was not on that page. this means, as far as I can see, that someone acting for the company contacted the different sources and pointed them to the annoncement and supplied a preferred photo. Most do not quote the annoncement (Forbes does) and just rewrote it adding in some extra info here and there. This is the clearest case of Churnalism I have ever seen. The article creator originally said all the articles cited in the article are based on original reporting from the secondary sources (such as interviews with the founders, review of SEC documents, analysis of the reporter based on their industry knowledge) but this seems to be questionable now. Seeing that there is very little time between the annoncement and the articles they almost certainly got the info before and even Forbes says that it was originally published on Tuesday...though the 1 May 2017, was a Monday and she was writing on a Tuesday...odd. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending - having read through one of the longer AfDs I've participated in I need to read it again and analyse the suggested changes for myself before I can make my decision. That said the primary grounds for this not being a Keep would be if the main sources were invalidated (or reduced to being a single source) as they were premised off the same tip/photo. I'm not inclined to think this is the case, but am open to comments to the contrary. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes reference is a /site subdomain of Forbes, which is self generated website, it is webhosting domain, meaning it not RS. scope_creep (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree searching the WP:RSN for 'Forbes churnalism,' this discussion [1], and the further examination on WP:PUS [2], seem to indicate that because it's written by Forbes Staff, it can indeed be used as RS. Pegnawl (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you think about the message I posted above about it being dependent coverage? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above, but I think that the journalists seeking out additional supplemental information and quotes makes it depart from that policy, if only just enough. Pegnawl (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment:'Please consider the many additional sources and info proposed on Talk of Fifth Wall, as updates to the article, as seen in context (underlined) on my sandbox: User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall. Updates should be considered as part of an AfD WP: AfD but I cannot implement these directly on the article because of COI. See, for example, this new L.A. Business Journal feature story about the firm.^[1]. I will enter a Request Edit since no one has reviewed the proposals yet.BC1278 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Fast company is a quote so a primary source. Bloomberg is a passing mention, Techcrunch is notoriously unreliable as per my comment above and this is a passing mention anyway, Not sure about Commercial Observer but it is essentially about Enertiv and doesn't have in-depth coverage of the subject and looks like more churnalism, the Forbes bit is essentially about Limebike and not in-depth coverage of 5th wall and also ends with "Click here for details on how to send Biz information anonymously.", I can't access the Dallas news site as I am in Europe but it seems to be an article about Limebike again, the 2 Techcrunch articles are only passing mentions, the Real Deal is a passing mention, the WSJ is behind a pay wall but looks to be the article from which the Real Deal got their info so may be a passing mention but feel free to paste a quote if it isn't, the Chiago business is a passing mention. LA Business journal is behind a pay wall. I'm seeing a lot of passing mentions but it may be enough to sway other particpants. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4-week trial registration for LA Business Journal is free and requires no credit card. This is a feature story about FWV. In any case, Wikipedia is not limited to sources that are free on the internet or we wouldn't be able to use books, many leading peer-reviewed journals or much of the Wall Street Journal. WP: Offline. First Real Deal story is just about FWV, not a passing reference."Fifth Wall raising another $200M for retail tech startups". The Real Deal New York. 2018-05-24. Retrieved 2018-06-06. Entirely original reporting based on SEC filing. FWV wouldn't even comment for the story, as SEC policy prohibits.BC1278 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Sorry I should have made it clear that I am not rejecting them just saying why I can't access them and giving my opinion about those I can see. The real deal article was already on ther I was talking about the one you added. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the extra sources fast company, bloomberg, techcrunch, commercial observer, forbes, dallas news, techcrunch 2, techcrunch 3, the real deal, wsj, chicago business. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That list excludes two of the most significant new ones: L.A. Business Journal, Firm Sees Symbiosis as Strategy and Real Deal 2. That Real Deal story is not in the current article. It's about a new $200 million fund aimed at retail real-estate tech. The Fast Company story has many top VCs, and is not focused on FWV, but it's not primary. The text on FWV mixes prose and quotes. FYI, I chose just one representative story for each topic, like FWV matching together Opendoor and Lennar for a partnership and $100m debt investment. But there are 100+ RS since the article was published.BC1278 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Here is an except from a new article from L.A. Business Journal, since it's behind a paywall with a free trial. I removed paragraph breaks. It’s been 11 months since real estate tech investment firm Fifth Wall Ventures announced its inaugural $212 million fund, trumpeting partnerships with industry heavy weights such as CBRE Group Inc. and Macerich Co. The Venice-based outfit has more than doubled its employee count to 19 from nine since then, with several new hires and promotions coming this week for Fifth Wall. The firm’s newest partner is KC Cleary, who joined Fifth Wall from McKinsey & Co. Clearly will help manage the firm’s partnerships with its anchor limited partners, who all committed at least $15 million last May to help fund the Fifth Wall venture. The firm also promoted Roelof Opperman and Vik Chawla to firm principals. Fifth Wall co-founder and Managing Partner Brad Greiwe said the pair had been integral in putting deals together for the firm over the past year. The firm has done 20 deals since it came online last May, and Greiwe said he and co-founder Brendan Wallace, also a managing partner, feel their thesis about Fifth Wall as both an investment and relationship building platform has been validated. “We’ve proven that the model works,” Greiwe said. “Our anchor LPs are happy and an additional fund is definitely in the cards.” Greiwe did not disclose whether the firm was working on a second fund, or whether Fifth Wall would take on additional institutional investors when it did. “Whether we expand to other strategics is TBD,” he said. The firm is working for now on maximizing its current relationships, both with its LPs and with the companies it is investing in. Partner Natalie Bruss, who was hired full time in September after consulting for Fifth Wall for almost a year prior, is spearheading these efforts. Greiwe said the relationship component – putting emerging companies in the real estate tech space together with established industry heavyweights – was where the firm differentiated itself “When you put an early stage company together with a large incumbent, you can do some really powerful things,” Greiwe said. “LPs adoption of (an emerging company’s) tech ultimately can determine if an early stage company lives or dies.” The collaborative philosophy is almost antithetical to the typical tech world ethos of disruption, Greiwe added. “This is not disruption,” he said. “It’s enablement and helping establish symbiotic relationships.” -BC1278 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Delete A $200 million fund isn't large or unusual enough to be notable based on that, and most of the refs are just of their funding. Based on my experience both on Wikipedia and in the tech industry, it would take something extraordinary for a fund to meet notability standards 2 years after being created, and I don't see that here. No amount of coverage in the L.A. Business Journal or TechCrunch will meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What makes Fifth Wall Ventures remarkable enough that it belongs in an encyclopedia? I can't find anything in this article that meets the encyclopedia criteria. This article belongs in a Who's Who of American Business, not here. That this article appears in Wikipedia gets to the question of what Wikipedia is for. Is it an encyclopedia or a freewheeling PR platform? Chisme (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have two funds. Their initial fund was $240 million, including early fundraising; the newer one is $200 million. Please read the update at User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall. It's been available since June 7. Obviously this AfD discussion is distorted because the update proposals on ~~Nextdoor~~ Talk have not been implemented.BC1278 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I think you mean 5th Wall and not Nextdoor and also you do not have to reply to each comment. Thos looks like WP:BLUDGEONING your POV. We get that as the paid creator you obviously think the subject is notable. Please let the volunteer editors discuss it. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The evidence discussed above leads me to agree that the sources are not intellectually independent and information has been provided to the sources by company sources. There does not appear to be any intellectually independent references. I'm happy to revisit this decision if references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet new and improved WP:CORPDEPTH; sources are in passing or not intellectually independent. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Wrong forum (drafts are discussed at WP:MFD), but the page was deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Family[edit]

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

Seems to be using Wikipedia as a webhost? Le Deluge (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit8[edit]

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

Promotional article of a company that fails WP:NCORP. Was speedily deleted yesterday, and already recreated by a likely COI/paid editor. Any useful content could be added to its parent company, Intralot. Edwardx (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have left a message to the original editor who speedily deleted the page citing policy G11. I have rewritten the article to remove any unintentional content that could be interpreted as being promotional. I am not a paid editor or have conflict of interest. The company in question is one of the best known platform companies in the online gaming industry and I had found it strange that there was no article about it (like many other companies in Malta). I will be adding more content to address this though am finding the process a bit frustrating with two deletion nominations and not sure why. Maltalinks (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have rewritten the paragraph mentioned by EdwardX. Hope this version is more acceptable like this. Many thanks for the useful tips, please bear with me as I am treating this article as a bit of a learning curve - will try to get this one right before writing more. Maltalinks (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Whatever information is salvageable can be included in the page for Interlot. There is nothing out there to show Bit8 is independently notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fundamentally non-notable independently. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - a genuine thanks to Seraphimblade, Edwardx, CNMall41, jcc for your time. This experience will help me improve future submissions and articles to Wikipedia. I have looked carefully at the WP:COMPANY notability guidelines and in my opinion Bit8 falls under the notability criteria. I would appreciate it if you can point out anything wrong with my reasoning below so I'll make the right decisions in the future:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Coverage in CalvinAyre	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An in-depth article about the company's innovations in a well-known independent source for online gaming industry news and info.
Cover Story and Profile in SIGMA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	This company had the cover story of the SIGMA magazine, which is issued by the largest online gaming event agency in Malta. It is like the Who is Who of the gaming industry in Malta. This is how I had learnt about Bit8 myself.
Video and coverage of Bit8 by the Malta Communications Authority	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	This coverage by the Malta Communications Authority is about as independent as it can get. The company won their innovation awards - which is notable in itself.
Coverage in The Malta Independent	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	National news coverage about Bit8 and innovation. There is the chairman of the Malta Gaming Authority on record saying that 'Bit8 is one of the best examples of home grown innovation which I can think of'. This was one of the reasons why I believe the company is notable.
Coverage in Times of Malta	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	National news coverage about Bit8 in Times of Malta, including a comment by Malta's prime minister. This is another reason why I believe the company is notable. The Times of Malta is one of the main authoritative sources of news coming from Malta.
Total qualifying sources					5	There are multiple qualifying sources meeting the notability requirements. There are two independent mentions by a prime minister and a chairman of a national regulator.

As declared in my page, I had worked in the online gaming industry in Malta (over 10 years) and my motivation is to document the adoption of AI in this particular industry. This information is missing from Wikipedia.

Regarding the merge comment, the Bit8 company still operates independently with its own brand and its technical contributions to the industry were made many years before the Intralot acquisition. Merging this information within Intralot would distort the historical record, and would make it look like Intralot created all the stuff like player lifetime value optimization, etc. This is why I believe that the article entry should remain independent and separate to be a true and accurate historical description of one of the early adoptions of AI in the online gaming industry. As I do more research on this topic there will be more references to these origins and I do not think it would make sense to link them to Intralot - it would be like merging DeepMind into the Google article (of course on a smaller scale, but you get the gist).

Appreciate your feedback and your time - this discussion will help me make a more efficient contributor to Wikipedia in the future. Would appreciate it if the deletion tag is removed.

(I have also looked at List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_in_online_gambling and many articles need a bit of a cleanup, which I can do in a responsible manner.) Maltalinks (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Maltalinks, you need to also take a read of WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and you need to look for references that are intellectually independent. The CalvinAyre reference relies on an interview (verbatim) with the founder and CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The SIGMA PDF magazine also fails as it is not intellectually independent as 1) Bit8 advertises with the magazine (page 10) and 2) the cover story on Bit8 is another verbatim interview with the CEO and founder and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The Malta Communications Authority reference is an award to the platform and not to the company and contains no in-depth information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The Malta Independent reference may be relevant but I do not know if the awards are notable. The eGR Awards are for the gaming industry where you need to join as a member and it allows advertising so I would have a question over the independence. Perhaps someone else has a better idea than me. There are two Times of Malta references. The first is based on a company announcement and a "celebration" of a strategic alliance and relies extensively on quotations from company sources, not intellectually independent and failing WP:ORGIND. The second is another verbatim interview with the CEO/founder and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I am not convinced that the awards are significant but I'm happy to change my mind if shown to be wrong. For now, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi HighKing, I think that the Times of Malta article does pass WP:ORGIND and this particular newspaper is the standard reference for most news originating in Malta. The EGR awards are the best known awards in the online gaming industry - this is something I know from my own 10+ years working in this industry and also if you Google it there are more than 400 references from different companies to the awards - which DO indeed make them notable. I have seen that the article was deleted - I do not agree but I guess if everyone keeps doing so just let me know and I will merge the content into the Intralot article. I personally think this is wrong but I cannot do much if people just delete the article without giving me the courtesy to do it myself. Maltalinks^talk 16:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of the Slopes[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork from Battle of Dak To#Operation Greeley which says nothing more than what is already on that page Mztourist (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm adding considerably more detail, but given the article is less than 30 minutes old before this request for deletion was made. this is not nearly enough time. 07:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)a_bicyclette

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Mztourist: @A bicyclette: Any update on this? Is the nomination still, in your opinions, valid/invalid? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added substantively more details and added different and newer sources. This is unnecessary as a request from User:Mztourist and just among one of his many censorship attempts he has launched against me. A bicyclette (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Vietnam War (TV series) is an award winning documentary[13], and they had an episode that gave coverage to this battle. I see the article references it in various places already. Seems to have enough reliable sources covering it to justify an article, so no sense deleting it or shifting it over to draft space. Has expanded enough to justify a separate article. Dream Focus 06:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd prefer a bit more clarification from the nominator, but I agree that this seems like a valid fork at this point. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The battle itself meets GNG. The question is whether it is a needed fork from Battle of Dak To#Operation Greeley. At the present state, it expands on what is in Battle of Dak To, and is a valid fork. I do suggest that a_bicyclette, when forking an article off an existing larger campaign/battle, develop the article a bit before main-spacing it - the initial version here (which was largely a copy) was "iffy" as a fork. Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a valid WP:SPINOFF article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panther motorcycle (Philippines)[edit]

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

Non-notable motorcycle, most likely referring to a Chinese-made motor scooter sold by an obscure Philippine company. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced and not even an info regarding the supposed manufacturer of the motorcycleHariboneagle927 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails my own search for GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sufficient info, it may be that this is simply a manufacturing base for the Chinese company. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five Core Electronics Limited[edit]

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

I see no evidence for notability that meets the standards of WP:NCORP-- just notices about finances & other routine. Nor would I expect anything more for a company which, after 30 years, still had a revenue of under $25 million. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Several source searches are not providing any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per Nom.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a rough consensus that there is something of value here, but not on what should be done with the page. I would perhaps have relisted but, after this AfD was opened, the article was moved to a new title and significantly rewritten, which arguably rendered the initial discussion moot. So I'm closing, but without prejudice if anybody wants to re-nominate or move it to draft. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historic families of Ghana[edit]

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

This article says effectively nothing of value on its topic, and the list of families is unsourced and few of the links are to families of Ghana. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ power~enwiki: Opposed to deletion of article - I'm honestly quite baffled that you say the article offers nothing in value in relation to its topic. The well-referenced article is about intellectual families that made pioneering contributions to the socioeconomic development of Ghana. This article is analogous to the articles on Boston Brahmin and Old Philadelphians. You may check the books referenced if you have time. I've removed any unsourced family names. If you want to discuss, please let me know.Kandymotownie (π, ν) 12:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be too harsh an assessment, but content like participation in ... academia, architecture, church development, civil service, education, engineering, health services, journalism, law, medicine, natural sciences, public administration, public health, public policy and urban planning. ... contributed to arts and crafts, producing artisans in pottery, basket and mat weaving, carpentry, shoe-making, masonry, joinery, hat-making and black-smithing. is so far past indiscriminate as to be of no value to the reader. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:power~enwiki I removed the listing of the fields. I urge you you to at least read the books referenced before any deletion. This is not original research as information is sourced from the bibliography. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Delete per WP:NOTESSAY.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Moving this to Draft is also possible - there might be an article to be salvaged here.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kandymotownie: Please try to refrain from WP:MOVEing this article any more until this AfD is resolved. The multiple moves you’ve made so far might create some unnecessary problems as explained in bullet #4 in WP:EDITATAFD. The page can be always be moved if necessary after the AfD has benn closed. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Kandymotownie: can you point to any one source that discusses Gold Coast families in depth and directly as a subject. The first sentence of the page, which establishes the topic of the article, is referenced to three sources. The first one is Encounters in Quest of Christian Womanhood. The title does not seem likely for this subject, and I am not seeing anywhere where Gold Coast families are discussed as a group. Can you offer a page number? (lack of page numbers is a big failing of your referencing). The other two sources seem to be on one particular family, or even just one individual, so not verifying the opening sentence. Without a source directly addressing the subject, I'm afraid the page amounts to original research. It may be true, it may even be important, but if Wikipedia is the first to discuss this, then it is still WP:OR and not within our inclusion criteria. SpinningSpark 22:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpinningSpark@ power~enwiki @Marchjuly Please see pages 132-135; 147; 174 in Encounters in Quest of Christian Womanhood. This book was a doctoral dissertation of the author, Ulrike Sill before being published into a book. See pages 35-36 of Recovery of the West African Past. Also see The Pen-pictures of Modern Africans and African Celebrities by Charles Francis Hutchison: A Collective Biography of Elite Society in the Gold Coast Colony. This book has several examples on the topic. The Wiki article is about families that lived on the coast of Ghana and had certain characteristics that influenced everyday life in that period, all covered in the literature. Gold Coast was the name of the coastal part of the country in the pre-colonial period. I urge all of you to take time and do due diligence before rushing to reject a well-researched article under the pretext of “original research”. To get a better idea on this topic, the pages must be read in context and not just book titles which may not tell you the whole picture of historiography relating to 19th century West Africa. You might also want to take some time to learn about general colonial history in Anglophone West Africa. Let’s create an environment where people can share their expertise in our collective quest to expand human knowledge. Thank you. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 01:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment was only about moving articles during an ongoing AfD discussion; it was not a comment on whether the article should be kept or deleted. However, your statement Let’s create an environment where people can share their expertise in our collective quest to expand human knowledge. does give the impression that you might misunderstand WP:OR. Wikipedia role is not to create an enviroment where people can share their expertise per se; editors who are experts in a particular subject matter are of course welcome to edit just like everyone else, but they need to also be aware of WP:EXPERT. Wikipedia role is basically only to summarize content found in reliable sources and support said content with citations so that it can be verified; it's purpose isn't to interpret what is found in external sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Marchjuly, I perfectly understand that Wiki articles are summaries of topics based on reliable sources. My comment is in connection to the fact that in general, those summaries based on reliable sources are indeed a way to expand human knowledge i.e. access to said knowledge for all. My article isn't an interpretation though or a creation of any new idea. Everything is already available in existing literature and not original research. I haven't re-invented the wheel, here. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 09:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I asked you for a single source discussing the subject in depth. A link to the passage in gbooks would have been helpful. Instead, you have referred to multiple pages in multiple books which only give passing mentions of "coastal families" at best. It is too much hard work to go through all of your references in depth so I've only looked at the first ref you gave. Page 147 was not available in preview, but I read all the other pages you indicated. This material is largely about women working as missionaries or the wives of missionaries. Their coastal background is occassionally mentioned in passing. It is about specific individuals, not about a particular social group, and not in the context of Gold Coast families per se. The closest this comes to discussing a group is the sentence "Regina Hesse was born in 1832, her parentage typical for many of the influential Euro-African families of the coast." That is very far from discussion of the subject directly and in depth. So I ask you again, can you link to a single source that discusses the subject of "Gold Coast families" directly and in depth? ~~Failing that, my recommendation is unfortunately delete as OR~~ (EDIT:striking my delete, the user seems willing to work on this in draft). I do this reluctantly because you seem to have an interesting subject here, but you are just not demonstrating the notability required by Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SpinningSpark Like I mentioned earlier, for a broader overview, you can also see pages 35-36 of Recovery of the West African Past. Also see The Pen-pictures of Modern Africans and African Celebrities by Charles Francis Hutchison: A Collective Biography of Elite Society in the Gold Coast Colony. For a specific link: See here and here The Gold Coast Euro-African families discussed are "Gold Coast families" who have the genealogy and characteristics discussed in the article. Alternatively, if you prefer, I could rename the page "Gold Coast Euro-African families" which would meet all the criteria. This topic has been studied extensively by historians that I'm actually really surprised you say it doesn't meet notability per Wikipedia's own standards. "Gold Coast families", "Euro-African Gold Coast families" "coastal families" "Euro-African families of the Gold Coast" "Gold Coast Euro-Africans" are all the same thing per the literature in the field. If you feel strongly about deletion, then can you please give me an actual reason as this article meets the notability and is not original research-it meets reliable sources criterion. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well that first source is more like the coverage we need (you should have led with that the first time), but it shows the page is still problematic. The impression I get from the source is radically different from the article. First of all, there is the name. The source nowhere uses the phrase Gold Coast families or anything like it. The group name it uses is owulai. However, as this is also applied to Europeans, I guess the article is about Euro-African owulai. More importantly, the article is unremittingly positive about this group. Assuming the source is talking about the same group, things like "Many were prone...to hard drinking, gambling and occassional outbursts of violent behaviour" conveys a rather different impression. The article talks at length about their Christianity, but the source says that "most Euro-African men were little more than nominal Christians", apparently, mostly for the commercial advantages it offered. The article suggests that these families were influential continuously right up to the present day. The source says that they were "systematically excluded" by the colonial power by the 1880s. In short, my impression is that this article has not been written from the sources. Rather, sources have been sought to back up the POV of an essay. This is not the right way to write Wikipedia articles. I think the best thing you can do with this is move it into draft space and entirely rework it, starting with what the sources actually say. SpinningSpark 21:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @SpinningSpark Thanks! I think that's a very good suggestion. I'll be moving the article into the draft space and totally rework/overhaul based on the historiographical sources to present a more balanced or nuanced view and not just positive aspects of this demographic. I believe this discussion has been quite constructive.@ power~enwiki @Marchjuly, I'm moving this article to the draft space per SpinningSpark's suggestion to completely rework over the next few days. The new article will be renamed "Gold Coast Euro-Africans" to accurately reflect the academic literature. Thank you all for the feedback. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 1:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
        @Kandymotownie: Moving the article to the draft namespace so that you can continue working on it seems fine, but whatever move you tried to make seems to have been reverted for some reason. My suggestion to you is still the same as before in that you probably should not try to continue to move the article while this AfD is ongoing. If the consensus is to return the article back to draft status, then the closing administrator will do all the moving that needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Marchjuly: OK, thank you for the heads up. I guess I'd just have to wait until the administrator moves the page if it's the final resolution to this AfD. Thanks. Kandymotownie (π, ν) 5:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Potential keep -- It is a horrid article on what may well be a notable subject. There is a community of mixed race descent, as a result of liaisons between European men and local women. Such mixed race people seem to have held a particular place in the commercial life of the colony. The present "Gold Coast" title is to be preferred to the previous Ghana one, as this relates mainly to the coast. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The article's creator seems to be willing to have this moved back to the draft namespace, so that they can address the issues raised in this AfD and work on making other improvements as needed. That seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion per WP:DRAFTIFY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balraj Arunasalam[edit]

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

Renominating this article for the same reasons as previously cited. It is essentially an autobiography / self-promotional article. Sources are primarily affiliated with his club, Toastmasters International, are self-authored, or are press releases. Dan arndt (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, to my surprise. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted.Accesscrawl (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He is the founder/chief executive of Gemtrans Engineering Company and is the International President of Toastmasters International." Just not supported by multiple reliable sources. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the previous AfD discussion: "The individual is an unremarkable executive of a non-notable engineering company and the article is essentially just a PR/spam piece promoting the individual." "None of the other executive of Toastmasters International are deemed to be notable." Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risk box[edit]

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

Article about a "novel" mathematical framework, by a non-notable author -- full of jargon, and unclear how you would research this vague concept further. Sadads (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 03:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Maybe this will catch on and everyone is going to use it, but for now it's a single-group invention and doesn't have near enough uptake to satisfy notability requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Five cites on the germinal paper is not much, and I'm not finding the follow-on interest. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, four of those five cites are from papers by the same authors. The fifth one does not mention the term risk box anywhere, and the paper is only referred to in a one-sentence passing mention. SpinningSpark 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet notability criteria. SpinningSpark 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the discussion, Williams (currently) does not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and/or WP:GNG TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Williams (defensive lineman, born 1992)[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, TooSoon, all he ahs done is been fired and hired by the Bears ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while already not passing NGRIDIRON or GNG, he didn't have any resigning or activity at all last season and isn't likely to pass either any time soon. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Once the paid editing issue is done with, we still have an article that meets notability standards and edits that were not done through paid editing. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nogoom Masrya[edit]

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

Apparent undisclosed paid article, sources appear, as far as Google translate goes, to be press releases. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. I'm puzzled why it should have needed to be paid for- - it seems notable enough, and the sourcing is adequate for subjects of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One the biggest sites in Egypt and 849th biggest in the world according to Alexa internet traffic page. Yes, the article is a stub but appears the site is quite popular. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this had been caught early on, I probably would have agreed to speedily delete the article for undisclosed paid editing. But enough attention has been given to this article by more neutral editors. I admittedly cannot read most of the sources, but have enough understanding to know they are reliable and help pass GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not only undisclosed paid editing, but sources are from press releases and promotional stuff, and none of them appar to be from reliable news sites. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyae Phyo Min[edit]

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

Burmese fashion designer - - only primary / interview sources in native language. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV - Fails WP:CREATIVE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Myanmar Times source is a strong one: independant, focused and non-routine coverage of him. and the others confirm WP:V and lend enough credibility to make him pass WP:N imo.Egaoblai (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:ဟယ်လိုအကို Egaoblaiက ကချင်လားရှင့် တွေ့ရတာဝမ်းသာပါတယ်, ဒီဆောင်းပါးကိုကူညီပီးKeepပေးတာ ကျေးဇူးတင်ပါတယ် ဆက်ကူညီပေးပါဦးနော်,မြန်မာလိုရေးတာစိတ်မရှိပါနဲ့74.50.209.218 (talk)

:*Comment: Yes Myanmar Time is reliable but it is an interview piece, which makes the source as primary and not secondary. In additional, no other independent, reliable WP:SIGCOV source found. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found source on Myanmar Digital News, mentioned Pyae Phyo Min was famous designer. also has Strong MM Times Source, it be notable, Myanmar Digital Scoure, 74.50.209.157 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: The above source already in the article. It is about a fashion which would feature Phyo and other designs fashion, but this is not a "direct" article about just Phyo himself, it is a mainly passing mention. Since he is a Burmese, I could not able to find source in English. Article would merit a stand a lone page in Wikipedia if only it satisfy the requirement of WP:GOLDENRULE -"Articles generally require significant coverage (multiple)in reliable sources that are independent (secondary source) of the topic (source directly cover the topic/subject). As the article stands, it fails [WP:SIGCOV]] and WP:CREATIVE. Since Phyo is a Burmese fashion designer, I could not find source in English article, ff anyone could find "multiple independent reliable source (not primary such as interviews, press releases, or passing mention), then pls let us know. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 03:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Graveyard[edit]

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

Fails the subject notability guidelines and general notability guidelines by a mile or so.

Some decent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, other than mere name-mentions, please ....

~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — F R ⁺ 05:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — F R ⁺ 05:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from passing mentions in regional news (all of the 'Check out this website - it does this..' - no indepth coverage) there is no reliable secondary sourcing that demonstrates notability. The ones I did find that mention it (either in passing or briefly as above) have the whiff of press release churnalism about them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- independent coverage is almost non-existent.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another website, and not a particularly reliable one at that. I have struggled to find coverage of the thing that would cause it to meet GNG. - Sitush (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revised to keep based on the information provided re: old offline sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the creator and owner of the web site in question, so I presume I'm not eligible to vote on or work on the article. (I did do a few edits to correct errors some years ago.)

The site opened on July 1, 1996, and got a fair bit of press coverage over the past 22 years. Contrary to the implication above, I have never once issued any press releases or done any promotion to the media.

Here's a very incomplete list. Most of these are more than just passing mentions. Again, I presume it's not up to me to analyze the references or improve the article.

Newspapers:

New York Times, "Hitting a Self-Destruct Button," Week in Review, October 1, 2006
Roll Call (Capitol Hill, Washington DC), on January 21, 2002
Detroit Free Press Web Guide, on August 12, 2001
Chronicle-Tribune (Marion, Ind.), on May 27, 2001
Chicago Sun-Times's Connected section, October 17, 1996
Washington Post's Cybersurfing column, October 31, 1996
Indianapolis Star-News's Plugged-in Politics column, January 28, 1997
Sun Newspapers (Cleveland/Akron area, Ohio), October 19, 2000
The Hill Times (Canada's Parliamentary Newspaper) GoverNet column, August 18, 1997
Syracuse Post-Standard's Roadside Attractions column, September 19, 1997
Morris Thompson's column in the Philadelphia Daily News, October 6, 1997
Fritz Wenzel's column in the Toledo Blade, October 27, 1997
Mic Barnette's column in the Houston Chronicle, March 1998
USA Today's Hot Sites, on May 2-4, 1997 and November 14, 2000
Canton Repository (Canton, Ohio), on January 20, 2000
Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, December 14, 1997.

Magazines

The Economist, February 16, 2006
Parade Magazine (Sunday supplement in many newspapers), in Walter Scott's Personality Parade, January 27, 2002
Brill's Content, in the "Stuff We Like" section, November 1999
Internet World's Surfboard column, May 1997
Family Tree Magazine, April 2000
National Journal's Infofile column, May 31, 1997; also in "Political Web Sites," December 10, 2001.
Knight Templar, February 2002.
America West's "This & That" column, February 1998.

Online publications:

Newsbytes, April 30, 1997, November 13, 2000.
Computer Times, December 2000
Slate, in Jacob Weisberg's column, January 22, 1998 and March 13, 2001
The American Cynic, in its Web Site of the Week series
Clearwater Bar Association Newsletter "Travels in Cyberspace" column, February 1998
Alamo PC's Net Nerds column, November 1996
Earthlink's Daily bLink column, November 25, 1996
New Mexico State Library's Hitchhiker newsletter, June 30, 1997
Mr. Media, October 20, 1997
Internet News, June 6, 1997
From The Creek Bed, May 15, 1998
World Net Daily, in Judy Lowe's column, April 5, 1999
Fark.com, on December 31, 2000
Clicks Today, August 29, 2000.

Since I have not done a site-wide update since 2015, and since there are so many other resources online these days, traffic and notice have gone down considerably.

But back in the 1996-2005 era, it was unique. For years, my site was the only online resource that listed (let alone profiled) the 12,000-plus people who have served in the U.S. Congress and Continental Congress since 1774, the only place that listed all past U.S. state governors, etc.

Further, throughout that time and later, the site was ranked highly by Alexa and other traffic measurement sources. Google Adsense [as an indication of magnitude, not a Wikipedia-usable source] tells me it has gotten more than 50 million page views from 2003 to date.

I do not claim, and have never claimed, that my site is a Wikipedia Reliable Source, and in my 2,000-some edits to Wikipedia, mostly to biographical articles, I have never cited my own site as a source.

That said, I would dispute the claim above that the site is "not particularly reliable". I don't claim it to be error-free, and I certainly don't claim it to be complete, but I have spent years going through primary sources to collect data. I have researched and curated every one of the longer profiles, compared the evidence from different sources as to conflicting information, and presented the best available conclusion.

Many of the recognized official biography sites, especially including the official Congressional site and the National Governors Association site, are rife with errors, and I have corrected hundreds of them.

No one besides me, as far as I am aware, has ever attempted to compile all of the delegates and alternate delegates to all of the U.S. major-party national conventions. The site currently has approximately 120,000 delegates listed (counting each delegate at each convention), which is slightly over half of the estimated 230,000 total. The lists of delegates in the published Proceedings of national party conventions, are a problematic source, compiled in haste and not reviewed by the body, so I have done considerable work in original sources, deciphering name variations and duplications.

Some of the things I have learned from researching political figures have resulted in articles for Wikipedia, for example: Byron R. Newton, Samuel M. Vauclain, Donald Barr Chidsey, Wythe Leigh Kinsolving, Francis M. Taitt, W. Langdon Kihn. To repeat, I never used Political Graveyard as a source for Wikipedia; all these biographical articles are supported by published reliable sources. I mention them to give an idea of the amount of care I take with research. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you identified which of the WP:RS you list above have WP:INDEPTH or other significant coverage, and brought them here to the discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kestenbaum, I agree with E.M.Gregory that you ought to. Plus, title and weblink, if you have it, would help.XavierItzm (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you mention the conflict of interest and that the visitor numbers have dropped etc but this doesn't half sound like an attempt to have the thing kept here. You also have a half-cock BLP article to go with this half-cock website article. Both have been around for years, both have been poorly sourced in all of that time. There is nothing in WP:COI that would have prevented you from mentioning these issues on the respective talk pages.
Yes, there probably are old offline sources such as the ones you mention but the majority of those seem very obscure to me and you suggest that at least some of them are passing mentions. Has anyone in recent years held up your site as, for example, a precursor of the more modern resources to which you refer? I'm actually astonished that so many sources that you seem to consider to be reputable even bothered referring to something that seems essentially to have been a labour of love by someone who was totally unqualified and doing their own research unless, of course, that is precisely the reason they mentioned it, almost like a "look at this crank" mention. Again, no offence intended but I've been reading stuff about - and designing - websites since before yours existed & I can well remember what used to pass (sic) as a mention and what they used to say of mine. We need more info on those sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You're right that (as discontented as I was with the articles about the web site and me) that I should have commented on the sourcing, but it struck me as unseemly to take too much interest in articles concerning myself.
(2) If notability is not transient, the fact that the web site has faded in importance since the first decade of its existence does not cancel out its earlier significance; I would think it would deserve an article even if it had gone offline. Indeed, most of the notable sites from that era are defunct now.
(3) As to sources, the New York Times and the Economist (among others) are hardly obscure, and some of them go on at length. Are you suggesting that I go find those texts and post them here?
(4) I don't believe that I am "totally unqualified", but I'm not sure what you would accept as qualification. Kestenbaum (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't debating transience but rather the possibility of passing mentions etc, which were common back in the 1990s and early 2000s. If the NYT and The Economist dealt with it in depth then that would do for me, although I remain surprised because I thought they would be better than that - just shows how standards have changed, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What impresses me is not only the sources borught by a commendably honest page creator, above, but the sources that come up in books. a simple search on "The Political graveyard" doesn't do it (mostly brings up the phrase,) but if you search "the political graveyard" + Kestenbaum, you not only see that this source is cited and regarded as reliable by academics, but that reliable books describe it as reliable. here: The political graveyard. http://politicalgraveyard.com/. Lawrence Kestenbaum. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Lawrence Kestenbaum. For example, the Guide to Reference in Genealogy and Biography (American Library Association, 2015):Extraordinary source giving basic biographical data on over180,000 living and deceased U.S. politicians and... Plus, of course, the fact that this source is routinely cited by reliable historians and journalists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All questions of its current status aside, I agree that this website was notable, distinctive and frequently cited in earlier years, mentioned as such in sources like the ones cited by E.M. Gregory above. To remove the content of this article would be a significant loss for researchers and others who seek clarification about the references they come across in their labors.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is major coverage justifying the article. To cite one example out of dozens, the NYT times article Hitting a Self-Destruct Button is 964 words. Of these, 275 words are an interview with the creator of The Political Graveyard (TPG) and extracts from his website.^[2] Dude, that's the NYT relying on TPG for 29% of the article! If the NYT covering something like this is not WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG, then I don't know what is. XavierItzm (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think people in AfDs need to be aware that not everyone can see what they can see. This applies particularly to US news websites and Google Books. Nominations can be made in good faith, WP:BEFORE can have been done and still stuff gets missed. That's one of the points of the discussion process. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending, leaning Keep - the sources provided indicate some hopefulness towards demonstrating notability, (it should be noted in the NYT article above, that only a small amount is an exact interview extract - the rest are bits of and about the website). Hopefully some web links for a few of those sources can be found if they've been digitalised.

While no doubt Kestenbaum does want to preserve the article (he never said otherwise, and why else would he be here) their presence seems beneficial, and some of the comments by Sitush seem cruel, without redeeming value, if nothing else. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate your concern for my feelings, and obviously I disagree with the criticism, but I presume those comments were an honest expression of opinion, and I prefer to assume good faith. Kestenbaum (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The website has been used as reference for scholarly books issued by Duke University Press, for example. See The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers, Volume XI,^[3]. I should add many other books cite www.politicalgraveyard.com as a source. XavierItzm (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Means not a lot in the context of this discussion - sources have to discuss the thing itself in depth, not just reference it. FWIW, even the creator says it has a lot of errors, as did someone who produced specific examples at the recent WP:RSN discussion that determined it was not in fact reliable from a Wikipedia perspective. Nonetheless, I switched to keep many hours ago based on what the creator told me above (and, no, I didn't need to see the evidence personally). - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and I see you have switched your !vote to a Keep. But here is how I see this: WP:N is established because of the many news reports explaining, mentioning or citing The Political Graveyard for decades. But then there is a whole other dimension to a Wikipedia entry that has little to do with WP:NN, which is, well, if people have relied on someone else's work, don't we get to at least say it? So, for example, if you go to the Thomas Aquinas Wiki entry, there is a whole section, five paragraphs long, containing the recent people whom he influenced (and which, surely cited him!), and it discusses and lists Umberto Eco, James Joyce, Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre, Elizabeth Anscombe, Walter Freeman, and Henry Adams. So analogously, I am inclined to think that at least some of the many books, some of which are scholarly (like the one from Duke University Press), and at least some of the press articles that actually cite The Political Graveyard as a source should count to establish the bonafides of the website here on AfD and should be included on the article to provide context to readers. XavierItzm (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Very occasionally there might be justification for it, which is most commonly found in science-based topics. This is not one of those rare occasions. The article is going to be kept based on the basic GNG requirements, ie: in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If we start listing works that cite works in articles then they will be full of unwieldy trivia and in many cases would grow to a ridiculous length for no obvious gain. Notability does not usually require it. And I switched before you even commented here. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not trivia to cite examples of works or people who have relied on a body of work. Hence it is quite valid to cite some of the scholarly books and newspapers that have sourced from the Graveyard site. Hence as well the cited example of Aquinas' entry on his impact on people from the last century or so. Furthermore, it is erroneous to write that only on scientists' Wiki entries this is done. So for example the Wiki entry on Ovid, 8,055 words long, dedicates 1,730 words, i.e., 21%, to listing dozens of people influenced by his body of work, and works which cite Ovid. For example, the article cites a "post-rock song" written in 2012, and based on Ovid's work. XavierItzm (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Meier, Henry. "Firm Sees Symbiosis as Strategy Los Angeles Business Journal". labusinessjournal.com. Retrieved 2018-06-07.
^ MARK LEIBOVICH (1 October 2006). "Hitting a Self-Destruct Button". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2018. "You always seem to have politicians doing bizarrely self-destructive things, especially involving sex," says Lawrence Kestenbaum, creator of "Political Graveyard," a history Web site that includes an exhaustive cataloging of transgressions by politicians. Under the heading "Politicians Who Were Ever in Trouble or Disgrace," the section contains 420 entries, in chronological order, many of them involving present and former members of Congress. Among the escapades: • Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, was reprimanded when it was revealed that a male lover had been running a prostitution business out of his Capitol Hill apartment. • Donald (Buz) Lukens, Republican of Ohio, who was convicted of a misdemeanor for having sex with a 16-year-old girl. • Dan Crane, Republican of Illinois, and Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, both of whom were censured by the House for having sexual relations with teenage pages — Mr. Crane with a female in 1980, Mr. Studds with a male in 1973. The "Politicians Who Were Ever in Trouble or Disgrace" section comes with the devastatingly simple disclaimer "Very Incomplete!" Mr. Kestenbaum says improprieties in the political realm tend to resonate more than in others. First, they tend to become public, necessitating apologies and, in many cases, resignations. He points out that if Mr. Foley were a purchasing manager at some store, he might actually keep his job. "The political world tends to be very judgmental," Mr. Kestenbaum says. This creates towering spectacles of dishonesty, famous last words that are often caught on tape. Mr. Clinton created the gold standard for this when he looked into a camera and indignantly declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
^ Robert A. Hill (ed.). The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers, Volume XI: The Caribbean Diaspora, 1910–1920. Duke University Press. p. 390. ISBN 0822346907. Retrieved 12 June 2018. www.politicalgraveyard.com, 29 March 2005

KeepImportant reference website, much used in Wikipedia and alsoin scholarship and popular books. It is paticularly improtant that we keep articles on sources widely used in WP so people can find aout whatthey are andjudgethe reliability. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as per discovery of new sources. It looks like it got quite a bit of press in the early days of the internet. However, the consensus is clear that this website is not a reliable source and should never be used as a wikipedia reference (even though it has in the past). See: [14]--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Colin R. Turner. Sandstein 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Open Economy[edit]

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

This article fails WP:BOOKCRIT. The only sources presented are the book itself and the author's own website. It was created by Silkfield (talk · contribs), along with a number of other highly-related pages, who has declared a close connection to the author. I cannot find any information about the publisher. --Netoholic @ 22:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. --Netoholic @ 22:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge - Merge into the author's, Colin R. Turner, article. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with merging to author's article. --Jaldous1 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: merges - There is nothing in this article that is independently sourced, so no content can be validly merged. The Author's article already has it listed in the Bibliography section. Post-deletion, a redirect to prevent re-creation can be used, but the content as is should be WP:TNT. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom above explantion. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - Based on primary sources. —Paleo Neonate – 07:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colin R. Turner per above; no independent references. The book itself is an acceptable reference for a brief plot summary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaSpend.com[edit]

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

Non notable website and sources only briefly touch on subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB Dengunwed (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's enough coverage to have an article on either Govindraj Ethiraj or this website, I'm not convinced there's enough for both. I'm leaning towards merge/redirect this page to Govindraj Ethiraj. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is hard data driven journalistic and factual website and notable, i.e. a hybrid newspaper. It has been established by a think tank, similar to the The conversation in the uk, in the fact that it uses open source data. Citations are bit flakey, but these can be improved, as the company is all over the shop. The article aslo good, as it is not full of puff or advertising. Excellent wee artice. Well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm.....I quite appreciate your arguments but regrettably, that's a part of a list of invalid AfD arguments.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look at each source none of them are indepth as stated above by power~enwiki Govindraj Ethiraj may be notable but not this site fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG

[15] - merely mentions IndiaSpend.com once is more about Govindraj Ethiraj
[16] mentions that the Beta Version of the site in Hindi has been launched.
[17] mentions the site was launched in 2011 and briefly talks about the future
[18] only says Two years ago, Indiaspend, a data journalism initiative, set up by Govind Ethiraj,
[19] very brief news peice says IndiaSpend has launched a non-profit initiative 171.60.251.193 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per IP-editor's analysis.Half of the sources practice churnalism and NORG duly screens them out.... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yip seem to be worse than I thought. I thought only two were bad, based on the URL's. I will see if there is enough for notability. scope_creep (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant find a single opening citation that will validate it, much like the The Daily Telegraph article. There is a vast amount of articles written by it, since 2011, when it was created after an anti-corruption scandal in India, and it is referenced everywhere. scope_creep (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowynina/Archive", Wikipedia, 2017-12-29, retrieved 2018-06-20

[CNN-2] Maney, Kevin (6 July 2009). "Marc Andreessen puts his money where his mouth is". CNNMoney. CNN. Retrieved 13 April 2012.

[3] "Fifth Wall raising another $200M for retail tech startups". The Real Deal New York. 2018-05-24. Retrieved 2018-06-06.

[:1-4] "The nation's biggest real estate companies are trusting two men in Venice to find them the next Airbnb or WeWork". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2017-10-31.

[:0-5] Sharf, Samantha. "New $212M Venture Fund Goes All In On Real Estate--Can An Innovative Model Force Change In A Dusty Industry?". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-10-31.

[:2-6] Loizos, Connie. "A new venture firm focused on real estate has raised $212 million from real estate industry giants". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-10-31.

[tech-7] Shieber, Jonathan. "Real estate venture firm Fifth Wall launches an early-stage accelerator". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-10-31.

[8] "Create an Account | Los Angeles Business Journal". labusinessjournal.com. Retrieved 2018-06-07.

[9] Meier, Henry. "Firm Sees Symbiosis as Strategy Los Angeles Business Journal". labusinessjournal.com. Retrieved 2018-06-07.

[10] MARK LEIBOVICH (1 October 2006). "Hitting a Self-Destruct Button". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2018. "You always seem to have politicians doing bizarrely self-destructive things, especially involving sex," says Lawrence Kestenbaum, creator of "Political Graveyard," a history Web site that includes an exhaustive cataloging of transgressions by politicians. Under the heading "Politicians Who Were Ever in Trouble or Disgrace," the section contains 420 entries, in chronological order, many of them involving present and former members of Congress. Among the escapades: • Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, was reprimanded when it was revealed that a male lover had been running a prostitution business out of his Capitol Hill apartment. • Donald (Buz) Lukens, Republican of Ohio, who was convicted of a misdemeanor for having sex with a 16-year-old girl. • Dan Crane, Republican of Illinois, and Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, both of whom were censured by the House for having sexual relations with teenage pages — Mr. Crane with a female in 1980, Mr. Studds with a male in 1973. The "Politicians Who Were Ever in Trouble or Disgrace" section comes with the devastatingly simple disclaimer "Very Incomplete!" Mr. Kestenbaum says improprieties in the political realm tend to resonate more than in others. First, they tend to become public, necessitating apologies and, in many cases, resignations. He points out that if Mr. Foley were a purchasing manager at some store, he might actually keep his job. "The political world tends to be very judgmental," Mr. Kestenbaum says. This creates towering spectacles of dishonesty, famous last words that are often caught on tape. Mr. Clinton created the gold standard for this when he looked into a camera and indignantly declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

[11] Robert A. Hill (ed.). The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers, Volume XI: The Caribbean Diaspora, 1910–1920. Duke University Press. p. 390. ISBN 0822346907. Retrieved 12 June 2018. www.politicalgraveyard.com, 29 March 2005

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]